Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce private relief legislation for Robert Kuan Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei, ``Alice'', Hsu-Liang. I first introduced a private bill for Robert and Alice in 2003. Since then this family has only further demonstrated their hard work ethic and commitment to realizing the American dream. I continue to believe that Robert and Alice merit Congress' special consideration and the extraordinary relief provided by private legislation. Robert and Alice have been living in San Bruno, California, for the last 27 years. Robert is a national and refugee from Laos, and Alice is originally from Taiwan. They have three children who are all United States citizens. I am concerned that forcing Robert and Alice to return to their home countries would tear this family apart and cause immense and unwarranted hardship to them and their children. Robert and Alice have called California their home since they first entered the United States in 1983. They came here legally on tourist visas. They face deportation today because they remained in the United States past the terms of their visas, and because their attorney failed to handle their immigration case on a timely basis before federal immigration laws changed in 1996. In many ways, the Liang family represents a uniquely American success story. Robert was born in Laos, but fled the country as a teenager after his mother was killed by Communists. He witnessed many traumatic experiences in his youth, including the attack that killed his mother and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He routinely witnessed the brutal persecution and deaths of others in his village in Laos. In 1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan. Robert and his wife risked everything to come to the United States. Despite the challenges of their past, they built a family in California and established a place for themselves in the local community. They are homeowners. They own a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant. They file annual income taxes and are financially stable. Robert and Alice support their three children, Wesley, Bruce, and Eva, who are all American citizens. Wesley is now 18 years old and studying at City College of San Francisco. The younger children, Bruce and Eva, attend schools in the San Bruno area and continue to do well in their classes. There are many reasons to believe that deporting Robert and Alice would have a harmful impact on the children, who have all of their ties to the United States. Deportation would either break this family apart or force them to relocate to a country entirely foreign to the one they know to be home. The Immigration Judge who presided over Robert and Alice's case in 1997 also concluded that Robert and Alice's deportation would adversely impact the Liang children. Moreover, Robert would face significant hurdles if deported, having fled Laos as a refugee more than 27 years ago. The emotional impact of the wartime violence Robert experienced at a young age was traumatic and continues to strain him. He battles severe clinical depression here in the United States. Robert fears that if he is deported and moves to his wife's home country, Taiwan, he will face discrimination on account of his nationality. Robert does not speak Taiwanese, and he worries about how he would pursue mental health treatment in a foreign country. Robert and Alice have worked since 1993 to resolve their immigration status. They filed for relief from deportation; however, it took nearly five years for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, to act on the case. By the time their case went through in 1997, the immigration laws had changed and the Liangs were no longer eligible for relief. I supported these changes, set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. But, I also believe there may be situations worthy of special consideration. Robert and Alice Liang represent one such example. They are long-term residents of the United States. Their children are all U.S. citizens. The Immigration Judge that presided over the appeal of this case determined that Robert and Alice would have qualified for relief from deportation, in light of these positive factors, had the INS given their case timely consideration. Unfortunately, their immigration case took nearly five years to move forward. A private bill is the only way for both Robert and Alice to remain in the United States together with their family. They have worked extraordinarily hard to make the United States their home. I believe Robert and Alice deserve the relief provided by a private bill. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Shirley is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the proud mother of 14- year-old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen. I believe Shirley merits Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because I believe her removal from the United States would cause undue hardship for her and her family. Shirley faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety. Shirley experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she left to come to the United States. When Shirley was only 14 years old, her cousin murdered her mother and her sister and shot Shirley in the head. While the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Shirley fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a visitor's visa in 1989. Shirley's current deportation order is the result of negligent counsel. Shirley applied for asylum in 1995. While her case appeal was pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney failed to submit a brief to support her case. As a result, the case was dismissed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals granted Shirley voluntary departure from the United States. Shirley never received notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals granted her voluntary departure. Shirley's attorney moved offices, did not receive the order, and ultimately never informed her of the order. As a result, Shirley did not depart the United States and the grant of voluntary departure automatically became a deportation order. Shirley learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody. Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Shirley was denied the opportunity to present her case in U.S. immigration proceedings. Shirley later filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against her former attorney. She is not the first person to file such a complaint against this attorney. In addition to the hardship that would come to Shirley if she is deported, Shirley's deportation would be a serious hardship to her two United States citizen children, Jashley and Joreine, who are minors. Jashley and Joreine are currently attending Terra Nova High School in Pacifica, California, where they continue to be excellent students on the honor roll. The children are involved in their school's music program, playing the clarinet and the flute. The children's teacher wrote a letter to me in which she described Shirley's involvement in Jashley and Joreine's lives, referring to Shirley as a ``model'' parent and describing her active role in the school community. In addition to caring for her two children, Shirley is the primary caregiver for her elderly mother-in-law. If Shirley were forced to leave the United States, her family has expressed that they would go with Shirley to the Philippines or try and find a third country where the entire family could relocate. This would mean that Jashley and Joreine would have to leave behind their education and the only home they know in the United States. While Shirley and Jay are legally married under California law at this time, Shirley cannot legally adjust her immigration status through the regular family-based immigration procedures. I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two United States citizen children, to make the choice between being separated and relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships. Shirley and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic Church, volunteering for the church and the Mother Theresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Shirley has the support of dozens of members of her community who shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Shirley today will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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. They have three daughters, two of whom are United States citizens. Their oldest child Adilene, age 22, is undocumented. Adilene graduated from the Immaculate Conception Academy and attended San Francisco City College. She is now studying nursing at Los Medranos College. The Martinez's second daughter, Jazmin, is a senior at Leadership High School and has applied to attend several Universities in California. Jazmin is a United States citizen and has been diagnosed with asthma. According to her doctor, if the family returns to Mexico, the high altitude and air pollution in Mexico City could be fatal to Jazmin. The Martinez family attempted to legalize their status through several channels. In 2001, Jose's sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Jose to get a green card. However, the current green card backlog for siblings from Mexico is long, and it will be many years before Jose will be eligible to legalize his status though his sister. In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent application for cancellation of removal because he could not find the ``requisite hardship'' required for this form of immigration relief. Ironically, the immigration judge who reviewed their case found that Jose's culinary ability was a negative factor weighing against keeping the family in the United States, finding that Jose's skills indicated that he could find a job in Mexico. Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio D'Asti, petitioned for legal status for Jose based upon Jose's unique skills as a chef. Even though U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved Jose's work petition, there is a backlog for employment based visas and it may be many years before Jose can get a visa. Until then, he and his family remain subject to deportation. Jose, Micaela, and their daughter, Adilene, have no other administrative options to legalize their status. If they are deported, they will face a several-year ban from returning to the United States. Jose and Micaela will be separated from their American citizen-children and their community. The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in California. They are active in their faith community and their children's schools. They volunteer with community-based organizations and are, in turn, supported by their community. When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters of support from their fellow parishioners, teachers, and members of their community. The Martinez family truly embraces the American dream. Jose worked his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. Adelene worked hard in high school and is now attending college. I believe the Martinez family's presence in the United States allows them to continue making significant contributions to their community in California. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li. Steve is a Peruvian national who lives in San Francisco, California. He was brought to the United States as a child and is now a student at City College of San Francisco hoping to become a nurse. I decided to introduce a private bill on Steve's behalf because I believe that Steve would suffer undue hardship if he were removed to Peru. Without this legislation, Steve would be separated from his family and his community, and returned to a country he does not know. Steve was only 12 years old when his parents brought him to the United States. Steve's parents are Chinese nationals who originally fled China to escape economic oppression and the Chinese government's policies on reproductive rights. From China, his parents went to Peru, where Steve was born. The family then sought asylum in the United States, which was denied. Steve was ordered removed to Peru, where he was born, while his parents were ordered removed to China, the country of their nationality. Steve's parents would not be able to accompany their son to Peru. Steve's parents never told him about the asylum denial or the removal orders. Steve did not know that he was in the United States illegally, and he went through all of his teenage years in the United States believing he was legally allowed to be here. He did not learn about his deportation order until one morning this past September when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrived at his home and took him into custody. All too often, youngsters like Steve are put in the position of being returned to a country they do not know. These young people did not make the choice to come to the United States but were brought to this country by their parents. Many of these young people grew up in America and have little or no memory of the countries they came from. They are hard working young people dedicated to their education. They have stayed out of trouble. Some are valedictorians and honor roll students. Many are community leaders and have an unwavering commitment to serving the United States. I hoped that the Senate would pass the DREAM Act last year to provide qualified young people the opportunity to contribute to this country and their communities. Unfortunately, the bill fell short of the 60 votes it needed to move forward. I hope the Senate will one day pass the DREAM Act. The legislation I am introducing today will provide one of these youngsters the opportunity give back to the country he calls home. Steve attended George Washington High School in San Francisco, California. While there, he was enrolled in the Honor's Program and became very involved in his high school community. Steve was an athlete on the cross country and track team. He worked for the school newspaper as a reporter, editor, and cameraman. Demonstrating his desire to educate his community on health issues, Steve also provided presentations to other students through his high school's wellness program on the risks of drinking and driving and sexually transmitted diseases. Steve graduated high school in 2008 and enrolled at City College of San Francisco to pursue a career in nursing. City College of San Francisco awarded Steve the Goldman Scholarship to cover the cost of his tuition. Steve has continued his active involvement in his community, joining the Asian American Student Success Center, as well as the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Program, which is a 2-year outreach and educational support program. Steve continued his commitment to academic achievement when he attended the San Francisco State University Summer Science Institute, which provided a year-long internship to prepare him for a career in health care upon his graduation from college. Educators working with Steve highlight his potential for giving back to the United States, while Steve's friends and other community members have contacted me about the impact his compassion and helpfulness has had on the community. Steve's teachers call him a ``great student,'' ``hard working,'' ``an exceptional student,'' and ``goal directed.'' This private bill is an opportunity for Steve to finish his education and remain in the country he considers his only home. If he were forced to relocate to Peru, his education would be cut short, and Steve would be sent to a place where he knows no one. I believe that, by staying in California, Steve will only continue to serve his community and serve this country as a health care professional. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

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 family in Camarillo, California. Joseph and Sharon are nationals of Egypt who fled their home country over twelve years ago after being targeted for their religious involvement in the Christian Coptic Church in Egypt. They became involved with this church during the 1990s, Joseph as an accountant and project coordinator helping to build community facilities and Sharon as the church's training director in human resources. Unfortunately, Joseph and Sharon were also subjected to threats and abuse. Joseph was jailed repeatedly because of his involvement with the church. Sharon's family members were violently targeted, including her cousin who was murdered and her brother whose business was firebombed. When Sharon became pregnant with her first child, she was threatened by a member of a different religious organization against raising her child in a non-Muslim faith. Joseph and Sharon came to the United States legally seeking refuge in November 1998. They immediately notified authorities of their intent to seek protection in the United States, filing for political asylum in May 1999. However, Joseph, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating why he was afraid to return to Egypt, and one year later their asylum application was denied because they could not adequately establish that they were victims of persecution. Joseph and Sharon pursued the appropriate means for appealing this decision, to no avail. It should be noted that sometime later Sharon's brother applied for asylum in the United States. He, too, applied on the basis of persecution he and his family faced in Egypt, but his application was approved and he was granted this status in the United States. There are no other avenues for Joseph and Sharon to pursue relief here in the United States. If they are deported, they will be forced back to a country where they sincerely fear for their safety. Since arriving in the United States more than twelve years ago, Joseph and Sharon have built a family here, including four children who are United States citizens: Jessica, age 12, Rebecca, age 11, Rafael, age 10, and Veronica, age 6. Jessica, Rebecca, and Rafael attend school in California and maintain good grades. Veronica is attending kindergarten at Camarillo Heights Elementary School. Joseph and Sharon worked hard to achieve financial security for their children, and they created a meaningful place for their family in California. Both earned college degrees in Egypt. Joseph, who has his Certified Public Accountant license, has been working in the accounting department for a technology company in California. Joseph also volunteers for his son's Boy Scout Troop, and has expressed interest in pursuing opportunities as an Arabic language expert here in the United States. Joseph and Sharon carry strong support from friends, co-workers, members of their local church, and other Californians who attest to their good character and community contributions. I am concerned that the entire family would face serious and unwarranted hardships if forced to relocate to Egypt. For Jessica, Rebecca, Rafael, and Veronica, the only home they know is in the United States. It is quite possible these four American children would face discrimination or worse in Egypt on account of their religion, as was the experience of many of their family members. Joseph and Sharon have made a compelling plea to remain in the United States. These parents emphasize their commitment to supporting their children and making a healthy and productive place for them to grow up in California. I believe this family deserves that opportunity. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 currently faces charges on numerous counts of professional incompetence and moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases. The California State Bar accused him of a ``despicable and far-reaching pattern of misconduct.'' The Bar sought to disbar the attorney before he resigned with pending charges. Claudia deserved a fair chance at resolving her immigration status, but her attorney's egregious behavior stripped her of this opportunity. Claudia, nonetheless, finished school despite these adverse circumstances. She secured a job in Redwood City, California, and she currently lives with her younger sister, Maribel, in Menlo Park, where they care for their grandfather. Claudia also provides financial support to her two brothers, Jose and Omar, whenever necessary. She is still active in the local community, attending San Clemente Catholic Church in Hayward. It would be an injustice to add to the Marquez family's misfortune by tearing these siblings apart. Claudia and her siblings have come to rely on each other in the absence of their deceased parents, and Claudia is clearly a central support of this family. Moreover, Claudia has never visited Mexico and has no close relatives in the country. She was so young when her parents brought her to the United States that she has no memories of Mexico. I am reintroducing a private relief bill on Claudia's behalf because I believe her removal from the United States would go against our standard of fairness and would only cause additional hardship on a family that already endured so much. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief legislation on behalf of Claudia Marquez Rico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals who live in the San Bruno area of California. I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their five children, all United States citizens, would face extreme hardship. Their children would either face separation from their parents or be forced to leave the only country they know and give up on their education in the United States. The Plascencias have been in the United States for over 20 years. They worked for years to adjust their status through appropriate legal channels, but poor legal representation ruined their opportunities. The Plascencias' lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor representation they received, Alfredo and Maria only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the United States fifteen days prior to their scheduled deportation. The Plascencias were shocked to learn of their attorney's malfeasance, but they acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and to file the appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any other legal action could be taken. Since arriving in the United States in 1988, Alfredo and Maria have proven themselves a civic-minded couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to family, and devotion to community. For over 15 years, Alfredo has been gainfully employed at Vince's Shellfish, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now oversees the market's entire packing operation and several employees. The president of the market, in one of the several dozen letters I received in support of Alfredo, referred to him as ``a valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who have written to me praising Alfredo's job performance refer to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest'' and ``reliable.'' Maria has distinguished herself as a medical assistant at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. Not satisfied with working as a maid at a local hotel, she went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree, and improved her skills to become a medical assistant. She is now in a program to become a Licensed Vocational Nurse. She plans to graduate next year and start a nursing program with Kaiser to become a registered nurse. Several Californians who wrote to me in support of Maria describe her as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.'' Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine wrote to say that Maria is ``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.'' Together, Alfredo and Maria have used their professional successes to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They saved up and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health care benefits, and they each have begun saving for retirement. They are sending their daughter, Christina, age 19, to college and plan to send the rest of their children to college as well. Allowing the Plascencias to remain in the United States would preserve their achievements and ensure that they will be able to make substantive contributions to the community in the future. In addition, this bill will have a positive impact on the couple's United States citizen children, who are dedicated to pursuing their educations and becoming productive members of their community. Christina is the Plascencias' oldest child. She is 20 years old, working and taking classes at Skyline Community College and the College of San Mateo. She would like to be a paralegal. Erika, age 16, attends Peninsula High School in San Bruno and was recently named Student of the Month. Erika's teachers praise her abilities and have referred to her as a ``bright spot'' in the classroom. Alfredo and Maria also have three young children: Alfredo, Jr., age 14, Daisy, age 9, and Juan-Pablo, age 5. Removing Alfredo and Maria from the United States would be tragic for their children. The Plascencia children were born in America and through no fault of their own have been thrust into a situation that has the potential to dramatically alter their lives. It would be especially tragic if Erika, Alfredo, and Daisy have to leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends, and their home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them. The Plascencia family would then be in Mexico without a means for supporting themselves and with no place to live. The children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language, and way of life. The only other option would be for Alfredo and Maria to leave their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which no parents should have to make. I am reintroducing this legislation because I believe that the Plascencias will continue to make positive contributions to their community in California and this country. The Plascencia children should be given the opportunity to realize their full potential in the United States, with their family intact. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman, very much, for his consideration.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his hard work in putting together this managers' amendment and building consensus for this bill. Part of the managers' amendment strikes most of section 4 of the bill, relating to damages. As the chairman knows, I worked very hard on the ``gatekeeper'' damages language in this section of the bill. That language represented a compromise between high-technology companies, many located in my State of California, which believed that the law relating to patent damages needed reform, and other interests, including universities, biotech, pharmaceutical companies, and small inventors, who were greatly concerned that the preferred solution of the high-technology companies, namely apportionment of damages, would be destructive to the value of patents. However, since then, the courts have further developed the law relating to damages, so I understand that the chairman proposes to now strike the gatekeeper damages language from the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, many businesses in my State agree. I also believe that if the bill remains silent on damages, as the managers' amendment would do, that no harm will be done to the value of patents, which is so important for encouraging innovation. Is it the chairman's intention, in future discussions with the House of Representatives, to continue to have the bill remain silent on damages?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution honoring the Defense Intelligence Agency on the occasion of its 50th anniversary this year. I am joined by Senators Chambliss, Warner, Mikulski, Rubio, Burr, Snowe, Bill Nelson, Rockefeller, Blunt, Risch, Levin, McCain, and Shelby on this resolution and I would like to thank them for their support. Created in 1961, the Defense Intelligence Agency, known as ``DIA,'' provides intelligence on important national security questions such as foreign military intentions and capabilities. The agency supports military commanders and policymakers throughout the U.S. Government. In fact, as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I regularly review DIA intelligence products. The DIA produces a daily set of classified intelligence products, called the Defense Intelligence Digest, which is provided to our Committee each morning. The agency also produces longer reports on foreign military capabilities, strategic reviews, and other issues of interest to defense and other policymakers. But producing finished intelligence analysis is only one of DIA's missions. Employing a diverse workforce of military and civilian intelligence professionals, DIA conducts all-source analysis, intelligence collection, and information technology infrastructure support worldwide. DIA's responsibilities inside the Department of Defense and across the Intelligence Community have grown significantly over the years. The agency today is responsible for the Defense Attache System, the Defense Counterintelligence and HUMINT Center, the National Defense Intelligence College, the National Media Exploitation Center, the National Center for Credibility Assessment and four specialized centers: the Underground Facility Analysis Center, the National Center for Medical Intelligence, the Joint Intelligence Task Force-Combating Terrorism and the Missile and Space Intelligence Center. DIA also oversees intelligence analysis throughout the Department of Defense, including analytic work performed at the Army National Ground Intelligence Center, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the Air Force National Air and the Space Intelligence Center, the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, and ten U.S. combatant command intelligence operations centers. Over the last 50 years, the intelligence collected and analyzed by the men and women of DIA has informed the Nation's civilian and military leaders during crises and conflicts--from the Cold War to the current struggle against international terrorism. DIA has played a vital role in collecting, analyzing, and producing intelligence required to defend the Nation while also supporting U.S. military operations worldwide. During the past 5 decades, DIA has transformed in response to evolving national security threats. From the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam conflict, to the first Gulf War, DIA's efforts have focused on understanding and, if necessary, defeating state-sponsored militaries while also providing strategic warning and preventing strategic surprise. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington almost ten years ago, DIA has responded to the asymmetric threat posed by transnational terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda by pushing more analytic and collection capabilities forward in direct support of our military forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Today the agency is more forward deployed with soldiers on the battlefield than at any time in its history. As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I receive frequent briefings from DIA personnel. Their depth of knowledge and expertise on foreign military intentions and capabilities has been impressive. I've met twice within the past few weeks with the current DIA Director, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess. He, like his predecessors, presents the facts like he sees them and manages to serve the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense with skill and integrity. I am keenly aware of the many sacrifices our intelligence professionals make to help defend our Nation and I am pleased that this resolution pays tribute to the DIA workforce and the DIA employees who have given their lives, or have been wounded or injured, in the line of service. Because of the nature of intelligence and the need for secrecy, we in Congress often are understandably reluctant to draw unnecessary attention to our intelligence services and the vital and sometimes dangerous work they do to protect our Nation. However, at this important 50th anniversary, it is appropriate to reflect on DIA's history of important contributions while also honoring its professionals, past and present. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the men and women of DIA as they celebrate their legacy and forge their future.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Ms. Stephanie O'Sullivan to be the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence or PDDNI. The Senate Intelligence Committee has carefully considered her nomination and stands strongly in favor of her nomination. As is the case with many deputies to principals, the Principal Deputy DNI is an extremely important position that has two main responsibilities: To assist the DNI, and to act on behalf of the DNI in his absence or due to a vacancy in the position. In broader terms, the role of the Principal Deputy DNI is a key one to the functioning of the Office of the DNI and in the effective and efficient operation of the Intelligence Community. If confirmed, Ms. O'Sullivan will be the fourth Principal Deputy DNI since Congress created the position in 2004. Like the past Directors of National Intelligence before him, DNI Clapper has made clear the need to have this position filled. The tasks of managing the Intelligence Community, running the Office of the DNI, and serving as the primary intelligence advisor to the President is more than any one official can fulfill. It is, at minimum, two full time jobs--hence the need to confirm a deputy. Furthermore, it is a significant and welcome development that Director Clapper recommended and that the President nominated Ms. O'Sullivan to serve in this role. As the current Associate Deputy Director of the CIA and long-serving CIA official, Ms. O'Sullivan's confirmation to the Principal Deputy DNI position should help end the disputes between the Office of the DNI and the CIA that we have seen in the past. Ms. O'Sullivan was nominated to be the Principal Deputy DNI on January 5, 2011. Ms. O'Sullivan completed the committee's standard questionnaire and responded to a large number of pre-hearing questions. She appeared before the committee on February 3 and answered all questions put to her. On February 15, 2011, the Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to recommend Ms. O'Sullivan's confirmation to the Senate. It is clear from her background that Ms. O'Sullivan has the experience necessary to be an effective Principal Deputy DNI. She has been the Associate Deputy Director of the CIA since December 2009. Prior to that position, Ms. O'Sullivan headed CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology for 4 years. In that role, she managed CIA's technological innovation and support to case officer operations. In all, Ms. O'Sullivan spent over 14 years combined in the Directorate of Science and Technology. Before the CIA, she worked in the Office of Naval Intelligence, and at TRW, which is now part of Northrop Grumman. Her current role in the CIA is akin to that of chief operating officer--similar to her position if confirmed to be Principal Deputy DNI. She has acquitted herself well in her current capacity and I am confident she will do so in the position to which she has been nominated. In sum, Ms. O'Sullivan will be a great asset to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the intelligence community as a whole because of her experience in the community and the management skills she developed in her leadership roles at the CIA.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXVI requires that not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress, the rules of each committee shall be published in the Record. In compliance with this provision, I ask that the rules of the Select Committee on Intelligence be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Hutchison to introduce legislation to reauthorize the extraordinarily successful Breast Cancer Research Stamp for 4 additional years. Without Congressional action, this important stamp will expire on December 31 of this year. This stamp deserves to be extended as it has proven to be highly effective. Since 1998, over 907 million breast cancer research stamps have been sold--raising over $72 million for breast cancer research. Furthermore, in October 2007, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report showing that the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has been a success and an effective fund-raiser in the effort to increase funds to fight the disease. The National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Department of Defense have received approximately $50.4 million and $21.6 million, respectively, putting these research dollars to good use by funding innovative advances in breast cancer research. For example, in 2006, NIH began funding the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment Program, TAILORx, with proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research Stamp. The trial is designed to determine which patients with early stage breast cancer would be more likely to benefit from chemotherapy and, therefore, reduce the use of chemotherapy in those patients who are unlikely to benefit. The goal of TAILORx is to determine the most effective current approach to cancer treatment, with the fewest side effects, for women with early-stage breast cancer by using a validated diagnostic test. Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more people are becoming cancer survivors rather than cancer victims. Every dollar we continue to raise will help save lives. One cannot calculate in dollars and cents how the stamp has focused public awareness on this terrible disease and the need for additional research funding. There is still so much more to do because this disease has far reaching effects on our Nation. Breast cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among women after skin cancer. More than 2.5 million women in the U.S. are living with breast cancer today. Over 200,000 women have been diagnosed with cancer in each of the past few years, and will be diagnosed in the coming year. Though male breast cancer is much less common, 1,970 men were diagnosed with breast cancer last year. This legislation would extend the authorization of the Breast Cancer Research stamp for 4 additional years--until December 31, 2015. It also will allow the stamp to continue to have a surcharge above the value of a first-class stamp with the surplus revenues going to breast cancer research. It will not affect any other semi-postal proposals under consideration by the U.S. Postal Service. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hutchison in passing this important legislation to extend the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for another 4 years. Until a cure is found, the money from the sale of this unique postal stamp will continue to focus public awareness on this devastating disease and provide hope to breast cancer survivors. 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 with Senator Hutchison to introduce legislation to reauthorize the extraordinarily successful Breast Cancer Research Stamp for 4 additional years. Without Congressional action, this important stamp will expire on December 31 of this year. This stamp deserves to be extended as it has proven to be highly effective. Since 1998, over 907 million breast cancer research stamps have been sold--raising over $72 million for breast cancer research. Furthermore, in October 2007, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report showing that the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has been a success and an effective fund-raiser in the effort to increase funds to fight the disease. The National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Department of Defense have received approximately $50.4 million and $21.6 million, respectively, putting these research dollars to good use by funding innovative advances in breast cancer research. For example, in 2006, NIH began funding the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment Program, TAILORx, with proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research Stamp. The trial is designed to determine which patients with early stage breast cancer would be more likely to benefit from chemotherapy and, therefore, reduce the use of chemotherapy in those patients who are unlikely to benefit. The goal of TAILORx is to determine the most effective current approach to cancer treatment, with the fewest side effects, for women with early-stage breast cancer by using a validated diagnostic test. Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more people are becoming cancer survivors rather than cancer victims. Every dollar we continue to raise will help save lives. One cannot calculate in dollars and cents how the stamp has focused public awareness on this terrible disease and the need for additional research funding. There is still so much more to do because this disease has far reaching effects on our Nation. Breast cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among women after skin cancer. More than 2.5 million women in the U.S. are living with breast cancer today. Over 200,000 women have been diagnosed with cancer in each of the past few years, and will be diagnosed in the coming year. Though male breast cancer is much less common, 1,970 men were diagnosed with breast cancer last year. This legislation would extend the authorization of the Breast Cancer Research stamp for 4 additional years--until December 31, 2015. It also will allow the stamp to continue to have a surcharge above the value of a first-class stamp with the surplus revenues going to breast cancer research. It will not affect any other semi-postal proposals under consideration by the U.S. Postal Service. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hutchison in passing this important legislation to extend the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for another 4 years. Until a cure is found, the money from the sale of this unique postal stamp will continue to focus public awareness on this devastating disease and provide hope to breast cancer survivors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor as the chair of the Intelligence Committee of the Senate and also as a member of the Judiciary Committee, so I have been part of the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Act discussions. Let me clear up one thing for the distinguished Senator from Kentucky: Nothing in what is before us today affects national security letter sections of the act. Let me repeat that because I have heard this presented on the floor, I have seen it in editorials in the newspapers, and nothing in what is on the floor today affects the NSL sections--of which there are several in various statutes--of the PATRIOT Act. There are three specific sections that are affected, and I will get to them in a moment. Let me begin by saying I support the Reid-McConnell amendment to H.R. 514. Let me point out that last Wednesday the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, testified before the House Homeland Security Committee, and here is what she said: In some ways, the threat today may be at its most heightened state since the attacks nearly 10 years ago. In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee last week, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, wrote that: . . . it is impossible to rank--in terms of long-term importance--the numerous, potential threats to the U.S. national security. The United States no longer faces--as in the Cold War--one dominant threat. Rather, it is the multiplicity and interconnectedness of potential threats--and the actors behind them--that constitute our biggest challenge. So it is clear the threat against the United States from terrorism, cyber attack, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and others is at a very high level. Intelligence is our best tool in keeping America secure. I see this intelligence day after day after day. The Intelligence Committee hears testimony week after week after week. I believe all members of the Intelligence Committee are behind the Reid-McConnell bill. So that is the framework in which these three expiring provisions come before us. Without them, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies would lack important tools to protect this Nation. These are tools that have been used to great advantage over the past several years. I cannot speak here of the specific uses of the expiring authorities for reasons of classification. The Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI, and the Director of the NSA described to Members last night how they have been used. Here is what they have told us: We have seen recent successful disruptions of terrorist plots directed against the United States. Our intelligence and law enforcement personnel were able to disrupt al Qaeda's Najibullah Zazi terrorist plot to attack the New York City subway system. These PATRIOT Act authorities, along with other critical intelligence tools, are essential to our ability to detect and disrupt such plots. Let me talk about the three provisions, starting with the business records section that is expiring. This authority allows the government to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court--a special court with judges appointed by the Chief Justice that deals only with these matters and meets 24/7. The provision allows the government to obtain business records if it gets a warrant from this court. The second expiring provision, so-called roving wiretap authority, provides the government with needed flexibility in conducting electronic surveillance. We all know there are now throwaway cell phones. We have found that terrorists have attempted to evade surveillance by using these throwaway cell phones and rapidly switching cell phones. This tool allows for surveillance on a particular target, not the telephone. Again, you need to have that authority given to you, much as you would in a criminal wiretap by a court, but in this case by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Again, the surveillance is for foreign intelligence. According to FBI Director Bob Mueller, this provision has been used more than 190 times since it was authorized in 2001. The third section--the final one--is the ``lone wolf'' authority that allows for court-ordered collection against non-U.S. persons who engage in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific international terrorist group has not yet been determined. This provision was enacted in light of the Zacarias Moussaoui case, in which the FBI suspected Moussaoui of engaging in terrorist activity and believed at the time it could not obtain a FISA order--in other words, a FISA warrant--for lack of definitive connection to a known foreign terrorist organization. I see Senator Kyl on the floor. He well knows this issue. So this is a specific addition that was put in because of the Moussaoui case to get at someone who is a ``lone wolf'' who has no known association with a terrorist operation. These tools have been authorized for several years and have been subject to strict scrutiny by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, the Department of Justice, and the Congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. Members have raised concerns that provisions authorized by the PATRIOT Act have been misused. The Judiciary and the Intelligence Committees have held numerous hearings on this topic. I believe past problems have been addressed, and we will continue to monitor the use of these provisions carefully. Members have also noted past problems with the use of national security letters, and that is what all the discussion so far that I have heard on the floor has been. As I have said, the national security sections are not at issue at this time. So it is, in a sense, a shibboleth to raise them here. It is business records, it is lone wolf, and it is roving wiretaps. Those are the three sections that expire on the 28th of February. So let me be clear: This legislation does not address national security letter authorities, as those provisions are not set to expire at the end of the month. By extending these three provisions until May 27, the Congress can appropriately study and I hope enact long-term reauthorizations that the intelligence community and law enforcement need to continue to keep us safe. Let me just say, I see--and cannot go into here--but day after day uses of these expiring authorities and have come to believe that being able to have good intelligence is what prevents an attack against a New York subway or air cargo plane. It is what keeps this homeland safe, and it is what allows us to get ahead of a terrorist attack. Without them--without them--we put our Nation in jeopardy. I, for one, took an oath of office to protect and defend, and I do not intend to be party to that. Everything I know indicates that there is jeopardy facing this Nation, and these intelligence provisions are necessary to protect our homeland. I urge acceptance of the Reid-McConnell legislation. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Deepwater Drilling Royalty Relief Prohibition Act. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to incentivize the dangerous and often dirty business of offshore drilling in deep waters. Over the past two decades, Congress has established a number of royalty-relief programs to encourage domestic exploration and production in deep waters. This may have made sense in times when oil prices were too low to provide energy companies with an incentive to drill in difficult places. It may have made sense before we were ready to deploy large scale renewable energy production. But it no longer makes sense today. The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe showed that safety and response technologies are not sufficient in deep waters. The President's National Oil Spill Commission pointed out that while offshore oil and gas will remain part of the nation's energy portfolio for years to come, we need to ``begin a transition to a cleaner, more energy- efficient future.'' I agree. I believe that taxpayer-funded incentives should go to clean, renewable energy, not deepwater oil drilling. It's time that we roll- back incentives for the riskiest, least environmentally friendly non- renewable energy production. The disastrous impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion illustrate the enormous environmental and safety risks of offshore drilling-- particularly in deep waters. 11 people died and 17 others were injured when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire. Oil and gas rushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days before the well was finally plugged. The scope of the disaster was tremendous. Oil slicks spread across the Gulf of Mexico, pelicans and other wildlife struggled to free themselves from crude oil, tar balls spoiled the pristine white sand beaches of Florida, wetlands were coated with toxic sludge, more than \1/3\ of Federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing, and oyster beds could take years to recover, the plumes of underwater oil may have created zones of toxicity or low oxygen for aquatic life, and the response techniques, such as the use of dispersants, may have their own toxic consequences to both wildlife and the spill response workers. The impacts of an oil spill are so dramatic and devastating, it seems clear to me that this is not an area in which we should be subsidizing development. Things have not improved much since the oil spill in 1969 off the California Coast near Santa Barbara. Like the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Santa Barbara spill was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated. It was successfully plugged with mud and cement after 11 and a half days, but oil and gas continued to seep for months. The Santa Barbara spill was devastating, but it was a tiny fraction of the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill. Technology 40 years ago was not good enough to prevent a disaster. We discovered last summer that today's technology is no better at preventing well-head blowouts. The Deepwater Horizon drill rig was less than 10 years old when it exploded. A similar accident that caused the 2009 spill in the Montara oil and gas field in the Timor Sea--one of the worst in Australia's history--was even newer, designed and built in 2007. That spill continued unchecked for 74 days. The failures that led to these catastrophes were human and technological. While measures are being put in place to remedy these deficiencies, the risks remain high and the potential damage immense. In deep waters, the risks are higher and the scope of the damage even greater. Drilling in deep waters is not the type of activity that tax-payer dollars should subsidize. Drilling in deep water presents even more challenges than drilling in shallow water or on shore. This was demonstrated during the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized cold ocean waters--and the likelihood of these crystals forming increases dramatically at a depth of about 400 meters. These crystals interfere with response and containment technologies. They formed in the cofferdam dome that was lowered onto the gushing oil in the Gulf, which failed to stop the oil in the early days of the spill. And when a remotely operated underwater vehicle bumped the valves in the ``top hat'' device, the containment cap had to be removed and slowly replaced to prevent formation of these crystals again. In order to drill at deeper depths, many technical difficulties must be overcome. The ocean currents on the surface and in the water column exert torque pressure on the pipes and cables, which are longer and heavier. The water temperature decreases closer to the sea floor, but the earth's core temperature increases the deeper the well--sometimes reaching temperatures in excess of 350 degrees Fahrenheit. The ocean pressure increases dramatically at depth, but the pressure in a well can exceed 10,000 pounds per square inch. Drills must be able to pass through tar and salts, and the well bores must remain intact. The volume of drilling mud and fluids is greater, the weight of the cables heavier, and many technical procedures can only be accomplished with the use of remotely operated vehicles thousands of feet below the surface. American taxpayers should not forego revenue in order to incentivize offshore drilling. It is not good environmental policy, and it's not good energy policy either. We need to move to cleaner renewable fuels. I believe that global warming is the biggest environmental crisis we face--and the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels like oil and coal. Taxpayer funded incentives should not finance production of fossil fuels--particularly in places where the production itself poses potential devastation. Instead, incentives should be used to develop and deploy clean energy technologies like wind and solar. I have worked with my colleagues on a number of legislative initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency and incentivize the use of renewable energy. One of our biggest victories was the enactment of the aggressive fuel economy law, called the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Bush in the 110th Congress. This law, which I authored with Senator Snowe, will improve fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles at the maximum feasible rate. The good news is that the Administration has taken the framework of this law and implemented aggressive standards that require raising fleetwide fuel economy to 35.5 mpg in 2016--a 40 percent increase above today's standard. The other positive development is that the domestic renewable energy industry has grown dramatically over the last few years. In 2009, the United States added more new capacity to produce renewable electricity than it did to produce electricity from natural gas, oil, and coal combined. A great deal of this growth can be attributed to government renewable energy incentives. That is where public investment in energy development should go. It is clear that the clean energy sector is the next frontier in jobs creation. We need to ensure that developers can access financing to launch wind, solar and geothermal projects, so that they can put people to work. Programs like Treasury Grant Program have been very successful in encouraging private investment in this sector. So far, the program has helped to bring more than 1,880 renewable energy projects online. The program, however, is set to expire at the end of this year if we don't act. I'm working on legislation that will extend and expand this successful program. All told, these types of measures are helping to foster the incentives that will push the United States to adopt a cleaner energy future, and to move away from fossil fuels. Let me make one final point very clear: I don't believe oil companies need taxpayer dollars to help them out. They are already reaping record profits. In 2009, the top 10 U.S. oil companies' combined revenues were almost $850 billion. And while all results are not yet in on 2010, it is clear that oil companies did even better last year. Exxon Mobil reported $30 billion in profit, up 57 percent from 2009. Shell reported $19 billion in profit, up 90 percent from 2009. Conoco Phillips raked in $11.4 billion in profit during 2010, a whopping 159 percent increase over its 2009 profits. Yet we continue to use taxpayer dollars to add to their bottom line. This is unacceptable. Oil reserves are a public resource. When a private company profits from those public resources, American taxpayers should also benefit. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that royalties owed to the taxpayers are not waived to incentivize risky off-shore drilling. In these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent wisely. 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 in support of the nomination of California Superior Court Judge Edward Davila to be a U.S. district judge in the Northern District of California. If confirmed, Judge Davila would bring a wealth of relevant experience to the district court. Since 2001, he has served as a superior court judge in Santa Clara County. He has presided over more than 10,000 cases--both civil and criminal--and has seen more than 50 cases from trial to final judgment. He is a seasoned lawyer who also has more than 20 years of litigation experience under his belt. For 13 years, Judge Davila tried criminal cases as a partner at his own law firm in San Jose. For 7 years before that, he worked as a deputy public defender for Santa Clara County. In total, during his two decades as a litigator, he tried more than 45 cases to verdict or judgment. Beyond his professional experience, Judge Davila has also been a devoted member of the Santa Clara community. He is a former president of the Santa Clara County Bar Association as well as the Santa Clara County La Raza Lawyers Association. He has taught trial advocacy at Stanford Law School, the University of San Francisco School of Law, and the University of Santa Clara School of Law. And he has made it a longstanding practice to teach local high school students about the criminal justice system through mock trials in his courtroom. Judge Davila's confirmation would also bring much needed diversity to a court with broad reach in California. There are currently 18 active and senior district judges in the Northern District of California, but not a single one is of Latino or Hispanic descent. Judge Davila's confirmation would correct this imbalance. I am pleased to support his nomination, and I strongly urge my colleagues to confirm him. Finally, I want to say a word about the caseload in this district. Last week, the Judicial Conference of the United States sent a letter to the President and the leadership of the Senate calling attention to a handful of courts with severe caseload problems. The Northern District is one of these courts. Last year, the district's judges carried a caseload of nearly 600 weighted filings per judgeship--far above the recommended level. With two vacancies unfilled, that caseload rose to more than 700 weighted filings per active judge. These vacancies did not exist for lack of a nominee. The President nominated Judge Davila in May of last year. He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee without objection, but he is only now receiving a vote. Another very qualified nominee for this court, Magistrate Judge Edward Chen, was nominated in August of 2009. He has been reported out of the Judiciary Committee twice but still has not received a vote on the floor. Today's vote on Judge Davila's nomination is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support him, and I hope that we can continue to work together to ensure that our Federal courts have the judges they need to administer justice fairly and in a timely manner for the American people. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Deepwater Drilling Royalty Relief Prohibition Act. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to incentivize the dangerous and often dirty business of offshore drilling in deep waters. Over the past two decades, Congress has established a number of royalty-relief programs to encourage domestic exploration and production in deep waters. This may have made sense in times when oil prices were too low to provide energy companies with an incentive to drill in difficult places. It may have made sense before we were ready to deploy large scale renewable energy production. But it no longer makes sense today. The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe showed that safety and response technologies are not sufficient in deep waters. The President's National Oil Spill Commission pointed out that while offshore oil and gas will remain part of the nation's energy portfolio for years to come, we need to ``begin a transition to a cleaner, more energy- efficient future.'' I agree. I believe that taxpayer-funded incentives should go to clean, renewable energy, not deepwater oil drilling. It's time that we roll- back incentives for the riskiest, least environmentally friendly non- renewable energy production. The disastrous impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion illustrate the enormous environmental and safety risks of offshore drilling-- particularly in deep waters. 11 people died and 17 others were injured when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire. Oil and gas rushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days before the well was finally plugged. The scope of the disaster was tremendous. Oil slicks spread across the Gulf of Mexico, pelicans and other wildlife struggled to free themselves from crude oil, tar balls spoiled the pristine white sand beaches of Florida, wetlands were coated with toxic sludge, more than \1/3\ of Federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing, and oyster beds could take years to recover, the plumes of underwater oil may have created zones of toxicity or low oxygen for aquatic life, and the response techniques, such as the use of dispersants, may have their own toxic consequences to both wildlife and the spill response workers. The impacts of an oil spill are so dramatic and devastating, it seems clear to me that this is not an area in which we should be subsidizing development. Things have not improved much since the oil spill in 1969 off the California Coast near Santa Barbara. Like the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Santa Barbara spill was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated. It was successfully plugged with mud and cement after 11 and a half days, but oil and gas continued to seep for months. The Santa Barbara spill was devastating, but it was a tiny fraction of the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill. Technology 40 years ago was not good enough to prevent a disaster. We discovered last summer that today's technology is no better at preventing well-head blowouts. The Deepwater Horizon drill rig was less than 10 years old when it exploded. A similar accident that caused the 2009 spill in the Montara oil and gas field in the Timor Sea--one of the worst in Australia's history--was even newer, designed and built in 2007. That spill continued unchecked for 74 days. The failures that led to these catastrophes were human and technological. While measures are being put in place to remedy these deficiencies, the risks remain high and the potential damage immense. In deep waters, the risks are higher and the scope of the damage even greater. Drilling in deep waters is not the type of activity that tax-payer dollars should subsidize. Drilling in deep water presents even more challenges than drilling in shallow water or on shore. This was demonstrated during the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized cold ocean waters--and the likelihood of these crystals forming increases dramatically at a depth of about 400 meters. These crystals interfere with response and containment technologies. They formed in the cofferdam dome that was lowered onto the gushing oil in the Gulf, which failed to stop the oil in the early days of the spill. And when a remotely operated underwater vehicle bumped the valves in the ``top hat'' device, the containment cap had to be removed and slowly replaced to prevent formation of these crystals again. In order to drill at deeper depths, many technical difficulties must be overcome. The ocean currents on the surface and in the water column exert torque pressure on the pipes and cables, which are longer and heavier. The water temperature decreases closer to the sea floor, but the earth's core temperature increases the deeper the well--sometimes reaching temperatures in excess of 350 degrees Fahrenheit. The ocean pressure increases dramatically at depth, but the pressure in a well can exceed 10,000 pounds per square inch. Drills must be able to pass through tar and salts, and the well bores must remain intact. The volume of drilling mud and fluids is greater, the weight of the cables heavier, and many technical procedures can only be accomplished with the use of remotely operated vehicles thousands of feet below the surface. American taxpayers should not forego revenue in order to incentivize offshore drilling. It is not good environmental policy, and it's not good energy policy either. We need to move to cleaner renewable fuels. I believe that global warming is the biggest environmental crisis we face--and the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels like oil and coal. Taxpayer funded incentives should not finance production of fossil fuels--particularly in places where the production itself poses potential devastation. Instead, incentives should be used to develop and deploy clean energy technologies like wind and solar. I have worked with my colleagues on a number of legislative initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency and incentivize the use of renewable energy. One of our biggest victories was the enactment of the aggressive fuel economy law, called the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Bush in the 110th Congress. This law, which I authored with Senator Snowe, will improve fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles at the maximum feasible rate. The good news is that the Administration has taken the framework of this law and implemented aggressive standards that require raising fleetwide fuel economy to 35.5 mpg in 2016--a 40 percent increase above today's standard. The other positive development is that the domestic renewable energy industry has grown dramatically over the last few years. In 2009, the United States added more new capacity to produce renewable electricity than it did to produce electricity from natural gas, oil, and coal combined. A great deal of this growth can be attributed to government renewable energy incentives. That is where public investment in energy development should go. It is clear that the clean energy sector is the next frontier in jobs creation. We need to ensure that developers can access financing to launch wind, solar and geothermal projects, so that they can put people to work. Programs like Treasury Grant Program have been very successful in encouraging private investment in this sector. So far, the program has helped to bring more than 1,880 renewable energy projects online. The program, however, is set to expire at the end of this year if we don't act. I'm working on legislation that will extend and expand this successful program. All told, these types of measures are helping to foster the incentives that will push the United States to adopt a cleaner energy future, and to move away from fossil fuels. Let me make one final point very clear: I don't believe oil companies need taxpayer dollars to help them out. They are already reaping record profits. In 2009, the top 10 U.S. oil companies' combined revenues were almost $850 billion. And while all results are not yet in on 2010, it is clear that oil companies did even better last year. Exxon Mobil reported $30 billion in profit, up 57 percent from 2009. Shell reported $19 billion in profit, up 90 percent from 2009. Conoco Phillips raked in $11.4 billion in profit during 2010, a whopping 159 percent increase over its 2009 profits. Yet we continue to use taxpayer dollars to add to their bottom line. This is unacceptable. Oil reserves are a public resource. When a private company profits from those public resources, American taxpayers should also benefit. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that royalties owed to the taxpayers are not waived to incentivize risky off-shore drilling. In these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent wisely. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, as a native Californian, I come to the floor now to honor the 100th birthday of President Ronald Reagan. Former First Lady Nancy Reagan asked that I serve on the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission and I was very honored to accept. Today, I join Senator Jim Webb, also a member, and Orrin Hatch, to continue President Reagan's spirit of bipartisanship. We have invited Senators on both sides of the aisle to join us here on the floor. From Simi Valley, in his beloved California, to our Nation's capital, Americans this month are honoring President Ronald Reagan. These centennial events are intended to reach all Americans, including many born after President Reagan left office. Those who remember Ronald Reagan as Governor or as President know how he impacted history. But there are some who may not realize that the society we live in today is, in part, due to the policies of President Reagan. Young adults today grow up without the fear of nuclear war in the back of their mind, and students of tomorrow will work to achieve President Reagan's dream of a world without nuclear weapons. It can be said that every great President can be remembered in just one sentence. Some examples: ``He freed the slaves;'' ``He made the Louisiana Purchase.'' Yet, 22 years after he left office and 7 years after his death, the name Ronald Wilson Reagan can still provoke a complex debate. There is no one phrase that can describe his legacy. Some come to mind: ``The great communicator.'' Or: ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' That is the one that does it for me. There is much debate over President Reagan because we all think of him differently, and over time, history sweetens our memories. But no matter what policy disagreements one may have had with him, one has to admire his style of politics. He was a conservative Republican, but he understood that in order to get anything done, he had to work across the aisle, which he did. In his 1983 State of the Union Address, President Reagan said: Let us, in these next 2 years--men and women of both parties, every political shade--concentrate on the long- range, bipartisan responsibilities of government, not the short-range or short-term temptations of partisan politics. Also, Ronald Reagan had commonsense conviction that helped his achievements. He was a true gentleman in American politics. You would not have seen him giving a speech--like some do today--calling his opponents names or giving out generalized insults. Dignity and wit were his weapons of choice. Also, President Reagan served during times of divided government, when one party had the White House and the other controlled at least one Chamber of Congress, giving each side some governing responsibility to find solutions. It was a time when a financial and fiscal crisis brought the two parties together to compromise on tough choices about taxes and spending. In 1983, President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill came together to compromise on Social Security, based on proposals from a commission led by Alan Greenspan. President Reagan is credited with creating the conditions that led to the end of the Cold War, reviving the economy, and returning a sense of optimism to our country. One of the things I most admired was his work to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world and his dream of a world one day free of these awful weapons. President Reagan expressed this vision during his second inaugural address on January 21, 1985. He declared: We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth. It was a remarkable statement from a President who had deployed tactical nuclear missiles in Europe to counter the Soviet Union's fearsome SS-20 missile fleet. But President Reagan understood the grave threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity, and he boldly set himself to achieve their eventual elimination. My good friend, George Shultz, who was Secretary of State under President Reagan, remembers that many at that time thought the President's initial negotiations to reduce strategic arms were not serious--even quite ridiculous. A classified report released recently showed that President Reagan asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the cost of an all-out Soviet attack and plans for retaliation. He asked Secretary Shultz: What's so good about keeping the peace after wiping each other out? Mr. Shultz believes if he were around today, President Reagan would have been in favor of the New START treaty. At the famous Reykjavik Summit with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in October 1980, President Reagan went far beyond Gorbachev's proposal to slash strategic arms by 50 percent. He truly believed we should go to zero. The Reykjavik talks may not have worked out, but the idea that we should create a world free of nuclear weapons endures to this day. Secretary Shultz thinks President Reagan would want to be remembered for his complete faith in freedom and his conviction that you had to be strong to defend that freedom. And that is certainly true. Ronald Reagan came into office with character and charisma, traits that take other elected officials years to develop. It was that charisma that impressed California's Republicans and led to his nomination as Governor of my great State. Ronald Reagan was elected Governor of California in 1966 by nearly a 1 million-vote margin. He was elected to a second term in 1970. He did not seem to mind that people underappreciated him at the time. Decades later, as volumes of his handwritten essays were released to the public, Americans saw just what a thoughtful and visionary man he was. If we remember Ronald Reagan with one sentence, let's remember him as one who took big ideas, a crafting of words, and a conviction of freedom to change the entire world. On the 100th anniversary of the birth of ``The Great Communicator,'' I hope we can embody his spirit of bipartisanship to keep our country strong and united today. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on January 25, I introduced S. 149, the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 to extend the three expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--the authority to conduct, subject to court order, so-called ``roving wiretaps,'' ``lone wolf'' surveillance, and collection of business records. S. 149 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Today, I am reintroducing that legislation with a new, identical bill. This new bill, just as S. 149 would do, will extend these three authorities, otherwise set to expire on February 28, to December 31, 2013. The bill will also change the expiration date of the intelligence collection authorities provided in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 so they, too, last until the end of 2013. The sole purpose of reintroducing the measure is to begin the process under Senate rule XIV to place the reintroduced extension bill on the Senate calendar. The three provisions of FISA will sunset in a little more than 3 weeks. One of those weeks is a congressional recess. By placing the extension bill on the Senate calendar, we will, at least, be one procedural step closer to acting. On January 28, Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote to urge Congress to grant a reauthorization of sufficient duration to provide intelligence and law enforcement agencies with reasonable certainty and predictability concerning the tools available to them. The FISA sunsets have most recently been the subject of two short- term extensions: a 2-month extension from December 31, 2009 to February 28, 2010, and then a 1-year extension from that date to February 28, 2011. In their January 28 letter, the DNI and the Attorney General expressed their concern about the devolution of FISA sunsets ``into a series of short-term extensions that increase the uncertainties borne by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies in carrying out their missions.'' The letter states that ``S. 149, the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, would avoid these difficulties by reauthorizing the three expiring provisions until December 2013, together with the provisions of Title VII of FISA that are currently scheduled to sunset next year. We look forward to working with you to ensure the prompt enactment of this or similar legislation.'' Yesterday, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees also received a classified report from the Attorney General and the DNI on the important intelligence collection made possible by authority that is subject to the approaching sunset. The Department of Justice and the Office of the DNI have asked for our assistance in making this classified report available, in a secure setting, directly and personally to any Member of the Senate. We did so for a similar report a year ago when Congress considered the last sunset extension. Each Senator is invited to read this classified report in the Intelligence Committee's offices in 211 Hart Senate Office Building. The Attorney General and DNI have offered to make Justice Department and intelligence community personnel available to meet with any Member who has questions. Our Intelligence Committee staff is also prepared to meet with Members. Vice Chairman Chambliss and I are sending a Dear Colleague letter to each Senator conveying this invitation. In concluding, I call upon my colleagues in the Senate and House to heed the Attorney General's and DNI's concern about the uncertainty created by short-term extensions. The 3-year extension that my legislation proposes will give our law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools and certainty they need in protecting the Nation. It will align the several sunsets so that Congress can review FISA more comprehensively in 2013. In setting that date Congress will wisely be separating that review of FISA from the debates of a presidential election. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.