Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I speak on behalf of myself and Senator Harris to reintroduce legislation to establish the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area, California's first National Heritage Area. I am very pleased to work with Senator Harris, Congressman John Garamendi, and our colleagues in the State on this much needed legislation. Our legislation will establish a new national heritage area in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to promote environmental stewardship, heritage conservation, and economic development across five delta counties. The Delta Protection Commission will manage the heritage area in accordance with California law and in partnership with delta communities. The management planning process provided by this legislation will be open to the public and collaborative. Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, private property owners, and all stakeholders will have a voice in the management planning for the heritage area. The goal is to conserve and protect the delta, its communities, its natural resources, and its rich history. In short, this legislation does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does it is impose any additional responsibilities on local governments or private landowners. Instead, this legislation authorizes federal assistance to support local projects as part of an inclusive process required by State law. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary in the Western United States and perhaps the most productive and ecologically important watershed in North America. This extensive inland delta is a natural marvel and national treasure that must be protected. The delta offers recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions of Californians and out-of-State visitors alike, who come each year for boating, fishing, hunting, and sightseeing. The delta provides critical habitat for more than 750 wildlife species, including sandhill cranes and other migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. It also provides habitat for iconic native fish like the chinook salmon, some as large as 60 pounds, which return each year to travel through the delta to spawn in tributaries upstream. These same waterways provide freshwater to millions of California households and irrigated farmland south of the delta and elsewhere in the State. Before being converted for farmland starting in the 19th century, the delta flooded regularly following the springtime snowmelt and once supported the continent's largest Native American communities. Later, the delta served as the gateway for the California Gold Rush, after which Chinese immigrant workers built hundreds of miles of levees to make the delta's rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding. Japanese, Chinese, Italian, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greek, South Asian, and other immigrants began the area's farming legacy and established proud communities that continue today. Over the years, the vibrant ``river culture'' endemic to delta communities has attracted the attention of celebrated authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion. A national heritage area designation would help to preserve this uniquely American story by providing supportive local governments across the delta with a needed management framework, technical assistance, and modest Federal funding. Today, the delta faces crisis due to proliferate invasive species, urban and agricultural runoff, wastewater overloads, channelization, dredging, formidable water exports, and other stressors. Many delta islands are now 10 to 20 feet below sea level due to subsidence, and the present levee system is inadequate in providing reliable flood protection for historic communities, agricultural enterprises, and infrastructure. Alarmingly, many existing levees were simply not engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail, a rush of saltwater into the interior delta would damage this already fragile ecosystem, disrupt drinking water supplies, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, powerlines, and water infrastructure. Establishing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area will secure much needed Federal resources for delta communities. Our legislation recognizes the delta as a working landscape central to California life and seeks to further local projects already underway that promote environmental stewardship, heritage conservation, community revitalization, and economic development throughout the delta. This legislation also seeks to fulfill the broadly supported 2009 California State law that called for a heritage area designation for the delta and the Delta Protection Commission's own feasibility report in 2012. Our legislation is a small part of the commitment the Federal Government must make to the California delta. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of government to restore the delta and its native species, upgrade California's water supply, safeguard against flood risk, improve water quality, and preserve delta communities' rich heritage and continued vibrancy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I speak on behalf of myself and Senator Harris to reintroduce legislation to establish the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area, California's first National Heritage Area. I am very pleased to work with Senator Harris, Congressman John Garamendi, and our colleagues in the State on this much needed legislation. Our legislation will establish a new national heritage area in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to promote environmental stewardship, heritage conservation, and economic development across five delta counties. The Delta Protection Commission will manage the heritage area in accordance with California law and in partnership with delta communities. The management planning process provided by this legislation will be open to the public and collaborative. Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, private property owners, and all stakeholders will have a voice in the management planning for the heritage area. The goal is to conserve and protect the delta, its communities, its natural resources, and its rich history. In short, this legislation does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does it is impose any additional responsibilities on local governments or private landowners. Instead, this legislation authorizes federal assistance to support local projects as part of an inclusive process required by State law. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary in the Western United States and perhaps the most productive and ecologically important watershed in North America. This extensive inland delta is a natural marvel and national treasure that must be protected. The delta offers recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions of Californians and out-of-State visitors alike, who come each year for boating, fishing, hunting, and sightseeing. The delta provides critical habitat for more than 750 wildlife species, including sandhill cranes and other migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. It also provides habitat for iconic native fish like the chinook salmon, some as large as 60 pounds, which return each year to travel through the delta to spawn in tributaries upstream. These same waterways provide freshwater to millions of California households and irrigated farmland south of the delta and elsewhere in the State. Before being converted for farmland starting in the 19th century, the delta flooded regularly following the springtime snowmelt and once supported the continent's largest Native American communities. Later, the delta served as the gateway for the California Gold Rush, after which Chinese immigrant workers built hundreds of miles of levees to make the delta's rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding. Japanese, Chinese, Italian, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greek, South Asian, and other immigrants began the area's farming legacy and established proud communities that continue today. Over the years, the vibrant ``river culture'' endemic to delta communities has attracted the attention of celebrated authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion. A national heritage area designation would help to preserve this uniquely American story by providing supportive local governments across the delta with a needed management framework, technical assistance, and modest Federal funding. Today, the delta faces crisis due to proliferate invasive species, urban and agricultural runoff, wastewater overloads, channelization, dredging, formidable water exports, and other stressors. Many delta islands are now 10 to 20 feet below sea level due to subsidence, and the present levee system is inadequate in providing reliable flood protection for historic communities, agricultural enterprises, and infrastructure. Alarmingly, many existing levees were simply not engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail, a rush of saltwater into the interior delta would damage this already fragile ecosystem, disrupt drinking water supplies, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, powerlines, and water infrastructure. Establishing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area will secure much needed Federal resources for delta communities. Our legislation recognizes the delta as a working landscape central to California life and seeks to further local projects already underway that promote environmental stewardship, heritage conservation, community revitalization, and economic development throughout the delta. This legislation also seeks to fulfill the broadly supported 2009 California State law that called for a heritage area designation for the delta and the Delta Protection Commission's own feasibility report in 2012. Our legislation is a small part of the commitment the Federal Government must make to the California delta. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of government to restore the delta and its native species, upgrade California's water supply, safeguard against flood risk, improve water quality, and preserve delta communities' rich heritage and continued vibrancy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Judge Charles Breyer's reappointment to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Judge Breyer earned his bachelor's degree cum laude from Harvard University in 1963 and his law degree from the University of California, Berkeley Law School in 1966. In 1997, Judge Breyer was nominated by President Clinton to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Breyer was confirmed by the U.S. Senate that same year by voice vote. On the bench, Judge Breyer has served with distinction. He has done the hard work of sentencing individuals to prison terms. He has also focused on sentencing issues outside the courtroom, testifying before the Sentencing Commission in 2009 and serving as chair of a Ninth Circuit Committee evaluating the impact of the Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 2004, and United States v. Booker, 2005, on sentencing. In 2011, Judge Breyer took senior status, and the following year, he was nominated by President Obama to serve on the Sentencing Commission. Judge Breyer became the commission's vice chair in 2013. The Sentencing Commission is an independent agency charged with establishing sentencing guidelines for the Federal court system. The commission's work is important. It is responsible for advising and assisting Congress and the Executive branch in the development of effective and efficient crime policy. The commission also collects, analyzes, researches, and distributes a broad array of information on Federal crime and sentencing issues and serves as a resource for Congress, the Executive branch, the Judiciary, practitioners, academics, and the public. Since the start of the 115th Congress, the Sentencing Commission has been unable to do its work because it has been with only two commissioners. By statute, the commission requires a quorum of at least four commissioners. For this reason, it is vitally important that Judge Breyer is confirmed once again to serve on the commission. Judge Breyer is a man of distinction and integrity. He has a long history of dedicated service to this country and an impeccable record of fairness. The commission really needs his continued leadership. Today I urge my colleagues to support Judge Breyer's nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague Senator Portman that would align HUD homeless assistance with existing Federal children and youth programs and provide flexibility to local communities to use available resources to meet the needs that they identify. According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 1.2 million children were homeless during the 2014 to 2015 school year; this is a 34-percent increase from the 939,903 homeless students in the 2009 to 2010 school year. In California, over 229,000 children experienced homelessness in 2015, nearly four times the 65,000 homeless children in the State in 2003. Unfortunately, the numbers reported by the HUD Point-in-Time count fail to reflect these increasing numbers. According to the national 2015 HUD Point-in-Time count, there were only 206,286 people counted as homeless in households that included children, a fraction of the true number. This is important because only those children counted by HUD are eligible for vital homeless assistance programs and included in local planning efforts. The rest of these children and families are simply out of luck. The Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017 would allow HUD homeless assistance programs to serve extremely vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying in motels or in doubled-up situations because they have nowhere else to go. These families are especially susceptible to abuse and trafficking because they are often not served by a case manager and thus remain hidden from potential social service providers. As a result of the current narrow HUD definition, communities that receive Federal funding through the competitive application process are unable to prioritize or direct resources to help these children and families. This bill would provide communities with the flexibility to use Federal funds to meet local priorities. The bill requires the Secretary to assess the extent to which Continuums of Care use separate, specific, age-appropriate criteria for determining the safety and needs of children and unaccompanied youth and divert people to safe, stable, age-appropriate accommodations. And I would note that the bill does not impose any new mandates on service providers. Finally, this legislation improves data collection transparency by requiring HUD to report the point in time PIT count and the Annual Homeless Assessment Report, AHAR to include data on all categories of homelessness. Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Rob Portman has joined me as an original cosponsor on this bill. Homelessness continues to plague our Nation. If we fail to address the needs of these children and families today, they will remain stuck in a cycle of poverty and chronic homelessness. It is our moral obligation to ensure that we do not erect more barriers for these children and families to access services when they are experiencing extreme hardship. I believe this bill is a commonsense solution that will ensure that homeless families and children can receive the help they need.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague Senator Portman that would align HUD homeless assistance with existing Federal children and youth programs and provide flexibility to local communities to use available resources to meet the needs that they identify. According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 1.2 million children were homeless during the 2014 to 2015 school year; this is a 34-percent increase from the 939,903 homeless students in the 2009 to 2010 school year. In California, over 229,000 children experienced homelessness in 2015, nearly four times the 65,000 homeless children in the State in 2003. Unfortunately, the numbers reported by the HUD Point-in-Time count fail to reflect these increasing numbers. According to the national 2015 HUD Point-in-Time count, there were only 206,286 people counted as homeless in households that included children, a fraction of the true number. This is important because only those children counted by HUD are eligible for vital homeless assistance programs and included in local planning efforts. The rest of these children and families are simply out of luck. The Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017 would allow HUD homeless assistance programs to serve extremely vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying in motels or in doubled-up situations because they have nowhere else to go. These families are especially susceptible to abuse and trafficking because they are often not served by a case manager and thus remain hidden from potential social service providers. As a result of the current narrow HUD definition, communities that receive Federal funding through the competitive application process are unable to prioritize or direct resources to help these children and families. This bill would provide communities with the flexibility to use Federal funds to meet local priorities. The bill requires the Secretary to assess the extent to which Continuums of Care use separate, specific, age-appropriate criteria for determining the safety and needs of children and unaccompanied youth and divert people to safe, stable, age-appropriate accommodations. And I would note that the bill does not impose any new mandates on service providers. Finally, this legislation improves data collection transparency by requiring HUD to report the point in time PIT count and the Annual Homeless Assessment Report, AHAR to include data on all categories of homelessness. Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Rob Portman has joined me as an original cosponsor on this bill. Homelessness continues to plague our Nation. If we fail to address the needs of these children and families today, they will remain stuck in a cycle of poverty and chronic homelessness. It is our moral obligation to ensure that we do not erect more barriers for these children and families to access services when they are experiencing extreme hardship. I believe this bill is a commonsense solution that will ensure that homeless families and children can receive the help they need.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act, a bill to protect young athletes who participate in the U.S. amateur ranks from sexual abuse. Before last summer's Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, the Indianapolis Star published an investigative piece that revealed that amateur gymnasts were sexually abused in gyms all across the country. No one knew how widespread the problem was in that sport. But throughout the investigation, the Indianapolis Star tallied-- after reviewing police files and court cases across the country--368 gymnasts who alleged they were sexually abused over a 20-year time period. Kids as young as 6 were secretly photographed in the nude by coaches. Young athletes were molested by coaches during ``therapy'' sessions. Sexual predators spent countless hours with children one-on-one and abused them for years before anything was done. These accounts were devastating. And they were just the tip of the iceberg. After reviewing this report, I, along with my colleagues Senator Leahy, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Donnelly, wrote to USA Gymnastics to urge the organization to do more to protect their young athletes. Specifically, we urged the organization to update its policies and require that all members--including coaches, athletes, and others-- immediately report to law enforcement when there is an incident of sexual abuse committed against an athlete. After we sent the letter, several sexual abuse victims from California reached out to my staff. They revealed that they were abused by individuals affiliated with USA Gymnastics. I told my staff that I had to meet them. Six brave women, who were each abused as young gymnasts at various points in their careers, then travelled across the country to share their testimonies with me. Two athletes from another sport who were sexually abused also joined us. I will never forget their faces that day. When I walked into the room, I could sense the overwhelming devastation wrought on their lives. One by one, they shared their hopes and dreams as young athletes. The gymnasts talked about how, while pursuing future Olympic glory, they put their complete faith in the USA Gymnastics infrastructure. They fully trusted the coaches and doctors who had the USA Gymnastics seal of approval. And it was in this environment that they were sexually exploited by those whom they trusted. Several of the women had been abused repeatedly--over the course of months and years--by a USA Gymnastics team doctor named Larry Nassar. Nassar is currently being prosecuted for a number of horrific crimes against children. One of those brave women was Jamie Dantzscher, a retired gymnast who won the bronze medal competing in the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. Jamie told me how she trained as a young girl in California. When she was 13 years old, she was thrilled to be invited to train with the national USA Gymnastics team. It was with the national team that Nassar gained her trust. Nassar became her ``buddy,'' in the midst of an intense training environment. With USA Gymnastics backing him as a famous doctor and trainer, Jamie felt that there was absolutely no reason to believe Nassar was not trustworthy. So when Jamie went to see Nassar for back pain, she was confused when Nassar began to touch her in inappropriate places. She was 13 and 14 years old. As she described the abuse to me in graphic detail, the other women around the room began to sob quietly. The tactics that Nassar used were too familiar to them. And for the longest time, each of the victims believed that their horrific experiences were one-off events, that they were isolated in their own subjective memories. But the sharing of their stories-- together in that room with me and the others--affirmed to them that what they had experienced was wrong. One of the other gymnasts who bravely shared her story with me was Jeanette Antolin, who competed on the national team in the late nineties. Hailing from southern California, Jeanette shared how she was incredibly fearful of ever saying anything about the abuse committed against her because she believed she was being treated by a world-class doctor with USA Gymnastics' approval. As an aspiring Olympian, she feared that if she complained about anything, it would affect her career. The same fears had overcome Jessica Howard, a rhythmic gymnast who was 15 years old when Nassar began abusing her. She was sent to Nassar for hip problems, and he told her that she should not wear any underwear for her treatment. At the time, she was confused and afraid to say anything to anyone. She believed she would be prevented from pursuing her dreams if she said anything. I also met Doe Yamashiro from southern California. Doe was sexually abused by a 1984 Olympic Coach named Don Peters. In the mid-1980s, Coach Peters began fondling Doe and then had sex with her. Doe told me and the group of the pain and anguish she still suffers from many years later. The same pain and devastation was felt by all of the young victims who were in the room. One of the common themes I heard from their stories was not just the predatory behavior of the perpetrators, but also how the USA Gymnastics institution failed to protect them. One of the women told me how she heard USA Gymnastics officials say at one point that it was their top priority to obtain ``medals and money'' and that a ``reputation of a coach'' should not be tarnished by an allegation raised by a victim. This shocked me, and as I dug deeper into the USA Gymnastics institution, which is considered a ``national governing body'' under Federal law and oversees over 3,000 gymnasiums nationwide, I saw that their policies made it harder for victims, rather than easier, to report incidents of abuse. Their bylaws stated, for example, that the only way for a member athlete to ``effectively'' make a complaint about a coach was through a signed, written complaint. Furthermore, USA Gymnastics' policy indicated that the organization ``may'' report sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities if a child's safety was at risk, but it was not mandatory. It further stated that it complied with State mandatory reporting laws, but if a State law didn't require anything more, there was no other obligation to do anything else. It is my strong belief that these arcane policies left children vulnerable to the advances of sexual predators and failed to protect them even when incidents came to light. For example, in reviewing USA Gymnastics' history in public accounts, there were multiple instances where gymnastics coaches were convicted of heinous child sex crimes, years after USA Gymnastics had received complaints about those coaches. In other words, USA Gymnastics appears to have sat on reports of sexual abuse for years, while predators continued to prey on children. At the end of my meeting with the survivors, I looked at each of them and told them that I would work on legislation to protect other kids and amateur athletes like them from sexual predators. The legislation we have introduced does three main things to help child sex abuse survivors. It is a strong bipartisan bill, and I want to extend my deepest thanks to those Members who have worked with me on it, including Senators Collins, Grassley, Donnelly, Nelson, Blumenthal, Flake, McCaskill, Ernst, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Warren, Harris, Cortez- Masto, Rubio, and Young. The first thing the bill does is to mandate that any person affiliated with USA Gymnastics or other national governing bodies immediately report child abuse, including sexual abuse, to local or Federal law enforcement. This requirement would apply not only to USA Gymnastics, but to each of the other 47 national governing bodies that oversee various Olympic sports, including USA Taekwondo, USA Speed Skating, USA Swimming, and USA Cycling. It is absolutely imperative that a bright line be drawn for all those working with national governing bodies that, once there are facts giving rise to suspect child or sex abuse, a report must be made as soon as possible to proper authorities. This bill mandates that. Second, this bill strengthens Masha's law, which was named after a 5- year-old Russian orphan who was adopted by an American man only to be raped and sexually abused by him for 6 years until he was finally caught by the FBI in 2003. Her adoptive father had not only abused her, but he had also produced over 200 sexually explicit images of that abuse. Masha's law allows civil suits by minors against sex abuse perpetrators who violate a variety of crimes against children, including sex trafficking, sexual exploitation, and child pornography crimes. This law is significant for victims to obtain justice because there are times when criminal cases against perpetrators are declined due to difficulties in proving a criminal case. Therefore, for many traumatized victims, the only avenue for them to ever seek justice against their perpetrators is through Masha's law or other civil remedies. The bill, therefore, updates Masha's law to help victims. It clarifies, for example, that victims of child sex crimes are entitled to statutory damages of $150,000 and possible punitive damages, due to the particularly severe nature of the crimes. The bill also extends the statute of limitations for Masha's law. The statute of limitations extension is part of legislation that Senator Cornyn and I have worked on over the past couple of years, called the Extending Justice for Sex Crime Victims Act. Finally, the bill makes reforms to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, which establishes ``national governing bodies'' like USA Gymnastics. The Stevens Act specifically lists the authorities and duties of national governing bodies. When I first wrote to USA Gymnastics about its poor handling of sexual abuse allegations, they replied that the Stevens Act limits their abilities to fully protect athletes from sexual abuse, so this bill fixes that. It requires national governing bodies like USA Gymnastics to develop for each of its members: specific policies and procedures for the mandatory reporting of sex abuse to law enforcement, policies and procedures to keep track of coaches who leave one gym due to complaints and then go to another gym and repeat cycles of abuse, policies to ensure that minors and amateur athletes are not in one-on- one situations with adults, policies to facilitate reporting of sex abuse allegations to national governing bodies and other authorities, and stronger oversight and enforcement policies so that the national governing bodies take a greater role in making sure that the policies are actually being implemented and enforced throughout the country. These provisions give national governing bodies like USA Gymnastics absolutely no excuse to make sure that all members are subjected to the strongest training and procedures to prevent sexual abuse. It further forces organizations like USA Gymnastics to impact the culture of their sports, through various oversight mechanisms, to make sure that all members of such organizations adhere to the strictest standards when it comes to sexual abuse prevention. Finally, I would like to close with this. All over the country, victims of sexual abuse are coming forward to disclose how they were abused and exploited at the height of their innocence when they were children. Multiple victims from California and throughout the country have, for example, contacted my office and described with great courage their pain and anguish. Rather than list statistics, I want you to know that each of these individual stories represents an untold amount of pain and suffering that reverberates throughout generations, leaving devastation in its path. I urge my colleagues in this body to work with me and the sponsors of this bill to pass this important legislation to protect victims. I would also like to acknowledge the support for this bill from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, National Children's Alliance, Rights4Girls, University of Utah Law Professor Paul Cassell, Child Sex Crime Victims' Lawyer James Marsh, Crime Victims Expert Steve Twist, National Crime Victims Center, Child USA, National Association of VOCA Administrators, National Organization for Victim Assistance, ToPrevail, ChampionWomen, National Children's Advocacy Center, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Association to Protect Children, and the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network. They are on the front lines of this work, and I greatly appreciate their support. Thank you very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, CA. She is the proud mother of 20-year-old U.S. citizen twin boys, Joriene and Jashley, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress's special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because her removal from the United States would cause undue hardship for her and her family. She faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety. Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she left to come to the United States. When she was only 14 years old, her cousin murdered her mother and her sister and shot Shirley in the head. While the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Ms. Tan fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a visitor's visa in 1989. Ms. Tan's current deportation order is the result of negligent counsel. She applied for asylum in 1995. While her case appeal was pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney failed to submit a brief to support her case. As a result, the case was dismissed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals granted Shirley voluntary departure from the United States. Ms. Tan never received notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals granted her voluntary departure. Her attorney moved offices, did not receive the order, and ultimately never informed her of the order. As a result, Ms. Tan did not depart the United States and the grant of voluntary departure automatically led to a removal order. She learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody. Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to present her case in immigration proceedings. She later filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against her former attorney. She is not the first person to file such a complaint against this attorney. On February 4, 2015, Ms. Tan's spouse, Jay, a U.S. citizen, filed an approved spousal petition on her behalf. On August 20, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied her application due to the fact that she still had a final order of removal. Ms. Tan must go back to the immigration court and ask for the court to terminate her case and then reapply for her green card. Ms. Tan is now again facing the threat of deportation while she seeks to close her case before an immigration court. In addition to the hardship that Ms. Tan would endure if she is deported, her deportation would cause serious hardship to her two U.S. citizen children, Joriene and Jashley. Joriene is a junior at Stanford University and is premed, majoring in human biology. In addition to his studies, Joriene is involved in Stanford's Pilipino-American Student Union. Jashley is a junior at Chapman University, majoring in business administration. Ms. Tan no longer runs her in-home daycare and is a homemaker. If Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has expressed that they would go with her to the Philippines or try to find a third country where the entire family could relocate. This would mean that Joriene and Jashley would have to leave behind their education and the only home they know in the United States. I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two U.S. citizen children, to make the choice between being separated and relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships. Ms. Tan and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic Church, volunteering at the church and the Mother Teresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Ms. Tan has the support of dozens of members of her community who have shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private relief legislation on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel, a couple living with their four U.S. citizen children in Camarillo, CA. Joseph and Sharon are nationals of Egypt who fled their home country over 19 years ago after being targeted for their religious membership in the Christian Coptic Church in Egypt. They became involved with this church during the 1990s, Joseph as an accountant and project coordinator helping to build community facilities and Sharon as the church's training director in human resources. Unfortunately, Joseph and Sharon were also subjected to threats and abuse. Joseph was jailed repeatedly because of his involvement with the church. Sharon's family members were violently targeted, including her cousin who was murdered and her brother whose business was firebombed. When Sharon became pregnant with her first child, she was threatened by a member of a different religious organization for raising her child in a non-Muslim faith. Joseph and Sharon came to the United States legally on visitor visas in November 1998. Due to their fears of persecution in Egypt based on their religious beliefs, they filed for asylum in the United States in May 1999. However, Joseph, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating why he was afraid to return to Egypt, and 1 year later their asylum application was denied. Considering that Sharon's brother, who also applied for asylum for similar reasons, was granted asylum in the United States, Joseph and Sharon appealed the denial of their asylum applications, to no avail. While Sharon's brother, who is now a U.S. citizen, has filed a family-based immigrant petition on Sharon's behalf, it will be at least 4 years until she will even be eligible for a visa number due to visa backlogs. If Sharon and Joseph are deported before then, they will not only be separated from their family but will be forced to return to a country where persecution of Coptic Christians continues. Due to their fear of returning to Egypt, Joseph and Sharon have therefore tried to build a life for themselves here in the United States, working hard while building their beautiful family. With the protection of past private bills I filed on their behalf, Joseph was able to get his certified public accountant license and opened his own accounting firm, where Sharon works by his side. Joseph and Sharon make sure that their four U.S. citizen children-- Jessica, age 18, Rebecca, age 17, Rafael, age 16, and Veronica, age 11--all attend school in California and maintain good grades. Joseph and Sharon carry strong support from friends, members of their local church, and other Californians who attest to their good character and community contributions. I am concerned that the entire family would face serious and unwarranted hardships if Joseph and Sharon were forced to return to Egypt. For Jessica, Rebecca, Rafael, and Veronica, the only home they know is in the United States. Separation of this family would be devastating and the alternative--relocating the family to Egypt--could be dire, as it is quite possible that these four American children would face discrimination or worse on account of their religion, as was the experience of many of their family members. Joseph and Sharon have made a compelling plea to remain in the United States. These parents emphasize their commitment to supporting their children and creating a healthy and productive place for them to grow up in California. I believe this family deserves that opportunity. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and their daughter, Adilene Martinez. This family is originally from Mexico but has been living in California for over 20 years. I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief. When Jose came to the United States from Mexico, he began working as a busboy in restaurants in San Francisco, CA. In 1990, he started working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award-winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco. Jose worked his way through the ranks, eventuall becoming Palio's sous chef. His colleagues describe him as a reliable and cool-headed coworker and as ``an exemplary employee'' who not only is ``good at his job but is also a great boss to his subordinates.'' He and his wife Micaela call San Francisco home. Micaela is a homemaker and part-time housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of whom are U.S. citizens. Their oldest daughter, Adilene, age 28, is undocumented. She currently works fulltime at a cinema and hopes to continue pursuing her studies in the future. The Martinez's second daughter, Jazmin, age 24, is a U.S. citizen. She graduated from Leadership High School and is now studying at California State University, San Francisco. Jazmin has been diagnosed with asthma, which requires constant treatment. According to her doctor, if Jazmin were to return to Mexico with her family, the high altitude and air pollution in Mexico City could be fatal to her. The Martinez's other U.S. citizen daughter, Karla, is 19 years old and attends San Francisco City College. The Martinez family attempted to legalize their status through several channels. In 2001, Jose's sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Jose to get a green card. However, the current green card backlog for siblings from Mexico is very long, and it will be many years before Jose will be eligible to legalize his status though his sister. In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent application for cancellation of removal. Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio D'Asti, petitioned for an employment-based green card for Jose based upon his unique skills as a chef. Jose's petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. However, before he will be eligible for a green card, he must apply for a hardship waiver, which cannot be guaranteed. The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in California. They are active in their faith community. They volunteer with community-based organizations and are, in turn, supported by their community. When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters of support from their fellow parishioners, teachers, and members of their community. The Martinez family truly exemplifies the American dream. Jose worked his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. With great dedication, Micaela has worked hard to raise three daughters who are advancing their education and look forward to continuing the pursuit of their goals. I believe the Martinez family's continued presence in the United States would allow them to continue making significant contributions to their community in California. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I offer private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola. The Arreolas are Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California. Esidronio and Maria Elena have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their five children--Nayely, age 30, and Cindy, age 28-- also stand to benefit from this legislation. The other three Arreola children--Robert, age 25, Daniel, age 22, and Saray, age 20--are U.S. citizens. The story of the Arreola family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. The Arreolas are facing deportation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write to the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking the attorney's disbarment for his actions in his clients' immigration cases. Esidronio came to the United States in 1986 and was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years. As a migrant worker at that time, he would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers, SWA, Program, had he known about it. Maria Elena was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy. She returned to Mexico to give birth because she wanted to avoid any immigration issues. Because of the length of time that the Arreolas were in the United States, it is likely that they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, which would have allowed them to remain in the United States legally. However, the poor legal representation they received foreclosed this opportunity. One of the most compelling reasons for my introduction of this private bill is the devastating impact the deportation of Esidronio and Maria Elena would have on their children--three of whom are American citizens--and the other two who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. America is the only country the Arreola children have ever known. Nayely, the oldest, was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to graduate college. She recently received her Masters in Business Administration from Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, and now works in the admissions office. Nayely is married and has a young son named Elijah Ace Carlos. At a young age, Nayely demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She worked hard to achieve her full potential both through her academic endeavors and community service. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services at Fresno Pacific University states in a letter of support, ``[T]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.'' In high school, Nayely was a member of the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through attaining a college degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service organization. Perhaps the greatest hardship to Nayely's U.S. citizen husband and child, if she were forced to return to Mexico, would be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and contribute further to her community and to this country. Nayely's sister, Cindy, is also married and has a 7-year-old daughter and a 5-year-old son. Neither Nayely nor Cindy is eligible to automatically adjust their status based on their marriages because of their initial unlawful entry. The Arreolas also have other family who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of this country. Maria Elena has three brothers who are American citizens, and Esidronio has a sister who is an American citizen. They have no immediate family in Mexico. According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I mentioned, Esidronio was previously employed as a farm worker but now has his own business in California repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family. He and his wife are active in their church community and in their children's education. It is clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez, a Mexican national who lives in the San Bruno area of California. I offer legislation on his behalf because I believe that, without it, this hard-working man, wife who is a lawful permanent resident, and children would face extreme hardship. His children would either face separation from their father or be forced to leave the only country they know and give up the education they are pursuing in the United States. Alfredo and his wife Maria have been in the United States for over 20 years. They worked for years to adjust their status through appropriate legal channels, but poor legal representation ruined their opportunities. The Plascencias' lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents. Because of the poor representation they received, Alfredo only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the United States 15 days prior to his scheduled deportation. Alfredo was shocked to learn of his attorney's malfeasance, but he acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and filed the appropriate paperwork to delay his deportation and determine if any other legal action could be taken. Together, Alfredo and Maria have used their professional successes, with the assistance of private bills, to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They have worked hard and saved up to buy their home. They have good health care benefits, and they each have begun saving for retirement. They are sending their children Christina, Erika, and Danny, to college and plan to send the rest of their children to college, as well. Their oldest child, Christina, is 26 years old, and takes classes at Heald College to become a paralegal. Erika, age 22, graduated from high school and is currently taking classes at Skyline College. Her teachers have praised her abilities and have referred to her as a ``bright spot'' in the classroom. Danny, age 20, currently attends the University of California and volunteers at his local homeless shelter in the soup kitchen. Daisy, age 15, and Juan Pablo, age 10, are in school and plan on attending college. Allowing Alfredo to remain in the United States is necessary to enable his family to continue thriving in the United States. His children are dedicated to pursuing their education and being productive members of their community. I do not believe that Alfredo should be separated from his family. I am reintroducing this legislation to protect the best interest of Alfredo's U.S. citizen children and his wife, who is a lawful permanent resident. I believe that Alfredo will continue to make positive contributions to his community in California and this country. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez and his wife, Oliva Gonzalez. The Rojas family, originally from Mexico, is living in the San Jose area of California. The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Jorge and Oliva originally came to the United States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr., was just 2 years old. In 1995, they left the country to attend a funeral and then reentered the United States on visitors' visas. The family has grown to include three U.S. citizen children: Alexis, now 24 years old, Tanya, 22 years old, and Matias, now 7 years old. Jorge and Oliva are also the grandparents of Meena Rojas. The Rojas family first attempted to legalize their status in the United States when an unscrupulous immigration consultant, who was not an attorney, advised them to apply for asylum. Unfortunately, without proper legal guidance, the family did not realize at the time that they lacked a valid basis for asylum. Their asylum claim was denied in 2008, leaving the Rojas family with no further options to legalize their status. Since their arrival in the United States more than 20 years ago, the Rojas family has demonstrated a robust work ethic and a strong commitment to their community in California. They have paid their taxes and worked hard to contribute to this country. Jorge is a hard-working individual who has been employed by BrightView Landscaping Services, formerly known as Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance, in San Jose, CA, for the past 20 years. Currently, he works on commercial landscaping projects. Jorge is well- respected by his supervisor and his peers. In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time to provide modern green landscaping and building projects at his children's school in California. He is active in his neighborhood association, through which he worked with his neighbors to open a library and community center in their community. Oliva, in addition to raising her three children, has also been very active in the local community. She volunteers with the People Acting in Community Together, PACT, organization, where she works to prevent crime, gangs, and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and schools. Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his parents, is now the father of 6-year-old Meena. He is 28 years old and working at a job that allows him to support his daughter. Jorge graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007. He has obtained temporary protection from deportation through the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, Program. Alexis, age 24, graduated from West Valley College in Saratoga, CA, and is interested in continuing his linguistics studies at San Jose State University. Tanya, age 22, is now in her second semester at San Jose State University. Their teachers have described them as ``fantastic, wonderful and gifted'' students. Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the Rojas family to remain in the United States is the impact that their deportation would have on their four children. Three of the Rojas children--Alexis, Tanya, and Matias--American citizens. Additionally, Jorge Rojas, Jr., has lived in the United States since he was a toddler. America is the only country these children have called home. It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream, and their continued presence in our country would do so much to promote the values we hold dear, When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters from the community in Northern California in support of this family. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will keep this great family together and enable each of them to continue making significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Alicia Buendia, a woman who has lived in the Fresno area of California for more than 20 years. I believe her situation merits Congress's special consideration. She is married to Jose Buendia, and together they have raised two outstanding children, Ana Laura, age 28, and Alex, age 26, a U.S. citizen. Both children have excelled in school. Ana Laura graduated from University of California, Irvine, and Alex is currently attending the University of California, Merced. I previously introduced bills for Alicia, her husband, and Ana Laura. Thankfully, Jose has successfully secured lawful permanent residency for himself through cancellation of removal. This followed 7 unfortunate years of delay in the immigration courts to determine his eligibility under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 for permanent residence. Ana Laura has obtained temporary protection from deportation through the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, Program. However, Alicia, who is eligible to adjust status, is still awaiting a determination on a family-based immigration petition filed by her U.S. citizen son. Additionally, she would be required to file a waiver application, which could result in separation from her family Alicia warrants private relief and a chance to start fresh in America. She goes to work season after season in California's labor- intensive agriculture industry in Reedley, CA, where she currently works for a fruit packing company. In the more than 20 years of living in California, Alicia has dedicated herself to her family and community. She and Jose have worked hard to honestly feed their family and have raised two exceptional children who have both pursued and excelled in higher education. Alicia has a strong connection to her local community, serving as an active member of her church. She and Jose pay their taxes every year, have successfully paid off their mortgage, and remain free of debt. They have shown that they are responsible, maintaining health insurance, savings accounts, and retirement accounts. Without this private bill, Alicia would be separated from her lawful permanent resident husband, two children who rely on her for love, support, and guidance. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am reintroducing private relief legislation in the 115th Congress on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and their son, Arthur Mkoian. The Mkoian family has been living in Fresno, CA, for over 20 years. I continue to believe this family deserves Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. The Mkoian family is originally from Armenia. They decided to leave Armenia for the United States in the early 1990s, following several incidents in which the family experienced harassment, vandalism and threats to their well-being. In Armenia, Ruben worked as a police sergeant on vehicle licensing. At one point, he was offered a bribe to register stolen vehicles, which he refused and reported to his superior, the police chief. He later learned that a coworker had registered the vehicles at the request of the same chief. After Ruben reported the bribe offer to illegally register vehicles and said he would call the police, his family store was vandalized and he received threatening phone calls telling him to keep quiet. A bottle of gasoline was thrown into his family's residence, burning it to the ground. In April 1992, several men entered the family store and assaulted Ruben, hospitalizing him for 22 days. Ruben, Asmik, and their son Arthur, who was 3 years old at the time, left Armenia and entered the United States on visitor visas. They applied for political asylum that same year on the grounds that they would be subject to physical attacks if returned to Armenia. It took 16 years for their case to be finalized, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denying their asylum case in January 2008. At this time, Ruben, Asmik, and Arthur have exhausted every option to obtain immigration relief in the United States. While Ruben and Asmik's other son, Arsen, is a U.S. citizen, he is too young to file a green card petition on their behalf. It would be a terrible shame to remove this family from the United States and to separate them from Arsen, who is 20 years old and a U.S. citizen. The Mkoians have worked hard to build a place for their family in California and are an integral part of their community. The family attends St. Paul Armenian Apostolic Church in Fresno. They do charity work to send medical equipment to Armenia. Ruben works as a driver for Uber. He previously worked as a manager at a car wash in Fresno and as a truckdriver for a California trucking company that described him as ``trustworthy,'' ``knowledgeable,'' and an asset to the company. Asmik has worked as a medical assistant the past 6 years at the Fresno Shields Medical Center. Arthur has proven to be a hard-working, smart young man who applies himself. He was recognized nationally for his scholastic achievement, having maintained a 4.0 grade point average in high school and serving as his class valedictorian. After graduating on the Dean's Merit List from the University of California, Davis with a major in Chemistry, he is now a full-time analyst at a water testing company. He also teaches Armenian School on Saturdays at the church. Arthur's brother, Arsen currently attends Fresno State University, is majoring in Computer Science, and maintains a 3.8 GPA. These two young men have already accomplished so much and clearly aspire to do great things here in the United States. Reflecting their contributions to their community, Representatives George Radanovich and Jim Costa strongly supported this family's ability to remain in the United States. When I first introduced a private bill for the Mkoian family, I received more than 200 letters of support and dozens of calls of support from friends and community members, attesting to the positive impact that this family has had in Fresno, California. I believe that this case warrants our compassion. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private legislation on behalf of the Mkoian family.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez and his wife, Oliva Gonzalez. The Rojas family, originally from Mexico, is living in the San Jose area of California. The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Jorge and Oliva originally came to the United States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr., was just 2 years old. In 1995, they left the country to attend a funeral and then reentered the United States on visitors' visas. The family has grown to include three U.S. citizen children: Alexis, now 24 years old, Tanya, 22 years old, and Matias, now 7 years old. Jorge and Oliva are also the grandparents of Meena Rojas. The Rojas family first attempted to legalize their status in the United States when an unscrupulous immigration consultant, who was not an attorney, advised them to apply for asylum. Unfortunately, without proper legal guidance, the family did not realize at the time that they lacked a valid basis for asylum. Their asylum claim was denied in 2008, leaving the Rojas family with no further options to legalize their status. Since their arrival in the United States more than 20 years ago, the Rojas family has demonstrated a robust work ethic and a strong commitment to their community in California. They have paid their taxes and worked hard to contribute to this country. Jorge is a hard-working individual who has been employed by BrightView Landscaping Services, formerly known as Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance, in San Jose, CA, for the past 20 years. Currently, he works on commercial landscaping projects. Jorge is well- respected by his supervisor and his peers. In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time to provide modern green landscaping and building projects at his children's school in California. He is active in his neighborhood association, through which he worked with his neighbors to open a library and community center in their community. Oliva, in addition to raising her three children, has also been very active in the local community. She volunteers with the People Acting in Community Together, PACT, organization, where she works to prevent crime, gangs, and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and schools. Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his parents, is now the father of 6-year-old Meena. He is 28 years old and working at a job that allows him to support his daughter. Jorge graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007. He has obtained temporary protection from deportation through the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, Program. Alexis, age 24, graduated from West Valley College in Saratoga, CA, and is interested in continuing his linguistics studies at San Jose State University. Tanya, age 22, is now in her second semester at San Jose State University. Their teachers have described them as ``fantastic, wonderful and gifted'' students. Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the Rojas family to remain in the United States is the impact that their deportation would have on their four children. Three of the Rojas children--Alexis, Tanya, and Matias--American citizens. Additionally, Jorge Rojas, Jr., has lived in the United States since he was a toddler. America is the only country these children have called home. It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream, and their continued presence in our country would do so much to promote the values we hold dear, When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters from the community in Northern California in support of this family. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will keep this great family together and enable each of them to continue making significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, CA. She is the proud mother of 20-year-old U.S. citizen twin boys, Joriene and Jashley, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress's special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because her removal from the United States would cause undue hardship for her and her family. She faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety. Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she left to come to the United States. When she was only 14 years old, her cousin murdered her mother and her sister and shot Shirley in the head. While the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Ms. Tan fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a visitor's visa in 1989. Ms. Tan's current deportation order is the result of negligent counsel. She applied for asylum in 1995. While her case appeal was pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney failed to submit a brief to support her case. As a result, the case was dismissed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals granted Shirley voluntary departure from the United States. Ms. Tan never received notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals granted her voluntary departure. Her attorney moved offices, did not receive the order, and ultimately never informed her of the order. As a result, Ms. Tan did not depart the United States and the grant of voluntary departure automatically led to a removal order. She learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody. Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to present her case in immigration proceedings. She later filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against her former attorney. She is not the first person to file such a complaint against this attorney. On February 4, 2015, Ms. Tan's spouse, Jay, a U.S. citizen, filed an approved spousal petition on her behalf. On August 20, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied her application due to the fact that she still had a final order of removal. Ms. Tan must go back to the immigration court and ask for the court to terminate her case and then reapply for her green card. Ms. Tan is now again facing the threat of deportation while she seeks to close her case before an immigration court. In addition to the hardship that Ms. Tan would endure if she is deported, her deportation would cause serious hardship to her two U.S. citizen children, Joriene and Jashley. Joriene is a junior at Stanford University and is premed, majoring in human biology. In addition to his studies, Joriene is involved in Stanford's Pilipino-American Student Union. Jashley is a junior at Chapman University, majoring in business administration. Ms. Tan no longer runs her in-home daycare and is a homemaker. If Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has expressed that they would go with her to the Philippines or try to find a third country where the entire family could relocate. This would mean that Joriene and Jashley would have to leave behind their education and the only home they know in the United States. I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two U.S. citizen children, to make the choice between being separated and relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships. Ms. Tan and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic Church, volunteering at the church and the Mother Teresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Ms. Tan has the support of dozens of members of her community who have shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and their daughter, Adilene Martinez. This family is originally from Mexico but has been living in California for over 20 years. I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief. When Jose came to the United States from Mexico, he began working as a busboy in restaurants in San Francisco, CA. In 1990, he started working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award-winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco. Jose worked his way through the ranks, eventuall becoming Palio's sous chef. His colleagues describe him as a reliable and cool-headed coworker and as ``an exemplary employee'' who not only is ``good at his job but is also a great boss to his subordinates.'' He and his wife Micaela call San Francisco home. Micaela is a homemaker and part-time housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of whom are U.S. citizens. Their oldest daughter, Adilene, age 28, is undocumented. She currently works fulltime at a cinema and hopes to continue pursuing her studies in the future. The Martinez's second daughter, Jazmin, age 24, is a U.S. citizen. She graduated from Leadership High School and is now studying at California State University, San Francisco. Jazmin has been diagnosed with asthma, which requires constant treatment. According to her doctor, if Jazmin were to return to Mexico with her family, the high altitude and air pollution in Mexico City could be fatal to her. The Martinez's other U.S. citizen daughter, Karla, is 19 years old and attends San Francisco City College. The Martinez family attempted to legalize their status through several channels. In 2001, Jose's sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Jose to get a green card. However, the current green card backlog for siblings from Mexico is very long, and it will be many years before Jose will be eligible to legalize his status though his sister. In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent application for cancellation of removal. Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio D'Asti, petitioned for an employment-based green card for Jose based upon his unique skills as a chef. Jose's petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. However, before he will be eligible for a green card, he must apply for a hardship waiver, which cannot be guaranteed. The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in California. They are active in their faith community. They volunteer with community-based organizations and are, in turn, supported by their community. When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters of support from their fellow parishioners, teachers, and members of their community. The Martinez family truly exemplifies the American dream. Jose worked his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. With great dedication, Micaela has worked hard to raise three daughters who are advancing their education and look forward to continuing the pursuit of their goals. I believe the Martinez family's continued presence in the United States would allow them to continue making significant contributions to their community in California. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private relief legislation on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel, a couple living with their four U.S. citizen children in Camarillo, CA. Joseph and Sharon are nationals of Egypt who fled their home country over 19 years ago after being targeted for their religious membership in the Christian Coptic Church in Egypt. They became involved with this church during the 1990s, Joseph as an accountant and project coordinator helping to build community facilities and Sharon as the church's training director in human resources. Unfortunately, Joseph and Sharon were also subjected to threats and abuse. Joseph was jailed repeatedly because of his involvement with the church. Sharon's family members were violently targeted, including her cousin who was murdered and her brother whose business was firebombed. When Sharon became pregnant with her first child, she was threatened by a member of a different religious organization for raising her child in a non-Muslim faith. Joseph and Sharon came to the United States legally on visitor visas in November 1998. Due to their fears of persecution in Egypt based on their religious beliefs, they filed for asylum in the United States in May 1999. However, Joseph, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating why he was afraid to return to Egypt, and 1 year later their asylum application was denied. Considering that Sharon's brother, who also applied for asylum for similar reasons, was granted asylum in the United States, Joseph and Sharon appealed the denial of their asylum applications, to no avail. While Sharon's brother, who is now a U.S. citizen, has filed a family-based immigrant petition on Sharon's behalf, it will be at least 4 years until she will even be eligible for a visa number due to visa backlogs. If Sharon and Joseph are deported before then, they will not only be separated from their family but will be forced to return to a country where persecution of Coptic Christians continues. Due to their fear of returning to Egypt, Joseph and Sharon have therefore tried to build a life for themselves here in the United States, working hard while building their beautiful family. With the protection of past private bills I filed on their behalf, Joseph was able to get his certified public accountant license and opened his own accounting firm, where Sharon works by his side. Joseph and Sharon make sure that their four U.S. citizen children-- Jessica, age 18, Rebecca, age 17, Rafael, age 16, and Veronica, age 11--all attend school in California and maintain good grades. Joseph and Sharon carry strong support from friends, members of their local church, and other Californians who attest to their good character and community contributions. I am concerned that the entire family would face serious and unwarranted hardships if Joseph and Sharon were forced to return to Egypt. For Jessica, Rebecca, Rafael, and Veronica, the only home they know is in the United States. Separation of this family would be devastating and the alternative--relocating the family to Egypt--could be dire, as it is quite possible that these four American children would face discrimination or worse on account of their religion, as was the experience of many of their family members. Joseph and Sharon have made a compelling plea to remain in the United States. These parents emphasize their commitment to supporting their children and creating a healthy and productive place for them to grow up in California. I believe this family deserves that opportunity. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I offer private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola. The Arreolas are Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California. Esidronio and Maria Elena have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their five children--Nayely, age 30, and Cindy, age 28-- also stand to benefit from this legislation. The other three Arreola children--Robert, age 25, Daniel, age 22, and Saray, age 20--are U.S. citizens. The story of the Arreola family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. The Arreolas are facing deportation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write to the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking the attorney's disbarment for his actions in his clients' immigration cases. Esidronio came to the United States in 1986 and was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years. As a migrant worker at that time, he would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers, SWA, Program, had he known about it. Maria Elena was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy. She returned to Mexico to give birth because she wanted to avoid any immigration issues. Because of the length of time that the Arreolas were in the United States, it is likely that they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, which would have allowed them to remain in the United States legally. However, the poor legal representation they received foreclosed this opportunity. One of the most compelling reasons for my introduction of this private bill is the devastating impact the deportation of Esidronio and Maria Elena would have on their children--three of whom are American citizens--and the other two who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. America is the only country the Arreola children have ever known. Nayely, the oldest, was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to graduate college. She recently received her Masters in Business Administration from Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, and now works in the admissions office. Nayely is married and has a young son named Elijah Ace Carlos. At a young age, Nayely demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She worked hard to achieve her full potential both through her academic endeavors and community service. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services at Fresno Pacific University states in a letter of support, ``[T]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.'' In high school, Nayely was a member of the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through attaining a college degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service organization. Perhaps the greatest hardship to Nayely's U.S. citizen husband and child, if she were forced to return to Mexico, would be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and contribute further to her community and to this country. Nayely's sister, Cindy, is also married and has a 7-year-old daughter and a 5-year-old son. Neither Nayely nor Cindy is eligible to automatically adjust their status based on their marriages because of their initial unlawful entry. The Arreolas also have other family who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of this country. Maria Elena has three brothers who are American citizens, and Esidronio has a sister who is an American citizen. They have no immediate family in Mexico. According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I mentioned, Esidronio was previously employed as a farm worker but now has his own business in California repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family. He and his wife are active in their church community and in their children's education. It is clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Alicia Buendia, a woman who has lived in the Fresno area of California for more than 20 years. I believe her situation merits Congress's special consideration. She is married to Jose Buendia, and together they have raised two outstanding children, Ana Laura, age 28, and Alex, age 26, a U.S. citizen. Both children have excelled in school. Ana Laura graduated from University of California, Irvine, and Alex is currently attending the University of California, Merced. I previously introduced bills for Alicia, her husband, and Ana Laura. Thankfully, Jose has successfully secured lawful permanent residency for himself through cancellation of removal. This followed 7 unfortunate years of delay in the immigration courts to determine his eligibility under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 for permanent residence. Ana Laura has obtained temporary protection from deportation through the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, Program. However, Alicia, who is eligible to adjust status, is still awaiting a determination on a family-based immigration petition filed by her U.S. citizen son. Additionally, she would be required to file a waiver application, which could result in separation from her family Alicia warrants private relief and a chance to start fresh in America. She goes to work season after season in California's labor- intensive agriculture industry in Reedley, CA, where she currently works for a fruit packing company. In the more than 20 years of living in California, Alicia has dedicated herself to her family and community. She and Jose have worked hard to honestly feed their family and have raised two exceptional children who have both pursued and excelled in higher education. Alicia has a strong connection to her local community, serving as an active member of her church. She and Jose pay their taxes every year, have successfully paid off their mortgage, and remain free of debt. They have shown that they are responsible, maintaining health insurance, savings accounts, and retirement accounts. Without this private bill, Alicia would be separated from her lawful permanent resident husband, two children who rely on her for love, support, and guidance. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez, a Mexican national who lives in the San Bruno area of California. I offer legislation on his behalf because I believe that, without it, this hard-working man, wife who is a lawful permanent resident, and children would face extreme hardship. His children would either face separation from their father or be forced to leave the only country they know and give up the education they are pursuing in the United States. Alfredo and his wife Maria have been in the United States for over 20 years. They worked for years to adjust their status through appropriate legal channels, but poor legal representation ruined their opportunities. The Plascencias' lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents. Because of the poor representation they received, Alfredo only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the United States 15 days prior to his scheduled deportation. Alfredo was shocked to learn of his attorney's malfeasance, but he acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and filed the appropriate paperwork to delay his deportation and determine if any other legal action could be taken. Together, Alfredo and Maria have used their professional successes, with the assistance of private bills, to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They have worked hard and saved up to buy their home. They have good health care benefits, and they each have begun saving for retirement. They are sending their children Christina, Erika, and Danny, to college and plan to send the rest of their children to college, as well. Their oldest child, Christina, is 26 years old, and takes classes at Heald College to become a paralegal. Erika, age 22, graduated from high school and is currently taking classes at Skyline College. Her teachers have praised her abilities and have referred to her as a ``bright spot'' in the classroom. Danny, age 20, currently attends the University of California and volunteers at his local homeless shelter in the soup kitchen. Daisy, age 15, and Juan Pablo, age 10, are in school and plan on attending college. Allowing Alfredo to remain in the United States is necessary to enable his family to continue thriving in the United States. His children are dedicated to pursuing their education and being productive members of their community. I do not believe that Alfredo should be separated from his family. I am reintroducing this legislation to protect the best interest of Alfredo's U.S. citizen children and his wife, who is a lawful permanent resident. I believe that Alfredo will continue to make positive contributions to his community in California and this country. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am reintroducing private relief legislation in the 115th Congress on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and their son, Arthur Mkoian. The Mkoian family has been living in Fresno, CA, for over 20 years. I continue to believe this family deserves Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. The Mkoian family is originally from Armenia. They decided to leave Armenia for the United States in the early 1990s, following several incidents in which the family experienced harassment, vandalism and threats to their well-being. In Armenia, Ruben worked as a police sergeant on vehicle licensing. At one point, he was offered a bribe to register stolen vehicles, which he refused and reported to his superior, the police chief. He later learned that a coworker had registered the vehicles at the request of the same chief. After Ruben reported the bribe offer to illegally register vehicles and said he would call the police, his family store was vandalized and he received threatening phone calls telling him to keep quiet. A bottle of gasoline was thrown into his family's residence, burning it to the ground. In April 1992, several men entered the family store and assaulted Ruben, hospitalizing him for 22 days. Ruben, Asmik, and their son Arthur, who was 3 years old at the time, left Armenia and entered the United States on visitor visas. They applied for political asylum that same year on the grounds that they would be subject to physical attacks if returned to Armenia. It took 16 years for their case to be finalized, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denying their asylum case in January 2008. At this time, Ruben, Asmik, and Arthur have exhausted every option to obtain immigration relief in the United States. While Ruben and Asmik's other son, Arsen, is a U.S. citizen, he is too young to file a green card petition on their behalf. It would be a terrible shame to remove this family from the United States and to separate them from Arsen, who is 20 years old and a U.S. citizen. The Mkoians have worked hard to build a place for their family in California and are an integral part of their community. The family attends St. Paul Armenian Apostolic Church in Fresno. They do charity work to send medical equipment to Armenia. Ruben works as a driver for Uber. He previously worked as a manager at a car wash in Fresno and as a truckdriver for a California trucking company that described him as ``trustworthy,'' ``knowledgeable,'' and an asset to the company. Asmik has worked as a medical assistant the past 6 years at the Fresno Shields Medical Center. Arthur has proven to be a hard-working, smart young man who applies himself. He was recognized nationally for his scholastic achievement, having maintained a 4.0 grade point average in high school and serving as his class valedictorian. After graduating on the Dean's Merit List from the University of California, Davis with a major in Chemistry, he is now a full-time analyst at a water testing company. He also teaches Armenian School on Saturdays at the church. Arthur's brother, Arsen currently attends Fresno State University, is majoring in Computer Science, and maintains a 3.8 GPA. These two young men have already accomplished so much and clearly aspire to do great things here in the United States. Reflecting their contributions to their community, Representatives George Radanovich and Jim Costa strongly supported this family's ability to remain in the United States. When I first introduced a private bill for the Mkoian family, I received more than 200 letters of support and dozens of calls of support from friends and community members, attesting to the positive impact that this family has had in Fresno, California. I believe that this case warrants our compassion. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private legislation on behalf of the Mkoian family.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to voice my concerns about the nomination of Scott Pruitt for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. More than 74,000 Californians have contacted my office expressing serious concerns about Mr. Pruitt's nomination. Californians want an EPA Administrator with a demonstrated commitment to protecting public health and the environment. Unfortunately, Mr. Pruitt's record shows the opposite: a clear hostility to public health and environmental protections at both the Federal and State level. Californians rightfully fear that Mr. Pruitt's only plan for the EPA is to dismantle the Agency from within and give polluters free rein. The EPA is the lead enforcement agency for bedrock environmental laws like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA works with States, local communities and tribes to provide funding and expertise for fulfilling these environmental laws that keep our communities healthy and safe. Based on his record as Attorney General of Oklahoma and his past statements, including in his confirmation hearing, Scott Pruitt is not the right man for this very important job. As the Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt eliminated the State's environmental protection unit, which enforces State environmental laws, including suing polluters for criminal negligence. Meanwhile, he's led or participated in over 14 partisan lawsuits against the EPA, challenging the Agency's ability to implement Federal environmental protections, lawsuits that challenged protections against mercury pollution, ``polluter pays'' clean-up requirements, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. And his rhetoric matches his record. Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly questioned the validity of widely accepted science that undergirds EPA action. He routinely treats the scientific consensus on climate change as merely a debate. In an interview with Exploring Energy, Pruitt stated: ``There are scientists that agree, there are scientists that don't agree, to the extent of man's contribution and whether it is even harmful at this point.'' He dismissed the dangers of mercury pollution, arguing in one of his lawsuits: ``The record does not support EPA's finding that mercury . . . poses public health hazards. . .'' At his confirmation hearing, when asked whether there is any level of lead exposure that is safe for children, he could only reply ``that is something that I have not reviewed nor know about.'' Even on his public profile, he described himself as ``a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda.'' We are supposed to trust someone to enforce our environmental laws who considers himself the primary foe of the EPA? That record is troubling enough, but Mr. Pruitt also faces many conflict of interest issues that he has refused to commit to recusing himself from as EPA Administrator, including: conflicts that would exist over ongoing lawsuits that he brought against the EPA as Oklahoma's Attorney General or matters or cases under the EPA's authority that involve organizations from which Pruitt has solicited campaign funding. During his hearing, Mr. Pruitt deflected questions over potential conflicts of interest by stating the ``EPA ethics counsel will evaluate that if a matter or case comes up in the future.'' This is an inadequate protection against conflicts of interest. The Environmental Protection Agency is very important to the health and well-being of the people of California. For example, California received over $100 million in loans from the EPA last year to maintain and improve our water infrastructure, including wastewater treatment systems, drinking water systems, and water recycling facilities. Those funds were vital as our State grappled with an historic drought. The EPA has also been a vital partner with California in developing stronger motor vehicle efficiency standards. One of my proudest accomplishments was enacting landmark fuel economy legislation, the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, which raised fuel economy standards to the maximum achievable rate. This law marked the largest increase in fuel efficiency in more than two decades and led to an administrative program expected to raise average fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. This program is the greatest tool we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, and it is working. An important technical review concluded this July that automakers are already exceeding Federal benchmarks for improved fuel economy by 1.4 miles per gallon. A large part of its success is the cooperation between the Federal Government and California to establish a single, coordinated, national program that is strong enough to satisfy all parties and stable enough to guide investment decisions by the auto makers. During his confirmation hearing, my colleague Senator Harris asked Mr. Pruitt directly if he would commit to upholding California's right to issue its own regulations, which is the way we participate in creating the national program. He declined, committing only to review the issue, which is not acceptable. We in California know that climate change is real and is happening now. It is contributing to more volatile weather, including longer, stronger droughts and harsher bursts of rain. We have a limited amount of time left to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of our transportation and energy systems. If we allow the world to warm by more than 2 degrees C, we will be locking in a future of unacceptable disasters for our children and grandchildren. Now, more than ever, we need strong leadership as other major countries like China and India have begun to engage on the issue, and we cannot allow the EPA to reverse course and go backward after the progress we have made. In his words and actions, Scott Pruitt has demonstrated more interest in fighting against the mission of the EPA than in fighting for it. Mr. Pruitt has done little to nothing to protect the people of Oklahoma from the dangers and health problems caused by pollution, preferring to sue on behalf of corporate interests. There is nothing to suggest he would do anything different for the American people as EPA Administrator. For this reason and many more, I will vote against Scott Pruitt's confirmation to head the EPA.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat a Congressional Review Act resolution that would weaken the FBI's gun background check system and make it easier for individuals with severe mental illness to buy guns. Gun violence is an epidemic in our communities--killing more than 30,000 people each year; yet this resolution would prevent the. Federal Government from taking even the most basic steps to improve enforcement of current gun laws. It blocks a rule that requires the Social Security Administration to report to the FBI background check system individuals who have a severe mental illness that prevents them from managing their own affairs. This determination is made during the application process for Social Security disability benefits. This policy could have prevented tragedies like that of Janet Delana and her daughter Colby. Colby was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 201l. She received Social Security disability payments as a result of her mental illness and lived with her parents in Missouri. A year after her diagnosis, Colby used the money from her disability check to buy a gun at a local dealer. Her mom called the dealer and begged him not to make the sale. Janet explained that her daughter was mentally ill and suicidal and that she would likely use the gun to harm herself or others. Nonetheless, Colby passed her background check and bought the gun. Just an hour later, Colby shot her father to death and tried to kill herself. Janet's now a widow, and Colby lives in an institution. Their story didn't have to end that way. We should all agree that severely mentally ill individuals like Colby should not have access to guns. Federal law already says that individuals with severe mental illness are barred from purchasing or possessing guns. Yet time and again, we have seen prohibited purchasers like Colby pass background checks. That is because the background check system does not have records of all mentally ill individuals barred from buying guns. While the background check system has denied gun transfers to 1.3 million prohibited individuals--including felons, drug addicts, and fugitives--it isn't perfect. There are individuals like Colby whose information should be in the system--but isn't. We need to improve the background check system and ensure information that is supposed to be in the system is in fact included. A recent report by the Police Foundation and Major Cities Chiefs Association noted that this is critically important if we are going to reduce violent crime in our country. The 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech--the second deadliest mass shooting in our history--could have been prevented if we had a better background check system. Seung-Hui Cho, an angry, mentally disturbed individual, slaughtered 32 students and teachers and wounded many others. After the massacre, we learned that Cho in 2005 had been ordered to attend psychiatric treatment and a judge ruled that he presented ``an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness.'' As a consequence of this judge's determination, Cho's name should have been entered in the NICS database. But it wasn't--that is because the FBI didn't have the records. In response to the shooting, Congress in 2007 unanimously approved the NICS Improvement Amendments Act to improve record keeping in the background check system. Senators Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, and Tom Coburn worked together on the bill, and President Bush signed it into law. The bill was supported by both the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. That never happens. It is this bill--passed unanimously and supported by the gun lobby-- that required the Social Security Administration to issue the rule we are debating today. The Social Security Administration engaged in a painstaking process over the past year to develop this policy. It received more than 90,000 comments from advocates and members of the public. The rule was carefully crafted to identify individuals like Colby, while protecting due process. The majority of individuals with mental illness do not commit acts of violence, and they would not be affected by this rule. The rule covers only individuals with serious conditions, including schizophrenia, who need additional assistance to manage their affairs. This determination is made following an extensive review of medical evidence, which takes place before the person is approved for Social Security disability benefits. The rule further specifies that it would only apply to prospective claimants--starting in December 2017. That means it would not apply to individuals who already receive disability benefits. Repealing this rule through the Congressional Review Act would not only overturn the policy that's been developed. It would block the Social Security Administration from ever taking action to implement the NICS Improvement Act and report mentally ill individuals to the FBI. Time and time again, my Republican colleagues respond to horrific mass shootings by saying that we don't need any new gun laws. We just need to better enforce the gun laws we already have. That is exactly what this rule aims to do--improve enforcement of current law and make sure people already barred from buying guns can't buy guns. So, the question comes: What won't Republicans do to appease the gun lobby? We lose more than 30,000 people to gun violence each year in this country, many of whom are mentally ill and commit suicide. It should shock the conscience of the American people the Senate is considering weakening our Federal background check system in response to this unabated epidemic of violence. I urge my colleagues to vote against repealing the Social Security Administration's rule. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act. This legislation directs the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, to exchange land with the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, the District, in San Bernardino, CA, as part of a regional land management plan. The bill is the culmination of years of collaboration between numerous Federal and State agencies, private industry, and municipalities representing mining, flood control, water supply and wildlife conservation, among other interests. Included among the supporters of this land exchange are county of San Bernardino; city of Redlands; city of Highland; San Bernardino Water Conservation District; San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District: East Valley Water District; Endangered Habitats League; CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific; Robertson's Ready Mix and Inland Action In 1993, representatives from this diverse group formed the Wash Committee to address mining issues in the upper Santa Ana River wash area. The role of the committee subsequently expanded in 1997 to consider the broad range of land uses in the area, including natural resource conservation. The Wash Committee developed a strategy that focused best uses for more comprehensive planning and not on private property boundaries that would segment the area. The result is a forthcoming Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan expected to cover 4,500 acres. This land exchange will take place in a designated region within the Santa Ana Wash, at the junction of the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek. Currently, land within the Santa Ana Wash is owned by both the District and BLM. The land parcels owned by the district are currently used for recharging the local groundwater aquifer through more than 77 basins and also provide critical Riversidian sage scrub habitat for a number of State and federally listed species. In addition, under this plan, new land would be set aside for conservation purposes near land already managed by BLM. The exchange of land between the district and BLM will connect a current patchwork of separately owned land parcels into a consolidated open space for conservation purposes and will optimize the efficiency of mining operations and water conservation efforts. The land transfer resulting from this legislation will lead to increased habitat protection, improved connectivity in the wildlife corridor, expanded groundwater recharge for water supply, and the future establishment of public access and trails. Additionally, the legislation will allow the continued use of land and mineral resources while maintaining the biological and hydrological resources of the area in an environmentally sensitive manner. I want to applaud diverse members of the Wash Committee that worked together, including the cities of Highland and Redlands, East Valley Water District, the County of San Bernardino, Robertson's Ready Mix, CEMEX, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, along with the Federal, State and local stakeholders, for their continued efforts on the Wash Plan. This group has demonstrated that, while it takes significant time, funding, and cooperation, it is possible to simultaneously protect the environment and support local jobs, business, and community interests. I would also like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Paul Cook and Pete Aguilar, for introducing similar legislation in the House. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act.