Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask that all time be equally divided between both sides.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I wish to oppose amendment No. 719. Amendment No. 719 would create a public safety crisis by forcing nearly every State to recognize the concealed carry permits issued by other States, even if the permit holder could not qualify for a permit in the State to which he is traveling. Imagine this: A man convicted of a domestic violence crime against his former girlfriend obtains a concealed carry permit from his State. Under amendment 719, he could travel across State lines and confront his ex-girlfriend, even if she lives in California, where his conviction would have prevented him from obtaining a concealed carry permit. In other words, States with the weakest conceal carry permitting standards will set the national standard regardless of existing State laws. States vary widely on how to regulate concealed weapons. For example, California prohibits possession by individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors; requires completion of a firearm safety training course; gives law enforcement broad discretion to approve or deny a concealed carry permit application; and requires applicants to show that they have ``good moral character'' and ``good cause'' to carry a concealed weapon. On the other hand, Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that at least 28 States grant concealed carry permits to individuals convicted of stalking; at least 7 States grant those permits to people convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery; at least 12 States grant permits to individuals with no firearms safety training; and at least 9 States grant concealed carry permits to teenagers. Ignoring these differences, amendment No. 719 would allow nonresidents who cannot meet a State's permit standards to carry a concealed weapon into the State. This amendment would also endanger law enforcement officers. According to the California Police Chiefs Association, there is currently no national data system that records legitimate concealed carry permits, so it is impossible for an officer on the street to determine whether a permit is valid during traffic stops or other high- risk situations. The vast majority of States have either rejected reciprocity or limited it to States with equivalent or higher standards. In fact, several States--such as New Mexico, Nevada, Arkansas, and Wyoming--have rescinded reciprocity with other States that no longer meet the State's minimum standards. Major national law enforcement organizations--including the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association--as well as the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the American Bar Association, and Faiths United, are also joining with Mayors Against Illegal Guns to oppose amendment No. 719. Congress should not support a law that undermines State law protections, puts our police officers in greater danger, and allows unfit and dangerous individuals to carry concealed weapons in another State. I urge my colleagues to join with me in rejecting amendment No. 719. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have watched these votes and I must say I view them with substantial dismay at the lack of courage in this Chamber--courage to stand and say: We have had enough of these killings. We have had enough of the development of highly militarized weapons--easy to shoot, big clips, 100-plus bullets in each, large velocity guns--falling into the hands of grievous killers, juveniles, people who are mentally disturbed. There will be no background checks, apparently, and we have a proliferation of these weapons. I have a hard time understanding it. We are here on 6-year terms for a reason: to take votes on difficult issues. Everything needs 60 votes today. This is supposed to be a majority body. We have crafted an assault weapons bill to truly represent the people of America. Every single poll has shown support for this.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me conclude by saying this: I know how this is going to end, and the despair and the dismay of families standing out there whose safety we need to protect, and we don't do it--I am very chagrined and concerned. If anybody cares, vote at least to prospectively ban the manufacture, the sale, the importation of military-style assault weapons. Show some guts. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2013 with my colleagues and friends, Senator Charles Grassley, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Tom Udall and Senator Ron Wyden. This bill, which passed the Senate unanimously in the last Congress, will support the Obama administration's Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime by providing the Department of Justice with crucial tools to help combat the international drug trade. As drug traffickers find new and innovative ways to avoid prosecution, we must keep up with them rather than allowing them to exploit loopholes as our laws lag behind. This legislation has three main components. First, it puts in place penalties for extraterritorial drug trafficking activity when individuals have reasonable cause to believe that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the United States. Current law says that drug traffickers must know that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the United States and this legislation would lower the knowledge threshold to reasonable cause to believe. The Department of Justice has informed my office that with increasing frequency, it sees drug traffickers from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru who produce cocaine in their countries but leave transit of cocaine to the United States in the hands of Mexican drug trafficking organizations such as the Zetas. Under current law, our ability to prosecute source- nation traffickers from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru is limited since there is often no direct evidence of their knowledge that illegal drugs were intended for the United States. But make no mistake, drugs produced in these countries fuel violent crime throughout the Western Hemisphere as well as addiction and death in the United States. Second, this bill puts in place penalties for precursor chemical producers from other countries, such as those producing pseudoephedrine used for methamphetamine, who illegally ship precursor chemicals into the United States knowing that these chemicals will be used to make illegal drugs. Third, this bill will make a technical fix to the Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act which was signed into law last year and increases penalties for the trafficking of counterfeit drugs. The fix, requested by the Department of Justice, puts in place a ``knowing'' requirement which was unintentionally left out of the original bill. The original bill makes the mere sale of a drug that happens to be counterfeit a federal felony offense regardless of whether the seller knew the drug was counterfeit. Under the original bill, a pharmacist could be held criminally liable if he or she unwittingly sold counterfeit drugs to a customer. Adding a ``knowing'' requirement corrects this problem. As Chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control and as a public servant who has focused on law enforcement issues for many years, I know that we cannot sit idly by as drug traffickers find new ways to circumvent our laws. We must provide the Department of Justice with all of the tools it needs to prosecute drug kingpins both here at home and abroad. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2013 with my colleagues and friends, Senator Charles Grassley, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Tom Udall and Senator Ron Wyden. This bill, which passed the Senate unanimously in the last Congress, will support the Obama administration's Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime by providing the Department of Justice with crucial tools to help combat the international drug trade. As drug traffickers find new and innovative ways to avoid prosecution, we must keep up with them rather than allowing them to exploit loopholes as our laws lag behind. This legislation has three main components. First, it puts in place penalties for extraterritorial drug trafficking activity when individuals have reasonable cause to believe that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the United States. Current law says that drug traffickers must know that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the United States and this legislation would lower the knowledge threshold to reasonable cause to believe. The Department of Justice has informed my office that with increasing frequency, it sees drug traffickers from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru who produce cocaine in their countries but leave transit of cocaine to the United States in the hands of Mexican drug trafficking organizations such as the Zetas. Under current law, our ability to prosecute source- nation traffickers from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru is limited since there is often no direct evidence of their knowledge that illegal drugs were intended for the United States. But make no mistake, drugs produced in these countries fuel violent crime throughout the Western Hemisphere as well as addiction and death in the United States. Second, this bill puts in place penalties for precursor chemical producers from other countries, such as those producing pseudoephedrine used for methamphetamine, who illegally ship precursor chemicals into the United States knowing that these chemicals will be used to make illegal drugs. Third, this bill will make a technical fix to the Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act which was signed into law last year and increases penalties for the trafficking of counterfeit drugs. The fix, requested by the Department of Justice, puts in place a ``knowing'' requirement which was unintentionally left out of the original bill. The original bill makes the mere sale of a drug that happens to be counterfeit a federal felony offense regardless of whether the seller knew the drug was counterfeit. Under the original bill, a pharmacist could be held criminally liable if he or she unwittingly sold counterfeit drugs to a customer. Adding a ``knowing'' requirement corrects this problem. As Chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control and as a public servant who has focused on law enforcement issues for many years, I know that we cannot sit idly by as drug traffickers find new ways to circumvent our laws. We must provide the Department of Justice with all of the tools it needs to prosecute drug kingpins both here at home and abroad. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire- Damaged Home Rebuilding Act. This legislation is simple. It allows families living in FEMA- designated flood plains to rebuild their home in the event it is destroyed by fire. The bill allows communities to waive requirements that were meant to block reconstruction after floods, but have been applied to block reconstruction of homes after fires and other natural disasters as well. I was first made aware of this issue by a constituent from Sacramento. Her home in the Natomas neighborhood burned down, and when she applied for a permit to rebuild it she was denied. The County informed her that FEMA floodplain regulations required her to elevate the home 20 feet above ground level because of existing deficiencies in the levee protecting her neighborhood. Can you imagine what that would look like? Every house in the neighborhood at ground level, and one home towering 20 feet above the rest? More importantly though, the cost would be exorbitant. And it would be imposed by the federal government on a family trying to get back on its feet after a personal tragedy. When the home burned down, the family collected $71,000 from their insurance company. Contractors estimated the cost to restore the home to its original condition was $170,000--a significant burden, but one the family was willing to bear. But when the family factored in the cost of elevating their home 20 feet, the cost skyrocketed. Contractors estimated the elevation project would cost an additional $200,000. Just to restore their home to its previous size and condition, the family would owe $300,000 more than what they received from their insurance. There is a fundamental issue of fairness at stake. This family tragically lost their home and many of their personal belongings. But instead of helping the family during this difficult time, the federal government is instead blocking them from rebuilding. Why? Because the federal government has failed to maintain adequate flood protection. It just doesn't seem fair. The Fire-Damaged Home Rebuilding Act addresses this issue by allowing local communities to grant variances to FEMA flood plain regulations without jeopardizing their participation in the program. The legislation allows waivers to be granted only if all of the following conditions are met. Communities must already have taken steps to repair damaged levees, such as seeking Federal authorization of a levee project, and there must be previously existing plans to obtain the requisite 100-year flood protection in the near future. The destroyed house must be within a deep floodplain where it would be too expensive and unsightly to elevate the home. The new home must be built within the footprint of the destroyed structure. The homeowner cannot qualify for new insurance discounts; and the property has never been associated with a claim to the National Flood Insurance Program. Representative Doris Matsui and I worked with FEMA to ensure that these limitations will only allow individual to rebuild very limited circumstances. I strongly oppose new development in the flood plain. It is irresponsible to permit new homes or businesses in an area where you know that flooding is likely. But rebuilding a single existing home after a tragic fire is different than building a new tract of homes. If an entire neighborhood is burned down, for instance, it should be rebuilt at a safe level. A single home is also different than building new schools or new shopping malls, which would be prohibited under the bill. But just to be sure that local governments don't abuse this power, the number of waivers they can approve is capped at ten per year. We need to make sure that the waiver is used judiciously. The FEMA regulations were put in place to block individual homeowners from voluntarily renovating and improving their homes. It was also designed to block homeowners from rebuilding after a flood. By doing so, the federal government limits its liability for future flood insurance claims. I agree with the goals of those FEMA regulations. But fire-damaged homes clearly do not fit in either category. So we need to adjust the law to eliminate an unfortunate and unintended consequence of an otherwise good policy. City and County governments must be empowered to make case by case judgments about whether it makes sense to elevate damaged structures by 10, 15, or 20 feet when the rest of the neighborhood remains at ground level. That is exactly what the Fire-Damaged Home Reconstruction Act does. It provides limited authority to local governments, which will allow them to do what makes sense for their communities. This is a commonsense piece of legislation, and I hope my colleagues will work to quickly adopt the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire- Damaged Home Rebuilding Act. This legislation is simple. It allows families living in FEMA- designated flood plains to rebuild their home in the event it is destroyed by fire. The bill allows communities to waive requirements that were meant to block reconstruction after floods, but have been applied to block reconstruction of homes after fires and other natural disasters as well. I was first made aware of this issue by a constituent from Sacramento. Her home in the Natomas neighborhood burned down, and when she applied for a permit to rebuild it she was denied. The County informed her that FEMA floodplain regulations required her to elevate the home 20 feet above ground level because of existing deficiencies in the levee protecting her neighborhood. Can you imagine what that would look like? Every house in the neighborhood at ground level, and one home towering 20 feet above the rest? More importantly though, the cost would be exorbitant. And it would be imposed by the federal government on a family trying to get back on its feet after a personal tragedy. When the home burned down, the family collected $71,000 from their insurance company. Contractors estimated the cost to restore the home to its original condition was $170,000--a significant burden, but one the family was willing to bear. But when the family factored in the cost of elevating their home 20 feet, the cost skyrocketed. Contractors estimated the elevation project would cost an additional $200,000. Just to restore their home to its previous size and condition, the family would owe $300,000 more than what they received from their insurance. There is a fundamental issue of fairness at stake. This family tragically lost their home and many of their personal belongings. But instead of helping the family during this difficult time, the federal government is instead blocking them from rebuilding. Why? Because the federal government has failed to maintain adequate flood protection. It just doesn't seem fair. The Fire-Damaged Home Rebuilding Act addresses this issue by allowing local communities to grant variances to FEMA flood plain regulations without jeopardizing their participation in the program. The legislation allows waivers to be granted only if all of the following conditions are met. Communities must already have taken steps to repair damaged levees, such as seeking Federal authorization of a levee project, and there must be previously existing plans to obtain the requisite 100-year flood protection in the near future. The destroyed house must be within a deep floodplain where it would be too expensive and unsightly to elevate the home. The new home must be built within the footprint of the destroyed structure. The homeowner cannot qualify for new insurance discounts; and the property has never been associated with a claim to the National Flood Insurance Program. Representative Doris Matsui and I worked with FEMA to ensure that these limitations will only allow individual to rebuild very limited circumstances. I strongly oppose new development in the flood plain. It is irresponsible to permit new homes or businesses in an area where you know that flooding is likely. But rebuilding a single existing home after a tragic fire is different than building a new tract of homes. If an entire neighborhood is burned down, for instance, it should be rebuilt at a safe level. A single home is also different than building new schools or new shopping malls, which would be prohibited under the bill. But just to be sure that local governments don't abuse this power, the number of waivers they can approve is capped at ten per year. We need to make sure that the waiver is used judiciously. The FEMA regulations were put in place to block individual homeowners from voluntarily renovating and improving their homes. It was also designed to block homeowners from rebuilding after a flood. By doing so, the federal government limits its liability for future flood insurance claims. I agree with the goals of those FEMA regulations. But fire-damaged homes clearly do not fit in either category. So we need to adjust the law to eliminate an unfortunate and unintended consequence of an otherwise good policy. City and County governments must be empowered to make case by case judgments about whether it makes sense to elevate damaged structures by 10, 15, or 20 feet when the rest of the neighborhood remains at ground level. That is exactly what the Fire-Damaged Home Reconstruction Act does. It provides limited authority to local governments, which will allow them to do what makes sense for their communities. This is a commonsense piece of legislation, and I hope my colleagues will work to quickly adopt the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte, has filed Senate amendment No. 161, which reinforces the current requirement for the Department of Defense to be fully financially auditable by the year 2017. I fully support the amendment and have joined as a co-sponsor, as auditability is an important step to managing a budget, especially one in the hundreds of billions of dollars. I wish to clarify, however, that the amendment should not be seen as superseding existing requirements for agencies within the Intelligence Community, including those in the Department of Defense, to be fully auditable by 2016. The Select Committee on Intelligence, which I chair, has been pushing the intelligence community for years to improve its auditability, and I am pleased to say that recently there has been significant progress in this area. We will continue to conduct oversight and ensure that agencies have the tools and resources they need to be fully auditable by 2016, notwithstanding the 2017 date for auditability by the rest of the Defense Department. The Intelligence Committee staff has confirmed with Senator Ayotte's office that this is the Senator's understanding and intent with the amendment as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer, to introduce the California Federal Milk Marketing Order Act. This legislation will allow California's dairy industry to operate on a system that is consistent with the industry in other states. The bill is as simple and straight forward as it gets--it's only two paragraphs long. The first paragraph allows the California dairy producers to create their own ``regional order'' within the existing Federal Milk Marketing Order Program, if they elect to do so. If California dairy farmers do elect to join the Federal order, the second paragraph allows California to maintain its existing ``quota system,'' which I will explain in a moment. It is important for me to say up front how non-controversial this legislation should be. The legislation has broad bi-partisan support among the diverse California congressional delegation. The bill would likely add no new burden to the Federal taxpayer. Congress enacted an identical provision in 1996. But the provision expired along with the 1996 Farm Bill. So essentially, the legislation I am introducing today is simply the reauthorization of that no-cost provision. More importantly though, this legislation can help the struggling dairy industry. Prices have dipped back to near historic lows, and farmers are often milking their cows at or below the cost of production. In California, this has resulted in a drastic consolidation of the industry. Forty-eight dairies went out of business in 2011. Eleven left the business in 2010. And 100 more left the business in 2009. With only 1,668 dairies left in the state in 2011, those losses represent more than a 10 percent contraction in just three years. But this legislation has the potential to begin the turnaround for California by bringing the milk pricing formulas in line with the rest of the nation. To explain how the turnaround could occur, I'd like to start with the basics. USDA operates 10 regional Federal Milk Marketing Orders for dairy farmers in 42 States. The order sets up a system to pay farmers a set price for their milk, even though food manufacturers pay different prices based on how the milk is used. For instance, farmers in the Federal order receive the same price for milk that is put in a carton for drinking as milk that is converted into dry milk powder. This is true even though these products sell for significantly different prices at the grocery store. However, California, the Nation's largest milk producing State, operates under a different system. The State elected to run its own milk marketing order, so California farmers are paid different values for their products, and they are playing by different rules. One unique characteristic of the California Marketing Order, and the reason for this legislation, is the system known as ``quota,'' which I mentioned earlier. Producers who own a portion of the ``quota'' receive a premium for their milk, roughly five percent more than other producers. Rights to quota can be bought or sold on the open market, and economists estimate that the combined value associated with quota is roughly $900 million. It is this $900 million value that the California Federal Milk Marketing Order Act authorizes to be converted into a Federal order. Inclusion of the quota will not come at taxpayer expense. Producers who own quota receive a higher price for their milk, but the additional payment is offset by a marginal increase in prices paid by dairy processors. I know that dairy support programs can be convoluted and controversial. But I want to make sure that my colleagues know that this legislation is not. The bill simply gives California dairy farmers the option of entering into the Federal order, at the time of their choosing. It does not mandate a thing. I hope my colleagues will see the sense in this legislation and join me in supporting our dairy farmers by enacting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer, to introduce the California Federal Milk Marketing Order Act. This legislation will allow California's dairy industry to operate on a system that is consistent with the industry in other states. The bill is as simple and straight forward as it gets--it's only two paragraphs long. The first paragraph allows the California dairy producers to create their own ``regional order'' within the existing Federal Milk Marketing Order Program, if they elect to do so. If California dairy farmers do elect to join the Federal order, the second paragraph allows California to maintain its existing ``quota system,'' which I will explain in a moment. It is important for me to say up front how non-controversial this legislation should be. The legislation has broad bi-partisan support among the diverse California congressional delegation. The bill would likely add no new burden to the Federal taxpayer. Congress enacted an identical provision in 1996. But the provision expired along with the 1996 Farm Bill. So essentially, the legislation I am introducing today is simply the reauthorization of that no-cost provision. More importantly though, this legislation can help the struggling dairy industry. Prices have dipped back to near historic lows, and farmers are often milking their cows at or below the cost of production. In California, this has resulted in a drastic consolidation of the industry. Forty-eight dairies went out of business in 2011. Eleven left the business in 2010. And 100 more left the business in 2009. With only 1,668 dairies left in the state in 2011, those losses represent more than a 10 percent contraction in just three years. But this legislation has the potential to begin the turnaround for California by bringing the milk pricing formulas in line with the rest of the nation. To explain how the turnaround could occur, I'd like to start with the basics. USDA operates 10 regional Federal Milk Marketing Orders for dairy farmers in 42 States. The order sets up a system to pay farmers a set price for their milk, even though food manufacturers pay different prices based on how the milk is used. For instance, farmers in the Federal order receive the same price for milk that is put in a carton for drinking as milk that is converted into dry milk powder. This is true even though these products sell for significantly different prices at the grocery store. However, California, the Nation's largest milk producing State, operates under a different system. The State elected to run its own milk marketing order, so California farmers are paid different values for their products, and they are playing by different rules. One unique characteristic of the California Marketing Order, and the reason for this legislation, is the system known as ``quota,'' which I mentioned earlier. Producers who own a portion of the ``quota'' receive a premium for their milk, roughly five percent more than other producers. Rights to quota can be bought or sold on the open market, and economists estimate that the combined value associated with quota is roughly $900 million. It is this $900 million value that the California Federal Milk Marketing Order Act authorizes to be converted into a Federal order. Inclusion of the quota will not come at taxpayer expense. Producers who own quota receive a higher price for their milk, but the additional payment is offset by a marginal increase in prices paid by dairy processors. I know that dairy support programs can be convoluted and controversial. But I want to make sure that my colleagues know that this legislation is not. The bill simply gives California dairy farmers the option of entering into the Federal order, at the time of their choosing. It does not mandate a thing. I hope my colleagues will see the sense in this legislation and join me in supporting our dairy farmers by enacting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I commend the chairwoman and vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senators Mikulski and Shelby, on crafting a strong bill to close out the remaining 6 months of the fiscal year. This bill was developed under difficult circumstances and time constraints, and I really feel they have done a good job of returning some semblance of regular order to this process. I am hopeful this progress will continue in the coming fiscal year. One of my disappointments with this legislation, however, is that we are not able to fund any new Army Corps of Engineers projects. The lack of new starts in the Corps is of particular concern to my State, as it impedes progress on the flood control project in Hamilton City, CA. It is a project that could potentially serve as a model for Corp projects throughout the Nation. More importantly, the construction of a new levee is critical for the protection of Hamilton City and Glenn County from catastrophic flooding. The project has been ready for construction for several years now but has been entangled in the new starts prohibition. It is my hope and intention that for fiscal year 2014 we will have regular order in appropriations, and I will work to support this project moving forward.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Rubio to submit a resolution recommending the posthumous award of the Medal of Honor to Sergeant Rafael Peralta, United States Marine Corps. My friend and colleague from California, Representative Duncan Hunter, will introduce this resolution in the House and I am proud to work with him on this important matter. Our resolution recognizes that Sergeant Peralta's courageous and selfless actions in combat saved the lives of his fellow Marines. Our resolution concurs with the Marine Corps and the Department of the Navy that Sergeant Peralta's actions are in the spirit and tradition of the Medal of Honor; maintains that, consistent with previous Medal of Honor awards, the eyewitness accounts confirm that Sergeant Peralta deliberately pulled the grenade into his body and that eyewitness accounts should be the leading and deciding factor in evaluating Sergeant Peralta's Medal of Honor nomination; and recommends that Sergeant Peralta be posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. Sergeant Peralta was a true American hero. He was born in Mexico and immigrated as a young child with his family to San Diego, CA. He embraced his new life and anxiously awaited the opportunity to serve his adopted country and give something back. In fact, on the very day he received permanent legal resident status in the United States, he joined the United States Marine Corps. Sergeant Peralta deployed to Iraq as a scout team leader assigned to Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment. In November 2004, Sergeant Peralta and his battalion were involved in intense house-to-house fighting in an effort to reclaim Fallujah, Iraq from insurgents. After clearing scores of houses for days, he asked to join an under- strength squad. Upon entering their seventh house of the day, Sergeant Peralta's squad came into direct contact with insurgents and he was hit in the back of the head by a fragment from a ricocheted bullet. As insurgents fled the house they threw a grenade through a window which landed near Sergeant Peralta's head. Despite his wounds, he was able to reach for the grenade and pull it under his body to absorb the blast. He was killed instantly but his sacrifice saved the lives of his fellow Marines. For his selflessness and heroism, Sergeant Peralta was recommended for the Medal of Honor by his local commanders, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now, the historical standard for awarding the Medal of Honor is two eyewitness accounts. Sergeant Peralta has seven. Seven eyewitnesses gave sworn statements attesting that Sergeant Peralta smothered the grenade and placed it under his body in order to absorb the explosion. Four of those accounts, taken independently, state that he pulled the grenade to his body with his right arm. Nevertheless, an independent panel formed by then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates determined that Sergeant Peralta could not have deliberately pulled the grenade to his body because he was immediately incapacitated after being shot in the head. Secretary Gates agreed with its conclusions and Sergeant Peralta was awarded the Navy Cross instead of the Medal of Honor. Yet, despite the panel's findings, the citation for the Navy Cross agrees with the eyewitness accounts and states that ``without hesitation and with complete disregard for his own personal safety, Sergeant Peralta reached out and pulled the grenade to his body, absorbing the brunt of the blast and shielding fellow Marines only feet away.'' In fact, his family has refused to accept the Navy Cross and has worked tirelessly to ensure that Sergeant Peralta's actions are not forgotten and properly recognized with the Medal of Honor. In 2012, Representative Hunter submitted new and previously unconsidered evidence, including combat video and an independent pathology report, to the Department of the Navy. Dr. Vincent DiMaio of San Antonio, Texas volunteered to review the case for Sergeant Peralta's family and submitted the report. He concluded that, in all medical probability, Sergeant Peralta was not immediately incapacitated after being shot, and, in fact, reached for the grenade and pulled it under his body. After a new review of the evidence, the Department of the Navy once again recommended Sergeant Peralta for the Medal of Honor. Unfortunately, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta denied the request. I have the utmost respect for the judgment of Secretary Gates and Secretary Panetta. On this matter, I just take a different view and I urge our new Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, to take another look at this matter. I do not take the awarding of the Medal of Honor lightly. Indeed, the Medal of Honor is our country's highest and most prestigious military award. It says something to me that seven eyewitnesses verified that Sergeant Peralta absorbed the blast of the grenade and saved the lives of his fellow Marines. It says something to me that the citation for the Navy Cross backs up the eyewitness accounts. It says something to me that Sergeant Peralta was recommended for the award by his local commanders, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It says something to me that the Secretary of the Navy has even publicly stated that he believes Sergeant Peralta deserves the Medal of Honor. Sergeant Peralta gave his life for our country and his fellow Marines. His actions in combat and the evidence make it clear to me that he has gone above and beyond the call of duty and is deserving of the Medal of Honor. In the days before his death, he wrote to his brother saying ``I'm proud to be a Marine, a U.S. Marine, and to defend and protect the freedom and Constitution of America. You should be proud too of being an American citizen.'' Let us honor this American hero and show our pride in being Americans by passing this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to reintroduce private relief legislation for Claudia Marquez Rico. I first introduced a private bill for Claudia back in 2006. This young woman has lived in California for most of her life. She suffered tremendous hardship after the sudden death of her parents more than ten years ago. I believe she deserves the special relief granted by a private bill. Claudia was born in Jalisco, Mexico. She was only 6 years old when her parents brought her, and her two younger brothers, to the United States. Ten years ago, tragedy struck this family. Early in the morning on October 4, 2000, while driving to work, Claudia's parents were killed in a horrific car accident when their vehicle collided with a truck on a rural road. Suddenly orphaned, Claudia and her siblings were fortunate enough to have a place to go. They were welcomed into the loving home of their aunt, Hortencia, and uncle, Patricio, who are both United States citizens. Hortencia and Patricio are active at Buen Pastor Catholic Church. Patricio is a youth soccer coach. This couple raised the Marquez children as their own, counseling them through the loss of their parents and helping them with their school work. They became the legal guardians of the Marquez children in 2001. Claudia likely would have resolved her immigration status, were it not for poor legal representation. The death of the Marquez parents meant that Claudia and her siblings should have qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. Congress created this special immigrant status to protect children under extraordinary circumstances and spare them the hardship of deportation when a state court deems the children to be dependents as a result of abuse, abandonment, or neglect. In fact, Claudia's younger brother, Omar, was granted this special immigrant juvenile status, providing him legal permanent residency. However, the lawyer for the Marquez children failed to secure this relief for Claudia. She has now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration status, making her ineligible for this special relief. It is important to take note that the lawyer who handled this case was faced with charges on numerous counts of professional incompetence and moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases. The California State Bar accused him of a ``despicable and far-reaching pattern of misconduct.'' As a result, the lawyer resigned from the Bar and is currently ineligible to practice law in California. Claudia deserved a fair chance at resolving her immigration status, but her attorney's egregious behavior stripped her of this opportunity. Claudia, nonetheless, finished school despite these adverse circumstances. She secured a job in Redwood City, California, and she currently lives with her younger sister, Maribel, in Menlo Park, where they care for their grandfather. Claudia also provides financial support to her two brothers, Jose and Omar, whenever necessary. She is still active in the local community, attending San Clemente Catholic Church in Hayward. It would be an injustice to add to the Marquez family's misfortune by tearing these siblings apart. Claudia and her siblings have come to rely on each other in the absence of their deceased parents, and Claudia is clearly a central support of this family. Moreover, Claudia has never visited Mexico and has no close relatives in the country. She was so young when her parents brought her to the United States that she has no memories of Mexico. I am reintroducing a private relief bill on Claudia's behalf because I believe her removal from the United States would go against our standard of fairness and would only cause additional hardship on a family that already endured so much. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief legislation on behalf of Claudia Marquez Rico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 twenty years. I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief. When Jose came to the United States from Mexico, he began working as a busboy in restaurants in San Francisco, California. In 1990, he started working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award-winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco. Jose worked his way through the ranks, eventually becoming Palio's sous chef. His colleagues describe him as a reliable and cool-headed coworker, and as ``an exemplary employee'' who not only is ``good at his job but is also a great boss to his subordinates.'' He and his wife, Micaela, call San Francisco home. Micaela works as a housekeeper and a part-time cook at a restaurant in San Francisco. They have three daughters, two of whom are United States citizens. Their oldest child Adilene, age 24, is undocumented. Adilene graduated from the Immaculate Conception Academy and attended San Francisco City College. She is now studying nursing at Los Medranos College. The Martinez's second daughter, Jazmin, graduated from Leadership High School and is now studying at California State University, Dominguez Hills. Jazmin is a United States citizen and has been diagnosed with asthma. According to her doctor, if the family returns to Mexico, the high altitude and air pollution in Mexico City could be fatal to Jazmin. The Martinez family attempted to legalize their status through several channels. In 2001, Jose's sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Jose to get a green card. However, the current green card backlog for siblings from Mexico is long, and it will be many years before Jose will be eligible to legalize his status though his sister. In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent application for cancellation of removal because he could not find the ``requisite hardship'' required for this form of immigration relief. Ironically, the immigration judge who reviewed their case found that Jose's culinary ability was a negative factor weighing against keeping the family in the United States, finding that Jose's skills indicated that he could find a job in Mexico. Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio D'Asti, petitioned for legal status for Jose based upon Jose's unique skills as a chef. Jose's petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; however, he cannot apply for permanent residency because of his immigration history. Jose, Micaela, and their daughter, Adilene, have no other administrative options to legalize their status. If they are deported, they will face a several-year ban from returning to the United States. Jose and Micaela will be separated from their American citizen-children and their community. The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in California. They are active in their faith community and their children's schools. They volunteer with community-based organizations and are, in turn, supported by their community. When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters of support from their fellow parishioners, teachers, and members of their community. The Martinez family truly embraces the American dream. Jose worked his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. Adilene worked hard in high school and is now attending college. I believe the Martinez family's presence in the United States allows them to continue making significant contributions to their community in California. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, his wife, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and their son, Jorge Rojas Gonzalez, Jr. The Rojas family, originally from Mexico, is living in the San Jose area of California. The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Jorge and his wife, Oliva, originally came to the United States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr. was just 2 years old. In 1995, they left the country to attend a funeral, and then re-entered the United States on visitor's visas. The family has since expanded to include two sons, Alexis Rojas, now 20 years old, Matias, now 3 years old, a daughter Tania Rojas, now age 18, and a granddaughter, Mina Rojas, who is 3 years old. The Rojas family first attempted to legalize their status in the United States when an unscrupulous immigration consultant, who was not an attorney, advised them to apply for asylum. Unfortunately, without proper legal guidance, this family did not realize at the time that they lacked a valid basis for asylum. The asylum claim was denied in 2008, leaving the Rojas family with no further options to legalize their status. Since their arrival in the United States more than 20 years ago, the Rojas family has demonstrated a robust work ethic and a strong commitment to their community in California. They have paid their taxes and worked hard to contribute to this country. Jorge is a hard-working individual who has been employed by Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance in San Jose, California, for the past 16 years. Currently, he works on commercial landscaping projects. Jorge is well-respected by his supervisor and his peers. In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time to provide modern green landscaping and building projects at his children's school in California. He is active in his neighborhood association, where he worked with his neighbors to open a library and community center in their community. Oliva, in addition to raising her three children, has also been very active in the local community. She volunteers with the People Acting in Community Together, PACT, organization, where she works to prevent crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and schools. Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the Rojas family to remain in the United States is the impact that their deportation would have on their four children. Three of the Rojas children, Alexis, Tanya, and Matias are American citizens. Jorge Rojas, Jr. has lived in the United States since he was a toddler. For Alexis, Tanya, Matias and Jorge Jr., this country is the only country they really know. Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his parents, recently became a father. He is now 24 years old and working at a job that allows him to support his daughter, Mina. Jorge Jr. graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007. Alexis, age 20, graduated from Del Mar High School and is now a student at West Valley College in Saratoga, California. He is interested in studying linguistics. Tania, age 18, recently graduated from Del Mar High School and is in her first year at West Valley College. Their teachers describe them as ``fantastic, wonderful and gifted'' students. It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters from the community in Northern California in support of this family. Enactment of this private bill legislation will enable the Rojas family to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and their daughter, Adilene Martinez. This family is originally from Mexico but has been living in California for twenty years. I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief. When Jose came to the United States from Mexico, he began working as a busboy in restaurants in San Francisco, California. In 1990, he started working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award-winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco. Jose worked his way through the ranks, eventually becoming Palio's sous chef. His colleagues describe him as a reliable and cool-headed coworker, and as ``an exemplary employee'' who not only is ``good at his job but is also a great boss to his subordinates.'' He and his wife, Micaela, call San Francisco home. Micaela works as a housekeeper and a part-time cook at a restaurant in San Francisco. They have three daughters, two of whom are United States citizens. Their oldest child Adilene, age 24, is undocumented. Adilene graduated from the Immaculate Conception Academy and attended San Francisco City College. She is now studying nursing at Los Medranos College. The Martinez's second daughter, Jazmin, graduated from Leadership High School and is now studying at California State University, Dominguez Hills. Jazmin is a United States citizen and has been diagnosed with asthma. According to her doctor, if the family returns to Mexico, the high altitude and air pollution in Mexico City could be fatal to Jazmin. The Martinez family attempted to legalize their status through several channels. In 2001, Jose's sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Jose to get a green card. However, the current green card backlog for siblings from Mexico is long, and it will be many years before Jose will be eligible to legalize his status though his sister. In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent application for cancellation of removal because he could not find the ``requisite hardship'' required for this form of immigration relief. Ironically, the immigration judge who reviewed their case found that Jose's culinary ability was a negative factor weighing against keeping the family in the United States, finding that Jose's skills indicated that he could find a job in Mexico. Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio D'Asti, petitioned for legal status for Jose based upon Jose's unique skills as a chef. Jose's petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; however, he cannot apply for permanent residency because of his immigration history. Jose, Micaela, and their daughter, Adilene, have no other administrative options to legalize their status. If they are deported, they will face a several-year ban from returning to the United States. Jose and Micaela will be separated from their American citizen-children and their community. The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in California. They are active in their faith community and their children's schools. They volunteer with community-based organizations and are, in turn, supported by their community. When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters of support from their fellow parishioners, teachers, and members of their community. The Martinez family truly embraces the American dream. Jose worked his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. Adilene worked hard in high school and is now attending college. I believe the Martinez family's presence in the United States allows them to continue making significant contributions to their community in California. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce private relief legislation on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and their son, Arthur Mkoyan. The Mkoian family has been living in Fresno, California, for over 15 years. I continue to believe this family deserves Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. The Mkoian family is originally from Armenia. They decided to leave Armenia for the United States in the early 1990s, following several incidents in which the family experienced vandalism and threats to their well-being. In Armenia, Ruben worked as a police sergeant on vehicle licensing. At one point, he was offered a bribe to register stolen vehicles, which he refused and reported to his superior, the police chief. He later learned that a co-worker had gone ahead and registered the vehicles at the request of the chief. Several disturbing incidents occurred after Ruben reported the bribe to illegally register vehicles. Ruben's store was vandalized; after he said he would call the police, he received threatening phone calls telling him to keep quiet. At one point, the Mkoians suffered the loss of their home when a bottle of gasoline was thrown into their residence, burning it to the ground. In April 1992, several men entered the family store and assaulted Ruben, hospitalizing him for 22 days. Ruben, Asmik, and their 3-old son, Arthur, left Armenia soon thereafter and entered the United States on visitor visas. They applied for political asylum in 1992 on the grounds that they would be subject to physical attacks if returned to Armenia. It took 16 years for their case to be finalized, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied their asylum case in January 2008. At this time, Ruben, Asmik, and Arthur have exhausted every option to remain legally in the United States. The Mkoians have worked hard to build a place for their family in California. Ruben works as a manager at a car wash in Fresno. He previously worked as a truck driver for a California trucking company that described him as ``trustworthy,'' ``knowledgeable,'' and an asset to the company. Asmik has completed training at a local community college and is now a full-time medical assistant with Fresno Shields Medical Group. The Mkoians attend St. Paul Armenian Apostolic Church in Fresno. They do charity work to send medical equipment to Armenia. Asmik also teaches Armenian School on Saturdays at the church. I would particularly like to highlight the achievements of Ruben and Asmik's two children, Arthur and Arsen, who were raised in California and have been recognized publicly for their scholastic achievements. I first introduced a private bill for this family on Arthur's high school graduation day. Despite being undocumented, Arthur maintained a 4.0 grade point average in high school and was a valedictorian for the class of 2008. Arthur, now 22 years old, graduated from the University of California, Davis with a major in Chemistry. He maintained excellent grades and was on the Dean's Merit List. Arthur's brother, Arsen, is 16 years old and a United States citizen. He currently attends Bullard High School in Fresno, where he does well in his classes, maintaining a 4.3 grade point average. I believe Arthur and Arsen are two young individuals with great potential here in the United States. Like their parents, they have demonstrated their commitment to working hard--and they are succeeding. They clearly aspire to do great things here in the United States. It has been more than 18 years since Ruben, Asmik, and Arthur left Armenia. This family has few family members and virtually no supporting contacts in Armenia. They invested their time, resources, and effort in order to remain in the United States legally, to no avail. A private relief bill is the only means to prevent them from being forced to return to a country that long ago became a closed chapter of their past. When I first introduced a bill on behalf of the Mkoian family in 2008, I received written endorsements from Representatives George Radanovich, R-CA, and Jim Costa, D-CA, in strong support of the family. I also received more than 200 letters of support and dozens of calls of support from friends and community members, attesting to the positive impact that this family has had in Fresno, CA. I believe that this case warrants our compassion and our extraordinary consideration. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private legislation on behalf of the Mkoian family. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce private relief legislation for Robert Kuan Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei, ``Alice'', Hsu-Liang. I first introduced a private bill for Robert and Alice in 2003. Since then this family has only further demonstrated their hard work ethic and commitment to realizing the American dream. I continue to believe that Robert and Alice merit Congress' special consideration and the extraordinary relief provided by private legislation. Robert and Alice have been living in San Bruno, CA, for the last 27 years. Robert is a national and refugee from Laos, and Alice is originally from Taiwan. They have three children who are all United States citizens. I am concerned that forcing Robert and Alice to return to their home countries would tear this family apart and cause immense and unwarranted hardship to them and their children. Robert and Alice have called California their home since they first entered the United States in 1983. They came here legally on tourist visas. They face deportation today because they remained in the United States past the terms of their visas, and because their attorney failed to handle their immigration case on a timely basis before federal immigration laws changed in 1996. In many ways, the Liang family represents a uniquely American success story. Robert was born in Laos, but fled the country as a teenager after his mother was killed by Communists. He witnessed many traumatic experiences in his youth, including the attack that killed his mother and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He routinely witnessed the brutal persecution and deaths of others in his village in Laos. In 1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan. Robert and his wife risked everything to come to the United States. Despite the challenges of their past, they built a family in California and established a place for themselves in the local community. They are homeowners. They own a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant. They file annual income taxes and are financially stable. Robert and Alice support their three children, Wesley, Bruce, and Eva, who are all American citizens. Wesley is now 21 years old and studying at City College of San Francisco. The younger children, Bruce and Eva, attend schools in the San Bruno area and continue to do well in their classes. There are many reasons to believe that deporting Robert and Alice would have a harmful impact on the children, who have all of their ties to the United States. Deportation would either break this family apart or force them to relocate to a country entirely foreign to the one they know to be home. The Immigration Judge who presided over Robert and Alice's case in 1997 also concluded that Robert and Alice's deportation would adversely impact the Liang children. Moreover, Robert would face significant hurdles if deported, having fled Laos as a refugee more than 27 years ago. The emotional impact of the wartime violence Robert experienced at a young age was traumatic and continues to strain him. He battles severe clinical depression here in the United States. Robert fears that if he is deported and moves to his wife's home country, Taiwan, he will face discrimination on account of his nationality. Robert does not speak Taiwanese, and he worries about how he would pursue mental health treatment in a foreign country. Robert and Alice have worked since 1993 to resolve their immigration status. They filed for relief from deportation; however, it took nearly five years for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, to act on the case. By the time their case went through in 1997, the immigration laws had changed and the Liangs were no longer eligible for relief. I supported these changes, set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. But, I also believe there may be situations worthy of special consideration. Robert and Alice Liang represent one such example. They are long-term residents of the United States. Their children are all U.S. citizens. The Immigration Judge that presided over the appeal of this case determined that Robert and Alice would have qualified for relief from deportation, in light of these positive factors, had the INS given their case timely consideration. Unfortunately, their immigration case took nearly five years to move forward. A private bill is the only way for both Robert and Alice to remain in the United States together with their family. They have worked extraordinarily hard to make the United States their home. I believe Robert and Alice deserve the relief provided by a private bill. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be included in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing private relief legislation on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel, a couple living with their family in Camarillo, CA. Joseph and Sharon are nationals of Egypt who fled their home country over twelve years ago after being targeted for their religious involvement in the Christian Coptic Church in Egypt. They became involved with this church during the 1990s, Joseph as an accountant and project coordinator helping to build community facilities and Sharon as the church's training director in human resources. Unfortunately, Joseph and Sharon were also subjected to threats and abuse. Joseph was jailed repeatedly because of his involvement with the church. Sharon's family members were violently targeted, including her cousin who was murdered and her brother whose business was firebombed. When Sharon became pregnant with her first child, she was threatened by a member of a different religious organization against raising her child in a non-Muslim faith. Joseph and Sharon came to the United States legally seeking refuge in November 1998. They immediately notified authorities of their intent to seek protection in the United States, filing for political asylum in May 1999. However, Joseph, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating why he was afraid to return to Egypt, and one year later their asylum application was denied because they could not adequately establish that they were victims of persecution. Joseph and Sharon pursued the appropriate means for appealing this decision, to no avail. It should be noted that sometime later Sharon's brother applied for asylum in the United States. He, too, applied on the basis of persecution he and his family faced in Egypt, but his application was approved and he was granted this status in the United States. There are no other avenues for Joseph and Sharon to pursue relief here in the United States. If they are deported, they will be forced back to a country where they sincerely fear for their safety. Since arriving in the United States more than twelve years ago, Joseph and Sharon have built a family here, including four children who are United States citizens: Jessica, age 14, Rebecca, age 13, Rafael, age 12, and Veronica, age 7. Jessica, Rebecca, and Rafael attend school in California and maintain good grades. Veronica is attending second grade at Camarillo Heights Elementary School. Joseph and Sharon worked hard to achieve financial security for their children, and they created a meaningful place for their family in California. Both earned college degrees in Egypt. Joseph, who has his Certified Public Accountant license, has opened his own accounting firm. Joseph and Sharon carry strong support from friends, members of their local church, and other Californians who attest to their good character and community contributions. I am concerned that the entire family would face serious and unwarranted hardships if forced to relocate to Egypt. For Jessica, Rebecca, Rafael, and Veronica, the only home they know is in the United States. It is quite possible these four American children would face discrimination or worse in Egypt on account of their religion, as was the experience of many of their family members. Joseph and Sharon have made a compelling plea to remain in the United States. These parents emphasize their commitment to supporting their children and making a healthy and productive place for them to grow up in California. I believe this family deserves that opportunity. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to reintroduce private relief legislation for Claudia Marquez Rico. I first introduced a private bill for Claudia back in 2006. This young woman has lived in California for most of her life. She suffered tremendous hardship after the sudden death of her parents more than ten years ago. I believe she deserves the special relief granted by a private bill. Claudia was born in Jalisco, Mexico. She was only 6 years old when her parents brought her, and her two younger brothers, to the United States. Ten years ago, tragedy struck this family. Early in the morning on October 4, 2000, while driving to work, Claudia's parents were killed in a horrific car accident when their vehicle collided with a truck on a rural road. Suddenly orphaned, Claudia and her siblings were fortunate enough to have a place to go. They were welcomed into the loving home of their aunt, Hortencia, and uncle, Patricio, who are both United States citizens. Hortencia and Patricio are active at Buen Pastor Catholic Church. Patricio is a youth soccer coach. This couple raised the Marquez children as their own, counseling them through the loss of their parents and helping them with their school work. They became the legal guardians of the Marquez children in 2001. Claudia likely would have resolved her immigration status, were it not for poor legal representation. The death of the Marquez parents meant that Claudia and her siblings should have qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. Congress created this special immigrant status to protect children under extraordinary circumstances and spare them the hardship of deportation when a state court deems the children to be dependents as a result of abuse, abandonment, or neglect. In fact, Claudia's younger brother, Omar, was granted this special immigrant juvenile status, providing him legal permanent residency. However, the lawyer for the Marquez children failed to secure this relief for Claudia. She has now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration status, making her ineligible for this special relief. It is important to take note that the lawyer who handled this case was faced with charges on numerous counts of professional incompetence and moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases. The California State Bar accused him of a ``despicable and far-reaching pattern of misconduct.'' As a result, the lawyer resigned from the Bar and is currently ineligible to practice law in California. Claudia deserved a fair chance at resolving her immigration status, but her attorney's egregious behavior stripped her of this opportunity. Claudia, nonetheless, finished school despite these adverse circumstances. She secured a job in Redwood City, California, and she currently lives with her younger sister, Maribel, in Menlo Park, where they care for their grandfather. Claudia also provides financial support to her two brothers, Jose and Omar, whenever necessary. She is still active in the local community, attending San Clemente Catholic Church in Hayward. It would be an injustice to add to the Marquez family's misfortune by tearing these siblings apart. Claudia and her siblings have come to rely on each other in the absence of their deceased parents, and Claudia is clearly a central support of this family. Moreover, Claudia has never visited Mexico and has no close relatives in the country. She was so young when her parents brought her to the United States that she has no memories of Mexico. I am reintroducing a private relief bill on Claudia's behalf because I believe her removal from the United States would go against our standard of fairness and would only cause additional hardship on a family that already endured so much. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief legislation on behalf of Claudia Marquez Rico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I offer private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola. The Arreolas are Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California. Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 27, and Cindy, age 22, also stand to benefit from this legislation. The other three Arreola children, Robert, age 21, Daniel, age 17, and Saray, age 16, are United States citizens. Today, Esidronio and Maria Elena and their two eldest children face deportation. The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. The Arreolas are facing deportation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking the attorney's disbarment for his actions in his client's immigration cases. Mr. Arreola came to the United States in 1986 and was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years. As a migrant worker at that time, he would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Special Agricultural Workers or SAW program, had he known about it. Maria Elena was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy. She returned to Mexico to give birth because she wanted to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Because of the length of time that the Arreolas were in the United States, it is likely that they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, which would have allowed them to remain in the United States legally. However, their poor legal representation foreclosed this opportunity. One of the most compelling reasons for my introduction of this private bill is the devastating impact the deportation of Esidronio and Maria Elena would have on their children--three of whom are American citizens--and the other two who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. For these children, this country is the only country they really know. Nayely, the oldest, was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to graduate college. She attended Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition scholarship package and worked part-time in the admissions office. She graduated from Fresno Pacific University with a degree in Business Administration and is working on her graduate degree. Nayely recently got married and now has a newborn son. At a young age, Nayely demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She worked hard to achieve her full potential both through her academic endeavors and community service. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services at Fresno Pacific University states in a letter of support, ``[T]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.'' In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination, a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service organization. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family, if forced to return to Mexico, will be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and further contribute to her community and to this country. Nayely's sister, Cindy, also recently married and has a three-year- old daughter. Both Nayely and Cindy are barred from adjusting their status based on their marriages because they grew up in the United States undocumented. The Arreolas also have other family who are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents of this country. Mrs. Arreola has three brothers who are American citizens, and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is an American citizen. They have no immediate family in Mexico. According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business in California repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family. He and his wife are active in their church community and in their children's education. It is clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of the Buendias, a family who has lived in the Fresno area of California for more than 20 years. The beneficiaries of this bill include Alicia Aranda de Buendia and her daughter, Ana Laura Buendia Aranda. I believe this family merits Congress' special consideration. Mrs. Buendia works season after season in California's labor- intensive agriculture industry. She currently works for a fruit packing company in Reedley, California. Mrs. Buendia and her husband have raised two outstanding children, Ana Laura, age 23, and Alex, age 21, who have both always excelled in school. Ana Laura earned a 4.0 GPA at Reedley High School, and was offered an academic scholarship at the University of California, Berkeley. Unfortunately, she could not accept the scholarship because of her undocumented status. Ana Laura nonetheless persisted. She enrolled at the University of California, Irvine and recently graduated with a major in Chicano Studies and Art. Remarkably, the Buendias should have been able to correct their immigration status years ago. In 1999, it appeared they had succeeded when an Immigration Judge granted the family cancellation of removal based on the hardship their son, Alex, would face if deported to Mexico. However, the decision was appealed and ultimately overturned. At this point, the Buendias have exhausted their options to remain together as a family here in the United States. In the more than 20 years of living in California, the Buendias have shown that they are committed to working to achieve the American dream. They have a strong connection to their local community, as active members of the Parent Teachers Association and their church. They pay their taxes every year, paid off their mortgage, and remain free of debt. They have shown that they are responsible, maintaining health insurance, savings accounts, and retirement accounts. Moreover, the Buendia children are excellent students pursuing higher education here in the United States. Without this private bill, these young adults will be separated from their family or forced to relocate to a country they simply do not know. I do not believe it is in the Nation's best interest to prevent talented youth raised here in the United States, who have good moral character and outstanding academic records, from realizing their future. I respectfully ask my colleagues for their support of the Buendia family. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, his wife, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and their son, Jorge Rojas Gonzalez, Jr. The Rojas family, originally from Mexico, is living in the San Jose area of California. The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Jorge and his wife, Oliva, originally came to the United States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr. was just 2 years old. In 1995, they left the country to attend a funeral, and then re-entered the United States on visitor's visas. The family has since expanded to include two sons, Alexis Rojas, now 20 years old, Matias, now 3 years old, a daughter Tania Rojas, now age 18, and a granddaughter, Mina Rojas, who is 3 years old. The Rojas family first attempted to legalize their status in the United States when an unscrupulous immigration consultant, who was not an attorney, advised them to apply for asylum. Unfortunately, without proper legal guidance, this family did not realize at the time that they lacked a valid basis for asylum. The asylum claim was denied in 2008, leaving the Rojas family with no further options to legalize their status. Since their arrival in the United States more than 20 years ago, the Rojas family has demonstrated a robust work ethic and a strong commitment to their community in California. They have paid their taxes and worked hard to contribute to this country. Jorge is a hard-working individual who has been employed by Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance in San Jose, California, for the past 16 years. Currently, he works on commercial landscaping projects. Jorge is well-respected by his supervisor and his peers. In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time to provide modern green landscaping and building projects at his children's school in California. He is active in his neighborhood association, where he worked with his neighbors to open a library and community center in their community. Oliva, in addition to raising her three children, has also been very active in the local community. She volunteers with the People Acting in Community Together, PACT, organization, where she works to prevent crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and schools. Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the Rojas family to remain in the United States is the impact that their deportation would have on their four children. Three of the Rojas children, Alexis, Tanya, and Matias are American citizens. Jorge Rojas, Jr. has lived in the United States since he was a toddler. For Alexis, Tanya, Matias and Jorge Jr., this country is the only country they really know. Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his parents, recently became a father. He is now 24 years old and working at a job that allows him to support his daughter, Mina. Jorge Jr. graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007. Alexis, age 20, graduated from Del Mar High School and is now a student at West Valley College in Saratoga, California. He is interested in studying linguistics. Tania, age 18, recently graduated from Del Mar High School and is in her first year at West Valley College. Their teachers describe them as ``fantastic, wonderful and gifted'' students. It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters from the community in Northern California in support of this family. Enactment of this private bill legislation will enable the Rojas family to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.