Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act. This bill would help American consumers by requiring banks to notify credit card holders of the true cost if they choose to make the minimum payment each month. Americans today own more credit cards than ever before. The average American has approximately four credit cards. In 2007, 1 in 7 Americans held more than 10 cards. Unsurprisingly, this increase in credit card ownership has resulted in a dramatic increase in credit card debt. Over the past 2 decades, Americans' combined credit card debt has nearly tripled--from $238 billion in 1989 to a staggering $971 billion in 2008. Today, the average American household has approximately $10,678 in credit card debt, up 29 percent from 2000. Among credit card users, 55 percent carry a balance on their credit card, a 2 percent increase from last year. Approximately 1 in 6 families with credit cards pays only the minimum due every month. Young Americans are using credit cards to finance everything from daily expenses to college tuition. Forty-one percent of college students have a credit card, and, of those, only 65 percent pay their bills in full every month. Over the past year, as economic conditions have worsened, it has become even harder for families to pay off their debt. Whether it is a mortgage, or tuition, or medical expenses, people are finding it harder than ever to meet all of their expenses. In July of this year, 28 percent of people surveyed reported that their ability to pay off their credit card balances has become more strained. This increasing debt is contributing to more and more Americans filing for bankruptcy. Ever since the Bankruptcy Reform Act was enacted in 2005, non- business bankruptcies have been increasing at a rapid pace. The numbers this year already show a staggering hike. Between September 2007 and September 2008, Americans filed over one million non-business bankruptcies, up 30 percent from the previous year. Many of these personal bankruptcies are people who are turning to credit cards to finance their expenses. Today's filers have even more credit card debt than usual--sometimes because they have been struggling to pay a mortgage and have started using credit cards for daily expenses. One family, the Forsyths, found themselves in financial trouble after moving to a new State for a better job opportunity. Unable to sell their old house, they rented. But when the renter stopped making payments, the family became overwhelmed with two mortgage payments. Credit cards helped at first--providing payment for food, utilities, and clothes--but the family quickly accumulated $20,000 in debt and was left with no alternative other than bankruptcy. The benefits offered by credit cards are attractive, but these cards also pose enormous financial risk. Dianne McLeod discovered this in a painful way after back-to-back medical emergencies depleted her finances. Although credit cards initially enabled her to maintain her lifestyle, before long these cards and two mortgages meant that she later found that she was spending more than 40 percent of her monthly income on interest payments, in addition to thousands of dollars annually in fees. Today, credit cardholders receive no information on the impact of carrying a balance with compounding interest. As a result, too often individuals make only the minimum payment. After a few years, they find that the interest on the debt is almost twice the amount of their original purchases--and they do not know what to do about it. I first introduced the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act during the debate on the 2005 bankruptcy bill. As I said then, I believe the bill failed to balance responsibility and fairness. Consumers should not be so harshly penalized when they do not have the basic tools and information they need to make informed choices. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act would help prevent this problem by requiring credit card companies to add two items to each consumer's monthly credit card statement: A general notice that would read ``Making only the minimum payment will increase the interest you pay and the time it takes to repay your balance.'' An individualized notice to credit card holders that specifies clearly on their bill how much time it will take to repay their debt and the total amount they will pay if they only make the minimum payments. For consumers with variable rate cards, the bill would also require companies to provide a toll-free number where cardholders can access credit-counseling services. The disclosure requirements in the bill would only apply if the consumer has a minimum payment that is less than 10 percent of the debt on the credit card. Otherwise, none of these disclosures would be required on their statement. Last year, a Gallup--Experian poll found that about 11 percent of credit cardholders consistently make only the minimum payment on their cards each month. Consider what this could mean for the average household. For example, the U.S. average credit card debt is $10,678. The average fixed credit card interest rate is approximately 12 percent. If the 2 percent minimum payment is all that is paid on its debt each month, it would take more than 31 years to pay off the bill and the total cost would be $21,052.66--and that's just the minimum assuming that the family didn't ever charge another dime on that bill. In other words, the family would need to pay $10,374.66 in interest just to repay $10,678 in original debt. For individuals or families with more than average debt, the pitfalls are even greater. $20,000 of credit card debt at the average 12 percent interest rate will take over 36 years and more than $28,261 to pay off if only the minimum payments are made. Twelve percent is relatively low, average interest rate. Interest rates around 20 percent are not uncommon on credit cards, and penalty interest rates can reach as high as 32 percent. A family that has the average debt with a 20 percent interest rate and makes the minimum payments will need a lifetime--over 85 years--and $62,158 to pay off the initial $10,678 bill. That's $51,480 just in interest--an amount that approaches 5 times the original debt. Credit cards are an important part of everyday life, and they help the economy operate more smoothly by giving consumers and merchants a reliable, convenient way to exchange funds. But the bottom line is that for many consumers, the two percent minimum payment is a financial trap. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act is designed to ensure that people are not caught in this trap through lack of information. Last month, the Federal Reserve Board approved new rules that will improve disclosures, but the rules do not go far enough. Under the rules, starting July 1, 2010, credit card companies will have to warn consumers about the effect of making minimum payments on the length of time it will take to pay off their balances. But the warnings may be only examples and will not show the effect on the amount that consumers pay over time. Before approving the final rules, the Federal Reserve Board interviewed consumers who typically carried credit card balances. Those consumers found disclosures most helpful when they provided specific information and included warnings about the amount that would have to be paid over time. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act would provide the straightforward disclosure that consumers find most helpful and most effective. This disclosure will ensure that consumers know exactly what it means for them to carry a balance and make minimum payments, so they can make informed decisions on credit card use and repayment. In addition, the burden on banks will be minimal. Calculations like these are purely formulaic. Credit card companies already complete similar calculations to determine credit risk and when they tell consumers what their required minimum payment is each month. The harsh effects of the 2005 bankruptcy bill are becoming apparent. During the debate over that bill, I had hoped that Congress would succeed in balancing the need to incentivize consumers to act responsibly with the promise of a fresh start for those who fell impossibly behind. I do not believe that that balance was reached. I continue to believe that consumers need a meaningful disclosure informing them of the effects of making minimum payments. Today, as Americans face increasing struggles with debt and expenses, the bill is needed more than ever. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, his wife, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and their son, Jorge Rojas Gonzalez. The Rojas family members are Mexican nationals living in the San Jose area of California. The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Mr. Rojas and his wife Ms. Gonzalez originally came to the United States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr. was just 2 years old. In 1995, they left the country to attend a funeral, and then re-entered on visitors' visas. The family has since expanded to include a son, Alexis Rojas, now age 16, and a daughter Tania Rojas, now age 14. Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated themselves to community involvement, a strong work ethic and volunteerism. They have been paying taxes since their arrival in 1990. The family has been described by their friends and colleagues as a ``model American family.'' I would like to tell you some more about each member of the Rojas family. Mr. Rojas is a hard-working individual who has been employed by Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance in San Jose, California, for the past 14 years. Currently, Mr. Rojas works on commercial landscaping projects. He is well-respected by his supervisor and his peers. In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time and talents to provide modern green landscaping and a recreational jungle gym to Sherman Oaks Community Charter School, where his two youngest children attend school. Ms. Gonzalez, in addition to raising her three children, has been very active in the local community. She has worked to help other immigrants assimilate to American life by working as a translator and a tutor for immigrant children at Sherman Oaks Community Charter School and the Y.M.C.A. Kids after-school program. She has also coached soccer teams, and has recently directed a Thanksgiving food drive. Ms. Gonzalez also devotes many hours of her time to the organization People Acting in Community Together, PACT, where she works to prevent crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and schools. Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have on their three children. Two of the children, Alexis and Tania, are U.S. citizens. Jorge Rojas, Jr. has lived in the United States since he was a toddler. For these children, this country is the only country they really know. Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his parents, is now 20 and is currently working at Jamba Juice. He graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007 and is currently taking classes at San Jose City College. Alexis and Tania are students at Sherman Oaks Community Charter School. They are described by their teachers as ``fantastic, wonderful, and gifted'' students. In fact, the principal at Sherman Oaks has described all three of the children as ``honest, hard-working academic honor students'' and have commended all of them for their on-campus leadership. It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream, and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. I have received 30 letters from the community in support of this family. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Rojas family to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, his wife, Asmik Karapetian and their son, Arthur Mkoyan. The Mkoian family are Armenian nationals who have been living and working in Fresno, California, for over a decade. The story of the Mkoian family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Let me first start with how the Mkoian family arrived in the United States. While in Armenia, Mr. Mkoian worked as a police sergeant in a division dealing with vehicle licensing. As a result of his position, he was offered a bribe to register 20 stolen vehicles. He refused the bribe and reported the incident to the police chief. He later learned that his co-worker had registered the vehicles at the request of the chief. After he reported the offense, Mr. Mkoian's supervisor informed him that the department was to undergo an inspection. Mr. Mkoian was instructed to take a vacation during this time period. Mr. Mkoian believed that the inspection was a result of the complaint that he had filed with the higher authorities. During the inspection, however, Mr. Mkoian worked at a store that he owned rather than taking a vacation. During that time, individuals kept entering his store and attempted to damage it and break merchandise. When he threatened to call the police, he received threatening phone calls telling him to ``shut up'' or else he would ``regret it.'' Mr. Mkoian believed that these threats were related to the illegal vehicle registrations occurring in his department because he had nothing else to be silent about. Later that same month, three men grabbed his wife and attempted to kidnap his child, Arthur, on the street. Mrs. Mkoian was told that her husband should ``shut up.'' No one suffered any injuries from the incident. In October 1991, a bottle of gasoline was thrown into the Mkoian's residence and their house was burned down. The final incident occurred on April 1, 1992, when four or five men assaulted Mr. Mkoian in his store. He was beaten and hospitalized for 22 days. Following that experience, Mr. Mkoian left Armenia for Russia, and then came to the United States on a visitor's visa in search of a better life. Two years later he brought his wife Asmik and his then 3- year-old son Arthur to the United States, also on visitor's visas. The family applied for political asylum, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied their request in January 2008. Thus, the family has no further legal recourse by which to remain in the country other than this bill. Since arriving in the United States, the family has thrived. Arthur is now 18 years old and the family has expanded to include Arsen, who is a U.S. citizen. Both Arthur and Arsen are very special children. In high school, Arthur maintained a 4.0 grade point average and was a valedictorian for the class of 2008. I first introduced this bill on his graduation day. Today, Arthur is a freshman at the University of California, Davis. Arsen is following in his older brother's footsteps. At age 12, he stands out among his peers and is on the honor roll at Tenaya Middle School in Fresno. In addition to raising two outstanding children, Mr. and Mrs. Mkoian have maintained steady jobs and have devoted time and energy into the community and their church. Mr. Mkoian is working at HB Medical Transportation, as a driver in Fresno. His wife, Asmik, has two jobs as a medical receptionist with Dr. Kumar in Fresno and as a sales clerk at Gottschalks Department Store. In addition, she has taken classes at Fresno Community College and has completed their Medical Assistant Program. The family are active members of the St. Paul Armenian Church, and Mr. Mkoian is a member of the PTA of the St. Paul Armenian Saturday School. There has been an outpouring of support for this family from their church, the schools their children attend, and the community at large. To date, we have received over 200 letters of support for the family in addition to numerous telephone calls. I also note that I have letters from both Congressman George Radanovich and Jim Costa, requesting that I offer this bill for the Mkoian family. I truly believe that this case warrants our compassion and our extraordinary consideration. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Robert Kuan Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei, Alice, Hsu-Liang, foreign nationals who live in San Bruno, California. I have decided to reintroduce private relief immigration bills on their behalf because I believe that, without them, this hardworking couple and their three United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer. The Liangs are foreign nationals facing deportation on account of their overstay of visitors visas and the failure of their previous attorney to timely file a suspension of deportation application before the immigration laws changed in 1996. Mr. Liang is a foreign national and refugee from Laos. His wife is a citizen of Taiwan. They entered the United States over 25 years ago as tourists and established residency in San Bruno, California. Because they overstayed the terms of their temporary visas, they now face deportation from the United States. After living here for so many years, removal from the United States would not come easily or perhaps without tearing this family apart. The Liangs have three children born in this country: Wesley, 17 years old, Bruce, 13 years old, and Eva, 11 years old. Young Wesley suffers from asthma and has a history of social and emotional anxiety. The immigration judge who presided over the Liangs' case in 1997 concluded that there was no question that the Liang children would be adversely impacted if they were required to leave their relatives and friends behind in California to follow their parents to Taiwan, a country whose language and culture is unfamiliar to them. I can only imagine how much more they would be adversely impacted now given the passage of 9 more years. The Liangs have filed annual income tax returns; established a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant, in the United States; are home owners, and are financially successful. Since they arrived in the United States, they have pursued and, to a degree, achieved the American Dream. Mr. and Mrs. Liang's quest to legalize their immigration status began in 1993 when they filed for relief from deportation before an immigration judge. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, however, did not act on their application until nearly 5 years later, in 1997, after which time the immigration laws had significantly changed. According to the immigration judge, had the INS acted on their application for relief from deportation in a timely manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, given that they were long-term residents of this country with U.S. citizen children and other positive factors. By the time INS processed their application, however, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which changed the requirements for relief from removal to the Liangs' disadvantage. I supported the changes of the 1996 law, but I believe sometimes there are exceptions which merit special consideration. The Liangs are such a couple and family. Perhaps what distinguishes this family from many others is that through hard work and perseverance, Mr. Liang has achieved a significant degree of success in the United States while battling a severe form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. According to his psychologist, this disorder stems from the persecution he, his family and community experienced in his native country of Laos during the Vietnam War. Throughout his childhood and adolescence, Mr. Liang was exposed to numerous traumatic experiences, including the murder of his mother by the North Vietnamese and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He also routinely witnessed the brutal persecution and deaths of others in his village. In 1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan. The emotional impact of Mr. Liang's experiences in his war-torn native country has been profound and continues to haunt him. His psychologist has also indicated that he suffers from severe clinical depression, which has been exacerbated by the prospect of being deported to Taiwan, where on account of his nationality, he believes he and his family would be treated as second-class citizens. Moreover, Mr. Liang believes that the pursuit of further mental health treatment in Taiwan would only exacerbate the stigma of being an outsider in a country whose language he does not speak. Given those prospects, he also fears the impact such a stigma would have on the well-being and future of his children. Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. MR. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide relief to local governments that have suffered losses due to highly-rated investments with failed financial institutions, such as Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual. The TARP Assistance for Local Governments Act would require the Treasury Secretary to provide $10 billion in TARP funds to local governments that suffered losses due to investments in failed financial institutions; and limit relief to local governments with investments in failed financial institutions that were highly rated, as determined by the Treasury Secretary. This legislation is necessary because local governments are in jeopardy of losing up to $10 billion as a result of these investments. In California 28 cities and counties could lose nearly $300 million. These investments include basic operational funds which cities and counties rely upon to function. For many cities and counties that are already struggling with budget shortfalls, the consequences of these losses are severe. Public safety, education, public health, infrastructure, and transit will be compromised. Communities large and small are significantly impacted. These are examples from my State that demonstrate the gravity of this situation. This list was included in a December 22 letter to Secretary Paulson, and to date, I have not received a response. San Mateo County sustained a loss of $30 million, which will require the county to abandon plans for a new and urgently needed county jail. The current jail will continue to operate in overcrowded conditions, far beyond the rating of the facility. The result will be unsafe working conditions for the corrections personnel and the likelihood that convicted criminals will be released into the community early and in large numbers. The City of Shafter, a small community of 15,000 in the San Joaquin Valley, sustained a loss of $300,000, or nearly 4 percent of its annual budget. The City will be forced to make across-the-board cuts in all services, including police and fire. Monterey County is facing a $30 million loss. Amid numerous other cuts, hardest hit will be programs targeting gang activities, including a special task force and the construction of new adult and juvenile corrections facilities to manage these criminals. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority sustained a loss of more than $25 million, which will mean delays and higher costs for major projects that will reduce emissions and traffic, specifically the electrification of the Caltrain Peninsula Commuter Rail Service. Similarly, cuts in highway and roads projects will put more people on the local roads for longer times at a major cost in compromised air quality. The City of Culver City has lost $1 million. This will result in a substantial reduction in planned street repairs and higher liability exposure from accidents, greater environmental degradation from storm water drain off, and worsened traffic congestion in a region of the U.S. ranked as one of the worst for traffic. The Hillsborough City School District lost over $924,000. Projects to create more classrooms for increased enrollment will not take place, increasing class sizes. Combined with other budget cuts from the State, all the District's programs are threatened. The Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District, which provides sanitary sewer and storm water services to the City of Vallejo, population 119,600, and nearby areas of Solano County, sustained losses of $4.5 million in Lehman Brothers investments and $1.46 million in Washington Mutual investments. The result is that aging infrastructure essential to the health of this community will not be replaced. The City of Vallejo recently declared Chapter 9 Municipal bankruptcy. Sacramento County sustained an increase in costs of $8 million related to an interest rate swap agreement with Lehman. This increase means fewer funds for sheriff's patrol and investigations and probation supervision, resulting in an increased risk to the safety of the community and reductions in social safety net services, at a time of increased community need. The City of Folsom lost $700,000, which has caused the City to indefinitely postpone staffing and equipping a new fire station. The San Mateo County Community College District sustained a loss of $25 million in voter-approved bond funds. As a result, the District will be forced to abandon a program to build more classrooms, and, therefore, turn away thousands of potential students, many of them unemployed adults seeking job training. The economic rescue legislation included a provision to require the Secretary of the Treasury to consider the impact of these losses on local governments when disbursing TARP funds. But, to date, the Secretary has not exercised his authority to assist local governments with such funds. The TARP Assistance for Local Governments Act of 2009 will change this, and ensure that communities remain solvent and taxpayers are protected. Given the urgency of this situation, we can no longer afford to wait. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to protect one of Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets: Social Security numbers. The bill I am introducing today aims to protect individual privacy and prevent identity theft by eliminating the unnecessary use and display of Social Security numbers. I have been working since the 106th Congress to safeguard Social Security numbers. I believe that the widespread display and use of these numbers poses a significant, and entirely preventable threat to personal privacy. In 1935, Congress authorized the Social Security Administration to issue Social Security numbers as part of the Social Security program. Since that time, Social Security numbers have become the best-known and easiest way to identify individuals in the United States. Use of these numbers has expanded well beyond their original purpose. Social Security numbers are now used for everything from credit checks to rental agreements to employment verifications, among other purposes. They can be found in privately held databases and on public records-- including marriage licenses, professional certifications, and countless other public documents--many of which are available on the Internet. Once accessed, the numbers act like keys--allowing thieves to open credit card and bank accounts and even begin applying for government benefits. According to the Federal Trade Commission, as many as 10 million Americans have their identities stolen by such thieves each year--at a combined cost of billions of dollars. What's worse, victims often do not realize that a theft has occurred until much later, when they learn that their credit has been destroyed by unpaid debt on fraudulently opened accounts. One thief stole a retired Army captain's military identification card and used his Social Security number, listed on the card, to go on a 6- month, $260,000 shopping spree. By the time the Army captain realized what had happened, the thief had opened more than 60 fraudulent accounts. A single mother of two went to file her taxes and learned that a fraudulent return had already been filed in her name by someone else--a thief who wanted her refund check. A former pro-football player received a phone call notifying him that a $1 million home mortgage loan had been approved in his name even though he had never applied for such a loan. Identity theft is serious. Once an individual's identity is stolen, people are often subjected to countless hours and costs attempting to regain their good name and credit. In 2004, victims spent an average of 300 hours recovering from the crime. The crime disrupts lives and can destroy finances. It also hurts business. A 2006 online survey by the Business Software Alliance and Harris Interactive found that nearly 30 percent of adults decided to shop online less or not at all during the holiday season because of fears about identity theft. When people's identities are stolen, they often do not know how the thieves obtained their personal information. Social security numbers and other key identifying data are displayed and used in such a widespread manner that individuals could not successfully restrict access themselves. Comprehensive limitations on the display of Social Security numbers are critically needed. The U.S. Government Accountability Office conducted studies of this problem in 2002 and 2007. Both times--in studies entitled ``Social Security numbers Are Widely Used by Government and Could Be Better Protected'' and ``Social Security numbers: Use Is Widespread and Could Be Improved''--the GAO concluded that current protections are insufficient and that serious vulnerabilities remain. The Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act would require government agencies and businesses to do more to protect Americans' Social Security numbers. The bill would stop the sale or display of a person's Social Security number without his or her express consent; prevent Federal, State and local governments from displaying Social Security numbers on public records posted on the Internet; prohibit the printing of Social Security numbers on government checks; prohibit the employing of inmates for tasks that give them access to the Social Security numbers of other individuals; limit the circumstances in which businesses could ask a customer for his or her Social Security number; commission a study by the Attorney General regarding the current uses of Social Security numbers and the impact on privacy and data security; and institute criminal and civil penalties for misuse of Social Security numbers. This legislation is simple. It is also critical to stopping the growing epidemic of identity theft that has been plaguing America and its citizens. As the President's Identity Theft Task Force reported last year, ``[i]dentity theft depends on access to . . . data. Reducing the opportunities for thieves to get the data is critical to fighting the crime.'' Every agency to study this problem has agreed that the problem will continue to grow over time and that action is needed. I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Schumer, Snowe, and Boxer in introducing legislation to prohibit the selling and counterfeiting of tickets to the Presidential inaugural ceremony. The inauguration of the President of the United States is one of the most important rituals of our democracy, and the chance to witness this solemn event should not be bought and sold similar to tickets to a sporting event. This is a dignified and critical moment of transition in Government, a moment of which Americans have always been justifiably proud. It is, in fact, the major symbol of the real strength of our democracy--the peaceful transition from one elected President to the next. Tickets to the official Presidential inaugural ceremony are supposed to be free for the people: for the volunteers who gave up their weekends, walking miles door to door to encourage voters to turn out at the polls on election day, for members of the African-American community to see one of their own take the oath of office for the highest office in the land, for schoolchildren to witness history, and for the American public to watch this affirmation of our Constitution, this peaceful transition from one administration to another. This is going to be the major civic event of our time. Excitement is at an all time high, and every one of us has received more phone calls for tickets than we could possibly ever meet. People are desperate to become part of it, to touch it, to be around, to feel it, to listen to it, and they are coming from all over the country. We could have more than 1.5 million people descend on the Nation's Capital for this inauguration. Before I introduced a similar bill at the end of the last Congress, tickets to the Presidential inaugural were being offered for sale on the Internet for $5,000 apiece, with some going as high as $40,000 each. To their credit, some Internet websites voluntarily agreed to refuse to sell these tickets online. I want to thank and commend Craigslist, eBay, and StubHub for leading the way on this issue. However, it is clear that relying on voluntary industry compliance to prevent the sale of these tickets is simply not enough. Today, some Internet sites are still offering these tickets for sale at prices up to $750 per ticket. Let me be clear--these are free tickets that have not yet been distributed by congressional and Presidential transition offices. These unscrupulous websites who continue to offer these tickets for sale do not have any tickets to offer for sale. These tickets are supposed to be free for the people. Once more, these tickets are not yet even available. They will not be distributed to congressional offices until the end of the week before the inauguration. Even then the offices will require in-person pickup, with secure identification. But they will be free and they should stay that way. We are asking people to pick up their tickets the day before the inauguration in my office. Everyone will submit their name, their address, and their driver's license. They will have to verify they are the actual person who has tickets waiting for them. I believe this kind of procedure deters unscrupulous people from selling these tickets on the Internet. No websites or other ticket outlets have inaugural swearing-in tickets to sell, despite what some of them claim. Congress has the responsibility of overseeing this historic event. This bill will ensure that these tickets are not sold to the highest bidder, and that the inauguration has all the respect and dignity it deserves. This legislation is aimed at stopping those who seek to profit by selling these tickets. It would also target those who seek to dupe the public with fraudulent or counterfeit tickets or those who merely promise but can't deliver on tickets that they do not actually have. Those who violate the law under this legislation would face a class A misdemeanor with a substantial fine, imprisonment of up to 1 year, or both. The bill also exempts official Presidential Inaugural Committees, and there is good reason for this. Presidential Inaugural Committees are used to organize and fund the public inaugural ceremonies. Donations made in return for inaugural tickets have long been used by both political parts to fund the Presidential inaugural festivities. Unlike unscrupulous websites and ticket scalpers, there is no ``profit'' made by Presidential Inaugural Committees in giving these tickets to people in return for inaugural donations. This exemption will allow both parties to raise the needed funds to put on Presidential inaugurals in the future. It is my hope that Congress will pass this legislation quickly, before President-elect Obama's inauguration on January 20th. I think it is very important to establish once and for all that tickets to the inauguration of the next President of the United States are not issues of commerce, but rather free tickets to be given to the people. So I hope that this week this legislation can pass unanimously on a hotline by this body. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will limit foreclosures and stabilize home values through Federal loan guarantees and standardized procedures for mortgage workout agreements. The Systematic Foreclosure Prevention and Mortgage Modification Act would implement the foreclosure prevention plan developed by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, Chairman Sheila Bair. There are three key components of this legislation. Servicers would be incentivized to modify mortgages, receiving $1,000 to help cover the costs of each loan modification; the Federal Government would share up to 50 percent of any loss should the homeowner default after receiving a modification; and participating servicers would be required to systematically review and modify all suitable loans in their portfolios, applying a standard calculation to help expedite loan modifications as cost-effectively as possible. The FDIC estimates that roughly 2.2 million home loans, worth $444 billion, could be modified under this plan, with 1.5 million foreclosures avoided. This legislation is projected to cost at least $25 billion; however, no additional spending is necessary. This effort would be funded solely through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, to ensure that one of the core objectives of the bill, assistance to homeowners, is achieved. The foreclosure crisis and declining housing market remain at the epicenter of the economic challenges we face. And, although the Federal Government has taken unprecedented steps to address this problem, they have not been sufficient. Foreclosures are in the best interest of no one. Neighborhoods are decimated when homes are repossessed or left vacant, property values decline, local economies suffer, and crime often increases in blighted areas. Lenders must sustain the costs of foreclosure and are left with the burden of reselling properties in a distressed market. Homeowners are forced to give up on the American dream, and in some cases, tenants are forced out of homes they have been renting. To date, no TARP funds have been allocated by Treasury to directly address the foreclosure crisis. This must change, and it must change now. According to the FDIC, the pace of loan modifications continues to be very slow, with only 4 percent of troubled mortgages being modified to prevent foreclosures each month. A systematic approach is needed to expedite this process. The FDIC has implemented such a program successfully at Indy Mac Federal Bank, to reduce mortgage payments as low as 31 percent of monthly income. Loan modifications are based on interest rate reductions, extended loan terms, and principal forbearance. Unfortunately, banks that have received TARP funds have not been compelled to implement foreclosure reduction measures, and adequate incentive structures are not in place. This legislation provides prudent and cost-effective steps to improve assistance for struggling homeowners while also stabilizing the housing market. Foreclosures have had a devastating impact on our national economy, and the damage in my state has been particularly severe. California accounts for 1/3 of all foreclosure activity in the United States. Roughly 800,000 foreclosures will be filed in my state in 2008--a 70 percent increase over 2007, when 481,392 foreclosures were filed in California. The foreclosure rate in California is the fourth highest in the Nation, with one foreclosure filing for every 218 households. In fact, 6 of the 10 metropolitan areas with the highest foreclosure rate in the Nation are in California. This includes: Merced--one out of every 76 homes in foreclosure; Modesto--one out of every 93 homes in foreclosure; Stockton--one out of every 94 homes in foreclosure; Riverside and San Bernardino--one out of every 107 homes in foreclosure; Bakersfield--one out of every 129 homes in foreclosure; and Vallejo and Fairfield--one out of every 133 homes in foreclosure. And, the situation is only getting worse. Property values have plummeted across California, making it difficult for many residents with adjustable rate mortgages to refinance into more stable, fixed rate products. One California community is in a special category of need: the city of Stockton, which has been referred to as ``America's foreclosure capital.'' The foreclosure crisis has devastated this city of more than 260,000 residents. Home foreclosures impact neighbors and reduce property values. But, the spillover effect in Stockton has been overwhelming. Jobs: The downturn in the construction industry has contributed to an unemployment rate of 11.9 percent in San Joaquin County, well above the national average. Schools: Foreclosures have displaced many students who were forced to change schools or leave the area when their families lost their homes. The student population of Stockton Unified School District, the biggest in San Joaquin County, was down about 200 students last year. Student displacement has a direct impact on school budgets, which are linked to student attendance. Most unfortunately, the emotional impact on children being forced to switch schools in the middle of the year can be tremendous. Public Services: High foreclosure rates have taken a toll on the city of Stockton's budget. Stockton now faces a nearly $25 million budget deficit. City officials have been forced to consider voluntary buyouts for municipal employees and mandatory 10-day furloughs to help close the gap. Because property values have fallen--due to foreclosures and increased inventory--Stockton also is facing lower tax revenues, which are depended upon to fill the city's $186 million general fund. This could have a dramatic effect on the city's emergency services; about 75 percent of Stockton's general fund pays for police and fire services. It is essential that we not forget communities such as Stockton. We cannot sit idly by and watch them fall through the cracks. This legislation is a much-needed step forward to provide relief to Main Street. Millions of Americans have lost their homes to foreclosure, and millions more are at risk of losing their homes in the coming months. Part of this problem was driven by abusive and predatory lending practices. Part of the problem can be attributed to lax underwriting standards and regulators who were asleep at the wheel. Part of this problem was due to individuals who made bad choices. But, this is a problem that now impacts--either directly or indirectly--all hard-working American families. These are significant challenges we face, and innovative solutions are required. This bill will serve as a companion to legislation introduced in the House by my colleague from California, Representative Maxine Waters. I look forward to working with her, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to pass this important legislation as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jacqueline Coats, a 28-year-old widow currently living in San Francisco. Mrs. Coats came to the U.S. in 2001 from Kenya on a student visa to study Mass Communications at San Jose State University. Her visa status lapsed in 2003, and the Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against her. Mrs. Coats married Marlin Coats on April 17, 2006, after dating for several years. The couple was happily married and planning to start a family when, on May 13, Mr. Coats tragically died in a heroic attempt to save two young boys from drowning. The couple had been on a Mother's Day outing at Ocean Beach with some of Mr. Coats' nephews when they heard cries for help. Having worked as a lifeguard in the past, Mr. Coats instinctively dove into the water. The two children were saved with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr. Coats, caught in a riptide, died. Mrs. Coats received a medal honoring her husband. Four days before Mr. Coats' death, the couple prepared and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office. Unfortunately the petition was not filed until after his death, rendering it invalid. Mrs. Coats currently has a hearing before an immigration judge in San Francisco on August 24, but her attorney has informed my staff that she has no relief available to her and will be ordered deported. Mrs. Coats, devastated by the loss of her husband, is now caught in a battle for her right to stay in America. At a recent news conference with her lawyer, Thip Ark, she explained of her situation, ``I feel like I have nothing to live for. I have nothing to go home to . . . I've been here four years . . . It would be like starting a new life.'' Ms. Ark explains that Mrs. Coats is extremely close with her late husband's family, with whom she lives in San Leandro, California. Mrs. Coats has said that her husband's large family has become her own. Ramona Burton of San Francisco, one of Marlin Coats' seven brothers and sisters explains, ``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her first American Thanksgiving . . . I can't imagine looking around and not seeing her there. She needs to be there.'' The San Francisco and Bay Area community has rallied strong support for Mrs. Coats. The San Francisco chapters of the NAACP, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Police Department, have all passed resolutions in support of Mrs. Coats' right to remain in the country. Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this young woman, and the Coats family, will face yet another disorienting and heartbreaking tragedy. Mrs. Coats will be deported to Kenya, a country she has not lived in since she was 21. In her time of grieving, she will be forced to leave her home, her job with AC Transit, her new family, and everything she has known for the past 5 years. I cannot think of a compelling reason why the United States should not allow this young widow to continue the green card process. Had her husband lived, Mrs. Coats would have filed the papers without difficulty. It was because of her husband's selfless and heroic act that Mrs. Coats must now struggle to remain in the country. As one concerned California constituent wrote to me, ``If ever there was a case where common fairness, morality and decency should reign over legal technicalities, this is it. We, as a country, need to reward heroism and good.'' I believe that we can reward the late Mr. Coats for his noble actions by granting his wife citizenship. It is what he intended for her. It can even be argued that a green card for his wife was one of his dying wishes, as the papers were signed just 4 days prior to his death. For these reasons, I reintroduce this private relief immigration bill and ask my colleagues to support it on behalf of Mrs. Coats. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jose Buendia Balderas, his wife, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and their daughter, Ana Laura Buendia Aranda, Mexican nationals who have been living and working in the Fresno area of California for over 20 years. Jose Buendia is a remarkable individual who epitomizes the American dream. His father worked as an agricultural laborer in the Bracero program over 25 years ago. In 1981, Jose followed his father to the United States--where he worked in the shadows to help provide for his family in Mexico. Since then, Jose has moved from working as a landscaper to construction, where he is now a valued employee of Bone Construction in Reedley, California. He has been employed by this cement company for the past 8 years. Although he knew nothing about construction when he began working in the field, he was disciplined and persistent in his training and is now a lead foreman. His employer, Timothy Bone, says Mr. Buendia is a ``reliable, hardworking and conscientious'' employee. In fact, it was Mr. Bone who contacted my office to seek relief for Mr. Buendia. Alicia Buendia, Jose Buendia's wife, has been working as a seasonal fruit packer for several years. The family has consistently paid all of their taxes. Recently, they paid off their mortgage and today, they are debt free. They have health insurance, savings and retirement accounts, participate in the company profit-sharing company, and support their family here and in Mexico. In short, they are living the American dream. Their daughter, Ana Laura, is an outstanding student. She earned a 4.0 GPA at Reedley High School and was awarded an academic scholarship to the University of California-Berkeley. Unfortunately, because of her immigration status, she was unable to accept the scholarship and her parents now pay full out-of-state tuition for her to attend the University of California-Irvine. She is now completing her second year there. Their son, Jose, is a U.S. citizen, and graduated high school with a 3.85 grade point average and honors, and is currently an engineering student at Reedley Junior College. For both Jose and Ana Laura, the United States is the only country they know. What makes the story of the Buendias so tragic is that they would have been eligible to correct their illegal status but for the unscrupulous practices of their former immigration attorney. Because Mr. Buendia has been in this country for so long, he qualified for legalization pursuant to the Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986. Unfortunately, his legalization application was never acted upon because his attorney, Jose Velez, was convicted of fraudulently submitting legalization and Special Agricultural Worker applications. This criminal conduct tainted all of Mr. Velez's clients. Although Mr. Buendia's application was found not to contain any fraudulent documentation, it was submitted while his lawyer was under investigation. The result was that Mr. Buendia was unable to be interviewed and obtain legal status. To complicate matters, it took the Immigration and Naturalization Service nearly 7 years to determine that Mr. Buendia's application contained no fraudulent information. In the meantime, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reinterpreted the law and determined that he was no longer eligible for relief because he had left the United States briefly when he married his wife. Despite these setbacks, the Buendia family has continued to seek legal status. They believed they were successful when an immigration judge granted the family relief based on the hardship their U.S. citizen son would face if his family was deported to Mexico. Unfortunately, the government appealed the judge's decision and had it overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Despite the problems with adjusting their legal status, this family has forged ahead and continued to play a meaningful role in their community. They have worked hard. They have invested in their neighborhood. They are active in the PTA and their local church. I believe the Buendia family should be allowed to continue to live in this country that has become their own. If this legislation is approved, the Buendias will be able to continue to contribute significantly to the United States. It is my hope that Congress passes this private legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California. Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 23, and Cindy, age 19, also stand to benefit from this legislation. Their other three children, Roberto, age 16, Daniel, age 13, and Saray, age 11, are United States citizens. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola and their two eldest children face deportation. The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. The Arreolas are in this uncertain situation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking his disbarment for the disservice he caused his immigration clients. Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers, SAW, program, had he known about it. Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth so as to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Given the length of time that the Arreolas had, and have been, in the United States it is quite likely that they would have qualified for relief from deportation pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but for the conduct of their previous attorney. Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their deportation would have on their children--three of whom are U.S. citizens--and the other two who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. For these children, this country is the only country they really know. Nayely, the oldest, recently graduated from Fresno Pacific University with a degree in Business Administration and was recently hired as a substitute teacher in Tulare County. She was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to graduate college. She attended Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition scholarship package and worked part-time in the admissions office. At her young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through the service she provides her community. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services, Cary Templeton, at Fresno Pacific University states in a letter of support, ``[t]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.'' In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service organization. She helped mentor freshmen and participates in several other student organizations in her school. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family, if forced to return to Mexico, will be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and further contribute to her community and to this country. It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility for her community and country. By all indication, this is the case as well for all of the members of her family. The Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents of this country or United States citizens. Mrs. Arreola has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is also my understanding that they have no immediate family in Mexico. According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family. It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Hatch, Bayh, Kerry, Murray, Kyl, and Specter in introducing comprehensive anti-gang legislation--the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2009. This bill has changed significantly since Senator Hatch and I began introducing gang legislation over 10 years ago. The current version of the bill reflects changes that have been made to comprehensively address the gang problem, including provisions emphasizing prevention and intervention programs, as well as enforcement funding. This bill recognizes that the root causes of gang violence need to be addressed--identifying successful community programs and then investing significant resources in schools and religious and community organizations to prevent young people from joining gangs in the first place. The bill constitutes a balanced approach to fighting the gang problem, with authorization for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used for proven gang prevention and intervention programs, as well as strong enforcement provisions. The rise of criminal street gangs and the effect these gangs are having on our Nation are two of the fundamental issues facing us today. This country is in the midst of an epidemic of gang violence that cuts across every age and every race and plagues our cities, suburbs and rural areas. This violence often involves teens and children as both victims and perpetrators. Almost every day, gang violence is in the news across the country, with gang-related killings of children and innocent bystanders almost too numerous to count. A person only needs to pick up a newspaper or watch the evening news to see how gang violence is affecting our communities. A snapshot of gang violence that occurred over a 4-day period in Los Angeles in March 2008 illustrates how insidious gangs have become. On March 2, 2008, Jamiel Shaw, a 17-year-old high school football star, was shot to death just three doors from his home in Mid-City Los Angeles as he rushed home to make curfew. Two gang members pulled up in a car, asked if Jamiel was a gang member, and then shot him when he didn't answer. Jamiel was not in a gang and was a model student and athlete who was being recruited by Stanford and Rutgers to play collegiate football. His mother, a sergeant in the U.S. Army who was serving her second tour of duty in Iraq, had to return home to Los Angeles to bury her son. On March 4, 2008, 6-year-old Lavarea Elvy was shot in the head in the Harbor Gateway area of South Los Angeles as she sat in the family car. A gang member and a gang associate of a Hispanic street gang have been charged in this attempted murder. On March 6, 2008, 13-year-old Anthony Escobar was killed while picking lemons in a neighbor's yard in the Echo Park area of Los Angeles. Anthony was not a gang member, and police believe he was targeted by gang members who came to his neighborhood for no other reason than to kill someone. Stories like these are not limited to California. They are becoming commonplace across the country. Consider the following incidents of gang violence from across the country: In February 2008, Julia Steele, an 80-year-old woman from St. Louis, Missouri, was killed when she was caught in the crossfire of gunfire between rival gang members. Julia's 80-year-old friend was also injured when their car slammed into other vehicles after the shooting. Beginning in May 2008, police in Billings, Montana had to increase neighborhood patrols due to repeated drive-by shootings conducted by gang members. In July 2008, a 7-year-old boy was wounded while playing kickball near his suburban Roxbury, Massachusetts home. He was shot by an adult gang member from Boston, who police believe had traveled to the suburbs for no other reason than to shoot someone. In October 2008, Christopher Walker, a 16-year-old high school junior and member of the varsity basketball team, was shot and killed by a gang member near Henry Ford High School, his high school in Detroit, Michigan. According to media reports, Chris' death has sparked much anger in the community over growing gang violence in the area. Across the country, in rural areas, suburbs, and cities, gang violence is literally holding neighborhoods hostage and Congress needs to do something about it. Our national gang problem is immense and growing, and it is not going away. On January 18, 2007, FBI Director Mueller acknowledged that gang crime has become ``part of a clear national trend.'' FBI statistics show that there are over 30,000 criminal street gangs operating in the United States, with more than one million gang members. According to the FBI, gangs have an impact on at least 2,500 communities across the Nation. These criminal street gangs engage in drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, gun trafficking, and murder. They recruit children and teens, destroy neighborhoods, cripple families, and kill innocent people. In California, the State Attorney General has estimated that there are 171,000 juveniles and adults committed to criminal street gangs and their way of life. That's greater than the population of 28 California counties. From 1992 to 2003, there were more than 7,500 gang-related homicides reported in California. In 2007, 469 of the 2,258 homicides in California were gang-related. Los Angeles Police Department Chief Bill Bratton put it bluntly: ``There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You can't.'' It's not just a California problem or an issue limited to big cities. In Chicago, the FBI estimates that there are over 60,000 gang members. A 2008 DOJ Report notes the rapid spread of gangs and violence to suburban areas. FBI Director Mueller recently recognized the national scope of the gang problem when he said: ``Gangs are no longer limited to Los Angeles. Like a cancer, gangs are spreading to communities across America.'' Our cities and States need our help--a long-term commitment to combat gang violence and a Federal helping hand to get our youth out of gangs and keep them from joining gangs in the first place. Senator Hatch and I have now been introducing comprehensive Federal gang legislation for over a decade. Our gang bills have been modified and refined over the years, most recently in the bill that passed in the Senate in the 110th Congress by unanimous consent. The bill that we introduce today is a balanced and measured approach to dealing with the gang problem. It has no death penalty provisions, no mandatory minimums, and we have eliminated juvenile justice changes that previously proved to be an impediment to the larger bill's passage. The bill that we offer today provides a Federal helping hand to fight the gang problem. It provides a comprehensive solution to gang violence, combining enforcement, prevention, and intervention efforts in a collaborative approach that has proven effective in models like Operation Ceasefire. The bill recognizes that the Federal Government can do more to fight gangs and that more tools must be made available to Federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors to stop the epidemic of gang violence. To this end, the bill establishes new, common sense Federal gang crimes and tougher Federal penalties. Existing Federal street gang laws are frankly weak, and are almost never used. Currently, a person committing a gang crime might have extra time tacked on to the end of their Federal sentence. That is because Federal law currently focuses on gang violence only as a sentencing enhancement, rather than as a crime unto itself. The bill that I offer today would make it a separate Federal crime for any criminal street gang member to commit, conspire or attempt to commit violent crimes--including murder, kidnapping, arson, extortion-- in furtherance of the gang. The penalties for gang members committing such crimes would increase considerably. For gang-related murder, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or maiming, the penalties would range up to life imprisonment. For any other serious violent felony, the penalty would range up to 30 years. For other crimes of violence--defined as the actual or intended use of physical force against the person of another--the penalty could bring up to 20 years in prison. The bill also creates a new crime for recruiting juveniles and adults into a criminal street gang, with a penalty of up to 10 years, or if the recruiting involved a juvenile or recruiting from prison, up to 20 years. It also creates new Federal crimes for committing violent crimes in connection with drug trafficking, and increases existing penalties for violent crimes in aid of racketeering. Finally, the bill also makes a host of other violent crime reforms, including closing a loophole that allows carjackers to avoid convictions, increasing the penalties for those who use guns in violent crimes or transfer guns knowing they will be used in crimes, and limiting bail for violent felons who possess firearms. But the bill also recognizes that we cannot simply arrest our way out of the gang problem. It also focuses on prevention and intervention strategies to prevent our youth from joining street gangs and to give existing gang members a way out of that lifestyle. Specifically, the bill would authorize over $1 billion in new funds over the next 5 years to address the gang problem, including: $411.5 million to fund gang prevention and intervention programs, like Operation Ceasefire, a proven gang prevention and intervention program successfully used in communities across the country; $187.5 million to establish High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas--Federal, State, and local law enforcement task forces to combat gangs and implement prevention programs; $100 million to fund the DOJ's Project Safe Neighborhood Program, the Federal Government's primary anti-gang initiative; $50 million for the Project Safe Streets Program, the FBI's primary gang investigation tool; $100 million for more prosecutors, technology, and equipment for gang investigations; $270 million for State witness protection programs in gang cases. This balanced approach--of prevention and intervention plus common sense enforcement--will send a clear message to gang members: a new day has arrived and the Federal Government will no longer sit on the sidelines while gang violence engulfs the country. This bill will provide gang members with new opportunities, with schools and social services agencies empowered to make alternatives to gangs a realistic option. But if gang members continue to engage in violence, they will face new and serious Federal consequences. For more than 10 years now, Senator Hatch and I have been trying to pass Federal anti-gang legislation. There have been times when we have gotten close, including last session when the Senate passed this same bill. Unfortunately, while Congress as a whole has failed to act, violent street gangs have only expanded nationwide and become more empowered and entrenched in other States and communities. I believe this bill can again pass in the Senate and be enacted into law. The time has arrived for us to finally address this problem, and I believe this bill is well-suited to help solve it. I urge my colleagues to favorably consider this legislation in the 111th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Guy Privat Tape and his wife Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto are citizens of the Ivory Coast, but have been living in the San Francisco area of California for approximately 15 years. The story of Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were previously political activists who were subjected to numerous atrocities in the early 1990s in the Ivory Coast. After a demonstration in which both were promoting peace, they were jailed and tortured by their own government. Ms. Toto was brutally raped by her captors and in 1997 learned that she had contracted HIV. Despite the hardships that they suffered, Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were able to make a better life for themselves in the United States. Mr. Tape arrived in the U.S. in 1993 on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. Ms. Toto entered without inspection in 1995 from Spain. Despite being diagnosed with HIV, Ms. Toto was able to give birth to two healthy children, Melody, age 10, and Emmanuel, age 6. Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated themselves to community involvement and a strong work ethic. They pay taxes and own their own home in Hercules, CA. They are active members of Easter Hill United Methodist Church. Mr. Tape works full-time as a security guard with Universal Protective Services. He also manages a small business, Melody's Carpet Cleaning & Upholstery. He employs four other individuals, all U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, in 2002, Mr. Tape was diagnosed with urologic cancer. While his doctor states that the cancer is currently in remission, he will continue to require life-long surveillance to monitor for reoccurrence of the disease. In addition to raising her two children, Ms. Toto became a certified Nursing Assistant in 2001 and currently works at Creekside Health Care in San Pablo, CA. She hopes to finish her schooling so that she can become a Registered Nurse. Ms. Toto continues to receive medical treatment for HIV. According to her doctor, without access to adequate health care and laboratory monitoring, she is at risk of developing life threatening illnesses. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto applied for asylum when they arrived in the U.S., but after many years of litigation, the claim was ultimately denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the regime which subjected Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto to imprisonment and torture is no longer in power, Mr. Tape has been afraid to return to the Ivory Coast due to his prior association with President Gbagbo. Mr. Tape strongly believes that his family will be targeted if they return to the Ivory Coast. One of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have on their two children. For Melody and Emmanuel, the United States is the only country they have ever known. Mr. Tape believes that if the family returns to the Ivory Coast, these two young children will be forced to enter the army. We are the only hope for this family who seeks to remain in the United States. To send them back to the Ivory Coast, where they will likely face persecution and will not be able to obtain adequate medical treatment for their illnesses would be devastating to them. They are contributing members of their community and have embraced the American dream with their strong work ethic and family values. I have received approximately 50 letters from the church community in support of this family. Representative George Miller has also requested that we assist this family. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help address the threats to public health and safety caused by abandoned hardrock mines. There are as many as 500,000 abandoned mines strewn across the western states--47,000 alone are found on California's public lands. The scope of this problem is huge. In the past two years, eight accidents at abandoned mine sites were reported in California. Throughout the United States, at least 37 deaths occurred between 1999 and 2007 and the potential for more is ominous. Basic remediation efforts, such as warning signs and fencing, can provide protection. However, some abandoned mines pose a more serious threat. Environmental impact studies have shown that important watersheds are being polluted by high levels of harmful minerals, such as mercury, lead, arsenic and asbestos. In California alone, seventeen watersheds have been affected. Yet not enough is being done to clean up these dangerous Gold Rush- era mines. The bill that I am introducing today is not intended to be a comprehensive hardrock mining bill, but it is an important piece of the reform needed. The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 2009 will reform the 1872 Mining Law by establishing fees to support abandoned mine clean up; establishing a royalty payment system; and creating an Abandoned Mine Clean up Fund. Unlike the coal industry, the metal mining industry does not pay to clean up its legacy of abandoned mines, making lack of funding the primary obstacle to abandoned hardrock mine clean up. This legislation would help fund the clean up of abandoned mines by placing an Abandoned Mine Reclamation fee on all hardrock minerals, using the underground coal industry fee program as a model. Specifically, it would create a 0.3 percent reclamation fee on the gross value of all hardrock mineral mining, including mining on Federal, State, tribal, local and private lands. The condition of abandoned coal mines has greatly improved since the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 established a fee to finance restoration of land abandoned or inadequately restored by coal mining companies. This fund has been able to raise billions of dollars for coal mine reclamation--and I believe that a similar program could be part of the solution to hardrock abandoned mine clean up. This legislation establishes a royalty fee on Hardrock Mining Claims. Companies that mine for gold and silver on Federal lands are not currently required to pay any royalties to the Federal Government--even though we are experiencing near record high gold prices. These companies should be required to pay their fair share. The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act establishes an 8 percent royalty on new mining operations located on Federal lands, and a 4 percent royalty for existing operations. The legislation I am introducing today also creates an Abandoned Mine Fund. In these times of budget deficits, it's clear that we will not be able to simply appropriate the funds necessary to clean up the hundreds of thousands of abandoned hard rock mines. So, this legislation will create an abandoned mine clean up fund to ensure that we have a lasting source of funding for this critical clean up effort. Specifically, the fund will direct the royalties, as well as other payments collected from mining operations, and dedicate them to the clean up of abandoned hardrock mines. I recognize the important role that mining has played in California's history. The discovery of gold at Sutter Mill near Placerville, California in 1848 was a defining moment for my State and the U.S. It is fair to say that without mining and the Gold Rush, California and the entire country would be a far different place than it is today. The history of mining in California, however, is tarnished by the legacy of tens of thousands of abandoned mines. In particular, abandoned mine sites on Federal lands. A recent report from the Department of the Interior's Inspector General underscores the scope and the urgency of the abandoned mine problem on public lands--in particular, those managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. The report concluded that public health and safety have been compromised by mismanagement, funding shortfalls and systematic neglect. The report found the potential for more deaths and injuries is ominous. A number of abandoned mine sites on public lands present an immediate danger due to open shafts, collapsing mine walls, and rotting structures. Some have deadly gases that accumulate in underground passages. And others leach hazardous chemicals like arsenic, lead and mercury into groundwater. The Bureau of Land Management's abandoned mines program has been neglected and understaffed. In some cases, staff were told by their supervisors to ignore these problems; and those who did come forward to identify contaminated sites were criticized or outright threatened. The scope of the problem is less severe at the National Parks Service. But perennial funding shortfalls impede the clean up of known abandoned mines. At the heart of the problem is a century-old law signed by President Ulysses S. Grant to promote the settlement of publicly-owned lands in the western states. The 1872 Mining Law created national standards for hardrock mining operations on Federal public lands; however, it has not been substantially updated for 137 years. Under this outdated framework, the hardrock mining industry does not pay royalties for minerals taken from Federal land and is not obligated to share in the cost of clean up for abandoned mines. Since the enactment of this law, hundreds of thousands of mines have been abandoned. Congress needs to move swiftly to address this issue before more damage and accidents occur. Though this legislation is a significant step forward for the funding of abandoned mines, I know that there is much more mining reform to be done. I look forward to working with my colleagues to modernize our Nation's mining laws and accelerate the clean up of dangerous abandoned mines. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today a private immigration relief bill to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for more than 20 years. The Fulops are the parents of six U.S. citizen children. I first introduced this bill in June, 2000. Today, the Fulops continue to face deportation having exhausted all administrative remedies under our immigration system. The Fulops' story is a compelling one and one which I believe merits Congress' consideration for humanitarian relief. The most poignant tragedy to affect this family occurred in May of 2000, when the Fulops' eldest child, Robert ``Bobby'' Fulop, an accomplished 15-year-old teenager, died suddenly of a heart aneurism. Bobby was considered the shining star of his family. That same year their 6-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life-threatening heart condition and a frightening situation similar to Bobby's. Not long ago, she successfully underwent heart surgery, but requires medical supervision to ensure her good health. The Fulops' youngest child, Matthew, was born seven weeks premature. He subsequently underwent several kidney surgeries and is still being closely monitored by physicians. Compounding these tragedies is the fact that today the Fulops face deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 the family traveled to Hungary and remained there for more than 90 days. Under the pre-1996 immigration law, prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, their stay in Hungary would not have been a factor in their immigration case and they would have been eligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents. Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, for permanent resident status. Due to large backlogs, the INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time their applications were considered, the new 1996 immigration law had taken effect. Given their one-time 90 day trip outside the United States, they were statutorily ineligible for relief pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. One cannot help but conclude that had the INS acted on the Fulops' application for relief from deportation in a timelier manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation under the pre-1996 law, given that they were long-term residents of the United States with U.S. citizen children and many positive factors in their favor. The irony of this situation is that the Fulops were gone from the United States for nearly five months in 1995 because they traveled to Hungary to help Mr. Fulop's brother build his home. Mr. Fulop's brother is handicapped and they went to help remodel his home. The Fulops are good and decent people. Mr. Fulop is a masonry contractor and the Owner and President of his own construction company--Sumeg International. He has owned this business for almost 14 years. The couple is active in their church and community. As Pastor Peter Petrovic of the Apostolic Christian Church of San Diego says in his letter of support, ``[t]he family is an exceptional asset to their community.'' Mrs. Fulop has served as a Sunday school teacher and volunteers regularly at Heritage K-8 Charter School in Escondido. Mrs. Morris, a Heritage K-8 Charter School faculty member says in her letter of support that Mrs. Fulop is ``. . . a valuable asset to our school and community.'' Mr. President, this is a tragic situation. Essentially, as happened to many families under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the rules of the game were changed in the middle. When the Fulops applied for relief from deportation they were eligible for suspension of deportation. By the time the INS got around to their application, nearly three years later, they were no longer eligible and in fact suspension of deportation as a form of relief ceased to exist. The Fulops today have been in the United States since the early 1980s. Most harmful is the effect that their deportation will have on the children, all of whom were born here and who range from five years old to 21 years of age. Their two eldest children are attending college, one studying structural engineering and the other studying to become a dental hygienist. It is my hope that Congress sees fit to provide an opportunity for this family to remain together in the United States given their many years here, the profound sadness they have already experienced and the harm that would come from their deportation to their six U.S. citizen children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe to introduce legislation that will increase transparency, strengthen oversight, and require firms receiving financial lifelines from the Federal Government to practice responsible corporate governance. Our bill--the Troubled Asset Relief Program Transparency Reporting Act--will achieve four essential objectives, prohibit firms receiving loans from the Federal Reserve or participating in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, from using this money for lobbying expenditures or political contributions; require that firms receiving government assistance provide detailed, publicly available quarterly reports to Treasury outlining how taxpayer dollars have been used; establish corporate governance standards to ensure that firms receiving Federal assistance do not waste money on unnecessary expenditures; and create penalties of at least $100,000 per violation for firms that fail to meet the corporate governance standards established in the bill. The need for such legislation has become very apparent in the 3 months since Congress approved the economic rescue plan. The economic rescue legislation passed in October includes several oversight boards and accountability provisions to ensure that public funds are effectively distributed. But, it does not include any reporting requirements for firms that receive Federal dollars. This is a significant omission, especially given the amount of Federal money that some firms are receiving. The Treasury Department has committed to purchasing $250 billion of preferred stock in financial institutions. More than 200 financial institutions have received roughly $188 billion. Of these funds, $125 billion was allocated to nine large national banks. In addition to injecting capital into banks, American Insurance Group, AIG, has received an additional $40 billion and CitiGroup has received $20 billion of TARP funds. Last month, GM received more than $10 billion in financing through the recently implemented Automotive Industry Financing Program. This effectively means that the entirety of the first $350 billion of rescue funds has been spent. When you add up all of the taxpayer dollars put on the line--from $30 billion provided to Bear Stearns in March, $200 billion available to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $150 billion to AIG, $700 billion for TARP, plus the direct lending programs at the Federal Reserve--we are talking about well over 1 trillion Federal dollars. I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for the public to know how their money is being spent, and I am not the only Member of Congress or elected official who feels this way. In response to questions posed by the Congressional Oversight Panel for Economic Stabilization, the Treasury Department noted that it was committed to rigorous oversight of executive compensation packages. This may be the case, but executive compensation is only the beginning. While I am pleased that CEOs at some financial institutions that accepted Federal assistance did not accept their annual bonuses last year, we still do not have an official accounting of how Federal funds were used. Certainly Americans deserve assurances that struggling firms will not use public funds to pay exorbitant salaries or bonuses. The same can be said for these funds going towards dividend payments, or mergers and acquisitions. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has reported that the Treasury Department had no strong accountability or oversight function to ensure that banks were using rescue assistance with the best interests of the public in mind. It noted that Treasury had little ability to ensure that participating firms complied with laws already limiting executive compensation and conflicts of interest. An investigation last month by the Associated Press found that many banks that have accepted Federal assistance are not able to say with certainty exactly how they have used the money. Some of these banks would not even discuss the issue. We cannot be sure that the rescue funds are being used to stabilize the economy if banks are not keeping proper accounting of their use, and those that do will not disclose it. Shining light on how firms use public dollars not only makes good sense, but it will also act as a deterrent to irresponsible behavior. On October 16, 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that AIG, which received billions of dollars in Federal rescue funds, was continuing to lobby State regulators to delay implementation of strengthened licensing standards for mortgage brokers and lenders. AIG was lobbying against sensible standards created by the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act. This bill, introduced by Senator Martinez and myself, established basic minimum regulations for the mortgage industry to ensure consumers were adequately protected. Before this bill, in some States virtually anyone--even those with criminal records--could go out and get a mortgage broker's license. Left unchecked, and with no regulations to stop them, unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders flooded the markets with subprime loans that they knew would never be paid back. Of course, this has served as one of the catalysts for our current economic predicament. And now AIG, propped up by billions in Government money after having succumbed to bad investments, was lobbying against the strong enforcement of State laws that might have helped prevent this catastrophe in the first place. Senator Martinez and I wrote a letter to AIG and, to the company's credit, CEO Edward Liddy immediately suspended the company's lobbying operations. I find it completely unacceptable that taxpayer dollars intended to stabilize the economy could find their way into the bank accounts of lobbying firms. The legislation which I am reintroducing today will make sure that does not happen. I do not mean to pick on AIG, but they have also been the poster child for wasteful spending by rescued firms. In September 2008, just days after receiving an $85 billion Federal lifeline, the management of AIG treated itself to a $444,000 spa weekend at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, California. This included $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for fine dining and $23,000 in spa charges. AIG executives spent the last 2 days of September 2008 on a golf outing at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas at a cost of up to $500,000. They were planning to follow this with a few days at the Ritz Carlton in Half Moon Bay, but cancelled after it hit the news and drew fire from congressional leaders. As news of these wasteful expenditures was making headlines, AIG received another $37.8 billion in emergency loans from the Federal Government. Shortly thereafter, the Associated Press reported that--even as AIG was asking Congress for these loans--AIG executives were spending $86,000 on a pheasant hunting expedition in England. During the trip, they stayed at a 17th century manor. One AIG executive named Sebastian Preil was quoted as saying that: ``The recession will go on until about 2011, but the shooting was great today and we are relaxing fine.'' Once these lapses in judgment came to light, AIG chief executive Edward Liddy informed Congress that he was putting an end to all nonessential expenditures. Yet weeks later, an undercover news crew caught AIG executives at the Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, hosting a seminar for financial planners complete with cocktails and limousines. One would think that a brush with collapse and total failure might have a sobering effect on some of these firms. But this penchant for wasteful junkets in the face of complete failure was not unique to AIG. Following enactment of TARP, news reports have uncovered multiple instances in which rescued firms have been caught making unnecessary and outrageous expenditures, leading many taxpayers to question why these firms are receiving Federal assistance in the first place. In November, Treasury Secretary Paulson announced that the $700 billion approved by Congress to stabilize financial markets would not be used to purchase illiquid assets but rather to make direct capital injections into financial institutions. Given this new mission, the need for additional transparency and disclosure is striking. We have learned that we cannot necessarily count on these firms and their executives to act sensibly and do what is right. The public needs to know that their tax dollars are being put to good use. A simple ``trust me'' from the bank executives is not enough. Americans are struggling, and the pain in my State of California, where unemployment is 8.4 percent, and foreclosure filings exceeded 750,000 last year, is especially acute. This bill puts in place commonsense solutions to fix some of the deficiencies in the economic stabilization bill. This legislation is significant and sorely needed. We must act soon to help restore confidence in this effort and shed light on how public funds are used. We promised the American people transparency and oversight, and this legislation will make good on that promise. I hope my colleagues will join me to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and responsibly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act. This bill would help American consumers by requiring banks to notify credit card holders of the true cost if they choose to make the minimum payment each month. Americans today own more credit cards than ever before. The average American has approximately four credit cards. In 2007, 1 in 7 Americans held more than 10 cards. Unsurprisingly, this increase in credit card ownership has resulted in a dramatic increase in credit card debt. Over the past 2 decades, Americans' combined credit card debt has nearly tripled--from $238 billion in 1989 to a staggering $971 billion in 2008. Today, the average American household has approximately $10,678 in credit card debt, up 29 percent from 2000. Among credit card users, 55 percent carry a balance on their credit card, a 2 percent increase from last year. Approximately 1 in 6 families with credit cards pays only the minimum due every month. Young Americans are using credit cards to finance everything from daily expenses to college tuition. Forty-one percent of college students have a credit card, and, of those, only 65 percent pay their bills in full every month. Over the past year, as economic conditions have worsened, it has become even harder for families to pay off their debt. Whether it is a mortgage, or tuition, or medical expenses, people are finding it harder than ever to meet all of their expenses. In July of this year, 28 percent of people surveyed reported that their ability to pay off their credit card balances has become more strained. This increasing debt is contributing to more and more Americans filing for bankruptcy. Ever since the Bankruptcy Reform Act was enacted in 2005, non- business bankruptcies have been increasing at a rapid pace. The numbers this year already show a staggering hike. Between September 2007 and September 2008, Americans filed over one million non-business bankruptcies, up 30 percent from the previous year. Many of these personal bankruptcies are people who are turning to credit cards to finance their expenses. Today's filers have even more credit card debt than usual--sometimes because they have been struggling to pay a mortgage and have started using credit cards for daily expenses. One family, the Forsyths, found themselves in financial trouble after moving to a new State for a better job opportunity. Unable to sell their old house, they rented. But when the renter stopped making payments, the family became overwhelmed with two mortgage payments. Credit cards helped at first--providing payment for food, utilities, and clothes--but the family quickly accumulated $20,000 in debt and was left with no alternative other than bankruptcy. The benefits offered by credit cards are attractive, but these cards also pose enormous financial risk. Dianne McLeod discovered this in a painful way after back-to-back medical emergencies depleted her finances. Although credit cards initially enabled her to maintain her lifestyle, before long these cards and two mortgages meant that she later found that she was spending more than 40 percent of her monthly income on interest payments, in addition to thousands of dollars annually in fees. Today, credit cardholders receive no information on the impact of carrying a balance with compounding interest. As a result, too often individuals make only the minimum payment. After a few years, they find that the interest on the debt is almost twice the amount of their original purchases--and they do not know what to do about it. I first introduced the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act during the debate on the 2005 bankruptcy bill. As I said then, I believe the bill failed to balance responsibility and fairness. Consumers should not be so harshly penalized when they do not have the basic tools and information they need to make informed choices. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act would help prevent this problem by requiring credit card companies to add two items to each consumer's monthly credit card statement: A general notice that would read ``Making only the minimum payment will increase the interest you pay and the time it takes to repay your balance.'' An individualized notice to credit card holders that specifies clearly on their bill how much time it will take to repay their debt and the total amount they will pay if they only make the minimum payments. For consumers with variable rate cards, the bill would also require companies to provide a toll-free number where cardholders can access credit-counseling services. The disclosure requirements in the bill would only apply if the consumer has a minimum payment that is less than 10 percent of the debt on the credit card. Otherwise, none of these disclosures would be required on their statement. Last year, a Gallup--Experian poll found that about 11 percent of credit cardholders consistently make only the minimum payment on their cards each month. Consider what this could mean for the average household. For example, the U.S. average credit card debt is $10,678. The average fixed credit card interest rate is approximately 12 percent. If the 2 percent minimum payment is all that is paid on its debt each month, it would take more than 31 years to pay off the bill and the total cost would be $21,052.66--and that's just the minimum assuming that the family didn't ever charge another dime on that bill. In other words, the family would need to pay $10,374.66 in interest just to repay $10,678 in original debt. For individuals or families with more than average debt, the pitfalls are even greater. $20,000 of credit card debt at the average 12 percent interest rate will take over 36 years and more than $28,261 to pay off if only the minimum payments are made. Twelve percent is relatively low, average interest rate. Interest rates around 20 percent are not uncommon on credit cards, and penalty interest rates can reach as high as 32 percent. A family that has the average debt with a 20 percent interest rate and makes the minimum payments will need a lifetime--over 85 years--and $62,158 to pay off the initial $10,678 bill. That's $51,480 just in interest--an amount that approaches 5 times the original debt. Credit cards are an important part of everyday life, and they help the economy operate more smoothly by giving consumers and merchants a reliable, convenient way to exchange funds. But the bottom line is that for many consumers, the two percent minimum payment is a financial trap. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act is designed to ensure that people are not caught in this trap through lack of information. Last month, the Federal Reserve Board approved new rules that will improve disclosures, but the rules do not go far enough. Under the rules, starting July 1, 2010, credit card companies will have to warn consumers about the effect of making minimum payments on the length of time it will take to pay off their balances. But the warnings may be only examples and will not show the effect on the amount that consumers pay over time. Before approving the final rules, the Federal Reserve Board interviewed consumers who typically carried credit card balances. Those consumers found disclosures most helpful when they provided specific information and included warnings about the amount that would have to be paid over time. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act would provide the straightforward disclosure that consumers find most helpful and most effective. This disclosure will ensure that consumers know exactly what it means for them to carry a balance and make minimum payments, so they can make informed decisions on credit card use and repayment. In addition, the burden on banks will be minimal. Calculations like these are purely formulaic. Credit card companies already complete similar calculations to determine credit risk and when they tell consumers what their required minimum payment is each month. The harsh effects of the 2005 bankruptcy bill are becoming apparent. During the debate over that bill, I had hoped that Congress would succeed in balancing the need to incentivize consumers to act responsibly with the promise of a fresh start for those who fell impossibly behind. I do not believe that that balance was reached. I continue to believe that consumers need a meaningful disclosure informing them of the effects of making minimum payments. Today, as Americans face increasing struggles with debt and expenses, the bill is needed more than ever. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, his wife, Asmik Karapetian and their son, Arthur Mkoyan. The Mkoian family are Armenian nationals who have been living and working in Fresno, California, for over a decade. The story of the Mkoian family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Let me first start with how the Mkoian family arrived in the United States. While in Armenia, Mr. Mkoian worked as a police sergeant in a division dealing with vehicle licensing. As a result of his position, he was offered a bribe to register 20 stolen vehicles. He refused the bribe and reported the incident to the police chief. He later learned that his co-worker had registered the vehicles at the request of the chief. After he reported the offense, Mr. Mkoian's supervisor informed him that the department was to undergo an inspection. Mr. Mkoian was instructed to take a vacation during this time period. Mr. Mkoian believed that the inspection was a result of the complaint that he had filed with the higher authorities. During the inspection, however, Mr. Mkoian worked at a store that he owned rather than taking a vacation. During that time, individuals kept entering his store and attempted to damage it and break merchandise. When he threatened to call the police, he received threatening phone calls telling him to ``shut up'' or else he would ``regret it.'' Mr. Mkoian believed that these threats were related to the illegal vehicle registrations occurring in his department because he had nothing else to be silent about. Later that same month, three men grabbed his wife and attempted to kidnap his child, Arthur, on the street. Mrs. Mkoian was told that her husband should ``shut up.'' No one suffered any injuries from the incident. In October 1991, a bottle of gasoline was thrown into the Mkoian's residence and their house was burned down. The final incident occurred on April 1, 1992, when four or five men assaulted Mr. Mkoian in his store. He was beaten and hospitalized for 22 days. Following that experience, Mr. Mkoian left Armenia for Russia, and then came to the United States on a visitor's visa in search of a better life. Two years later he brought his wife Asmik and his then 3- year-old son Arthur to the United States, also on visitor's visas. The family applied for political asylum, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied their request in January 2008. Thus, the family has no further legal recourse by which to remain in the country other than this bill. Since arriving in the United States, the family has thrived. Arthur is now 18 years old and the family has expanded to include Arsen, who is a U.S. citizen. Both Arthur and Arsen are very special children. In high school, Arthur maintained a 4.0 grade point average and was a valedictorian for the class of 2008. I first introduced this bill on his graduation day. Today, Arthur is a freshman at the University of California, Davis. Arsen is following in his older brother's footsteps. At age 12, he stands out among his peers and is on the honor roll at Tenaya Middle School in Fresno. In addition to raising two outstanding children, Mr. and Mrs. Mkoian have maintained steady jobs and have devoted time and energy into the community and their church. Mr. Mkoian is working at HB Medical Transportation, as a driver in Fresno. His wife, Asmik, has two jobs as a medical receptionist with Dr. Kumar in Fresno and as a sales clerk at Gottschalks Department Store. In addition, she has taken classes at Fresno Community College and has completed their Medical Assistant Program. The family are active members of the St. Paul Armenian Church, and Mr. Mkoian is a member of the PTA of the St. Paul Armenian Saturday School. There has been an outpouring of support for this family from their church, the schools their children attend, and the community at large. To date, we have received over 200 letters of support for the family in addition to numerous telephone calls. I also note that I have letters from both Congressman George Radanovich and Jim Costa, requesting that I offer this bill for the Mkoian family. I truly believe that this case warrants our compassion and our extraordinary consideration. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe to introduce legislation that will increase transparency, strengthen oversight, and require firms receiving financial lifelines from the Federal Government to practice responsible corporate governance. Our bill--the Troubled Asset Relief Program Transparency Reporting Act--will achieve four essential objectives, prohibit firms receiving loans from the Federal Reserve or participating in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, from using this money for lobbying expenditures or political contributions; require that firms receiving government assistance provide detailed, publicly available quarterly reports to Treasury outlining how taxpayer dollars have been used; establish corporate governance standards to ensure that firms receiving Federal assistance do not waste money on unnecessary expenditures; and create penalties of at least $100,000 per violation for firms that fail to meet the corporate governance standards established in the bill. The need for such legislation has become very apparent in the 3 months since Congress approved the economic rescue plan. The economic rescue legislation passed in October includes several oversight boards and accountability provisions to ensure that public funds are effectively distributed. But, it does not include any reporting requirements for firms that receive Federal dollars. This is a significant omission, especially given the amount of Federal money that some firms are receiving. The Treasury Department has committed to purchasing $250 billion of preferred stock in financial institutions. More than 200 financial institutions have received roughly $188 billion. Of these funds, $125 billion was allocated to nine large national banks. In addition to injecting capital into banks, American Insurance Group, AIG, has received an additional $40 billion and CitiGroup has received $20 billion of TARP funds. Last month, GM received more than $10 billion in financing through the recently implemented Automotive Industry Financing Program. This effectively means that the entirety of the first $350 billion of rescue funds has been spent. When you add up all of the taxpayer dollars put on the line--from $30 billion provided to Bear Stearns in March, $200 billion available to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $150 billion to AIG, $700 billion for TARP, plus the direct lending programs at the Federal Reserve--we are talking about well over 1 trillion Federal dollars. I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for the public to know how their money is being spent, and I am not the only Member of Congress or elected official who feels this way. In response to questions posed by the Congressional Oversight Panel for Economic Stabilization, the Treasury Department noted that it was committed to rigorous oversight of executive compensation packages. This may be the case, but executive compensation is only the beginning. While I am pleased that CEOs at some financial institutions that accepted Federal assistance did not accept their annual bonuses last year, we still do not have an official accounting of how Federal funds were used. Certainly Americans deserve assurances that struggling firms will not use public funds to pay exorbitant salaries or bonuses. The same can be said for these funds going towards dividend payments, or mergers and acquisitions. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has reported that the Treasury Department had no strong accountability or oversight function to ensure that banks were using rescue assistance with the best interests of the public in mind. It noted that Treasury had little ability to ensure that participating firms complied with laws already limiting executive compensation and conflicts of interest. An investigation last month by the Associated Press found that many banks that have accepted Federal assistance are not able to say with certainty exactly how they have used the money. Some of these banks would not even discuss the issue. We cannot be sure that the rescue funds are being used to stabilize the economy if banks are not keeping proper accounting of their use, and those that do will not disclose it. Shining light on how firms use public dollars not only makes good sense, but it will also act as a deterrent to irresponsible behavior. On October 16, 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that AIG, which received billions of dollars in Federal rescue funds, was continuing to lobby State regulators to delay implementation of strengthened licensing standards for mortgage brokers and lenders. AIG was lobbying against sensible standards created by the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act. This bill, introduced by Senator Martinez and myself, established basic minimum regulations for the mortgage industry to ensure consumers were adequately protected. Before this bill, in some States virtually anyone--even those with criminal records--could go out and get a mortgage broker's license. Left unchecked, and with no regulations to stop them, unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders flooded the markets with subprime loans that they knew would never be paid back. Of course, this has served as one of the catalysts for our current economic predicament. And now AIG, propped up by billions in Government money after having succumbed to bad investments, was lobbying against the strong enforcement of State laws that might have helped prevent this catastrophe in the first place. Senator Martinez and I wrote a letter to AIG and, to the company's credit, CEO Edward Liddy immediately suspended the company's lobbying operations. I find it completely unacceptable that taxpayer dollars intended to stabilize the economy could find their way into the bank accounts of lobbying firms. The legislation which I am reintroducing today will make sure that does not happen. I do not mean to pick on AIG, but they have also been the poster child for wasteful spending by rescued firms. In September 2008, just days after receiving an $85 billion Federal lifeline, the management of AIG treated itself to a $444,000 spa weekend at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, California. This included $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for fine dining and $23,000 in spa charges. AIG executives spent the last 2 days of September 2008 on a golf outing at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas at a cost of up to $500,000. They were planning to follow this with a few days at the Ritz Carlton in Half Moon Bay, but cancelled after it hit the news and drew fire from congressional leaders. As news of these wasteful expenditures was making headlines, AIG received another $37.8 billion in emergency loans from the Federal Government. Shortly thereafter, the Associated Press reported that--even as AIG was asking Congress for these loans--AIG executives were spending $86,000 on a pheasant hunting expedition in England. During the trip, they stayed at a 17th century manor. One AIG executive named Sebastian Preil was quoted as saying that: ``The recession will go on until about 2011, but the shooting was great today and we are relaxing fine.'' Once these lapses in judgment came to light, AIG chief executive Edward Liddy informed Congress that he was putting an end to all nonessential expenditures. Yet weeks later, an undercover news crew caught AIG executives at the Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, hosting a seminar for financial planners complete with cocktails and limousines. One would think that a brush with collapse and total failure might have a sobering effect on some of these firms. But this penchant for wasteful junkets in the face of complete failure was not unique to AIG. Following enactment of TARP, news reports have uncovered multiple instances in which rescued firms have been caught making unnecessary and outrageous expenditures, leading many taxpayers to question why these firms are receiving Federal assistance in the first place. In November, Treasury Secretary Paulson announced that the $700 billion approved by Congress to stabilize financial markets would not be used to purchase illiquid assets but rather to make direct capital injections into financial institutions. Given this new mission, the need for additional transparency and disclosure is striking. We have learned that we cannot necessarily count on these firms and their executives to act sensibly and do what is right. The public needs to know that their tax dollars are being put to good use. A simple ``trust me'' from the bank executives is not enough. Americans are struggling, and the pain in my State of California, where unemployment is 8.4 percent, and foreclosure filings exceeded 750,000 last year, is especially acute. This bill puts in place commonsense solutions to fix some of the deficiencies in the economic stabilization bill. This legislation is significant and sorely needed. We must act soon to help restore confidence in this effort and shed light on how public funds are used. We promised the American people transparency and oversight, and this legislation will make good on that promise. I hope my colleagues will join me to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and responsibly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California. Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 23, and Cindy, age 19, also stand to benefit from this legislation. Their other three children, Roberto, age 16, Daniel, age 13, and Saray, age 11, are United States citizens. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola and their two eldest children face deportation. The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. The Arreolas are in this uncertain situation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking his disbarment for the disservice he caused his immigration clients. Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers, SAW, program, had he known about it. Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth so as to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Given the length of time that the Arreolas had, and have been, in the United States it is quite likely that they would have qualified for relief from deportation pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but for the conduct of their previous attorney. Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their deportation would have on their children--three of whom are U.S. citizens--and the other two who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. For these children, this country is the only country they really know. Nayely, the oldest, recently graduated from Fresno Pacific University with a degree in Business Administration and was recently hired as a substitute teacher in Tulare County. She was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to graduate college. She attended Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition scholarship package and worked part-time in the admissions office. At her young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through the service she provides her community. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services, Cary Templeton, at Fresno Pacific University states in a letter of support, ``[t]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.'' In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service organization. She helped mentor freshmen and participates in several other student organizations in her school. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family, if forced to return to Mexico, will be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and further contribute to her community and to this country. It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility for her community and country. By all indication, this is the case as well for all of the members of her family. The Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents of this country or United States citizens. Mrs. Arreola has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is also my understanding that they have no immediate family in Mexico. According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family. It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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 four United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer. The Plascencia's have worked for years to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by inattentive legal counsel. Repeatedly, the Plascencia's lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in anyway. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor representation they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the country 15 days prior to their deportation. Although the family was stunned and devastated by this discovery, 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. For several reasons, it would be tragic for this family to be removed from the United States. First, since arriving in the United States in 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have proven themselves to be a responsible and civic-minded couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to family, and devotion to community. Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's Shellfish for the over 14 years, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now overseas the market's entire packing operation and several employees. The president of the market, in one of the several dozen letters I have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, 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 Mr. Plascencia's job performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest,'' and ``reliable.'' Third, like her husband, Mrs. Plascencia 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, Mrs. Plascencia went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree and improved her skills to become a medical assistant. Those who have written to me in support of Mrs. Plascencia, of which there are several, have described her work as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.'' In fact, Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse Rose Carino, wrote to say that Mrs. Plascencia 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.'' Mrs. Carino went on to write that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an excellent employee and role model for her colleagues. She works in a very demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued and depended on by the physicians she works with.'' Together, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia 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 want to send their children to college and give them an even better life. This legislation is important because it would preserve these achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to make substantive contributions to the community in the future. It is important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on the couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and each of whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay Area community. Christina, 17, is the Plascencia's oldest child, and an honor student. Erika, 14, and Alfredo, Jr., 12, have worked hard at their studies and received praise and good grades from their teachers. In fact, the principal of Erika's school has recognized her as the ``Most Artistic'' student in her class. Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked on a report card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.'' The Plascencia's also have two young children: 6-year-old Daisy and 2-year-old Juan-Pablo. Removing Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia from the United States would be tragic for their children. Children who were born in the United States and who 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 for the Plascencia's older children-- Christina, Erika, and Alfredo--to 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. Their parents would find themselves in Mexico without a job and without a house. The children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language, and way of life. The only other option would be for Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia to leave their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which no parents should have to make. Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are not my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the American spirit. I have sponsored this legislation, and asked my colleagues to support it, because I believe that this is a spirit that we must nurture wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to leave the United States would extinguish that spirit. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill on behalf of the Plascencia family. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today a private immigration relief bill to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for more than 20 years. The Fulops are the parents of six U.S. citizen children. I first introduced this bill in June, 2000. Today, the Fulops continue to face deportation having exhausted all administrative remedies under our immigration system. The Fulops' story is a compelling one and one which I believe merits Congress' consideration for humanitarian relief. The most poignant tragedy to affect this family occurred in May of 2000, when the Fulops' eldest child, Robert ``Bobby'' Fulop, an accomplished 15-year-old teenager, died suddenly of a heart aneurism. Bobby was considered the shining star of his family. That same year their 6-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life-threatening heart condition and a frightening situation similar to Bobby's. Not long ago, she successfully underwent heart surgery, but requires medical supervision to ensure her good health. The Fulops' youngest child, Matthew, was born seven weeks premature. He subsequently underwent several kidney surgeries and is still being closely monitored by physicians. Compounding these tragedies is the fact that today the Fulops face deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 the family traveled to Hungary and remained there for more than 90 days. Under the pre-1996 immigration law, prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, their stay in Hungary would not have been a factor in their immigration case and they would have been eligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents. Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, for permanent resident status. Due to large backlogs, the INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time their applications were considered, the new 1996 immigration law had taken effect. Given their one-time 90 day trip outside the United States, they were statutorily ineligible for relief pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. One cannot help but conclude that had the INS acted on the Fulops' application for relief from deportation in a timelier manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation under the pre-1996 law, given that they were long-term residents of the United States with U.S. citizen children and many positive factors in their favor. The irony of this situation is that the Fulops were gone from the United States for nearly five months in 1995 because they traveled to Hungary to help Mr. Fulop's brother build his home. Mr. Fulop's brother is handicapped and they went to help remodel his home. The Fulops are good and decent people. Mr. Fulop is a masonry contractor and the Owner and President of his own construction company--Sumeg International. He has owned this business for almost 14 years. The couple is active in their church and community. As Pastor Peter Petrovic of the Apostolic Christian Church of San Diego says in his letter of support, ``[t]he family is an exceptional asset to their community.'' Mrs. Fulop has served as a Sunday school teacher and volunteers regularly at Heritage K-8 Charter School in Escondido. Mrs. Morris, a Heritage K-8 Charter School faculty member says in her letter of support that Mrs. Fulop is ``. . . a valuable asset to our school and community.'' Mr. President, this is a tragic situation. Essentially, as happened to many families under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the rules of the game were changed in the middle. When the Fulops applied for relief from deportation they were eligible for suspension of deportation. By the time the INS got around to their application, nearly three years later, they were no longer eligible and in fact suspension of deportation as a form of relief ceased to exist. The Fulops today have been in the United States since the early 1980s. Most harmful is the effect that their deportation will have on the children, all of whom were born here and who range from five years old to 21 years of age. Their two eldest children are attending college, one studying structural engineering and the other studying to become a dental hygienist. It is my hope that Congress sees fit to provide an opportunity for this family to remain together in the United States given their many years here, the profound sadness they have already experienced and the harm that would come from their deportation to their six U.S. citizen children. 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 residence status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno and Micaela Lopez Martinez and their daughter, Adilene Martinez--Mexican nationals now living in San Francisco, California. This family embodies the true American success story and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Mr. Martinez came to the United States eighteen years ago from Mexico. He started working as a bus boy in restaurants in San Francisco. In 1990, he began working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco. According to the people who worked with him, he ``never made mistakes, never lost his temper, and never seemed to sweat.'' Over the years, Jose Martinez has worked his way through the ranks. Today, he is the sous chef at Palio, where he is respected by everyone in the restaurant, from dishwashers to cooks, busboys to waiters, bartenders to managers. Mr. Martinez has unique skills: he is an excellent chef; he is bilingual; he is a leader in the workplace. He is described as ``an exemplary employee'' who is not only ``good at his job, but is also a great boss to his subordinates.'' He and his wife, Micaela, have made a home in San Francisco. Micaela has been working as a housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of whom are United States citizens. Their oldest child Adilene, 20, is undocumented. Adilene recently graduated from the Immaculate Conception Academy and is attending San Francisco City College. One of the most compelling reasons for allowing the family to remain in the United States is that they are eligible for a green card. Unfortunately, there is such a back log for green cards right now that even though he has a work permit, owns a home in San Francisco, works two jobs, and has been in the United States for twenty years with a clean record, he and his family will be deported. Mr. Martinez and his family have applied unsuccessfully for legal status several ways: In May 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Martinez filed for political asylum. Their case was denied and a subsequent application for a Cancellation of Removal was also denied because the immigration court judge could not find ``requisite hardship'' required for this relief. Ironically, the immigration judge who reviewed their case found that Mr. Martinez's culinary ability was a negative factor--as it indicated that he could find a job in Mexico. In 2001, his sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Mr. Martinez to get a green card. Unfortunately, because of the current green card backlog, Mr. Martinez has several years to wait before he is eligible for a green card. Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio D'Asti, has petitioned for legal status for Mr. Martinez based on Mr. Martinez's unique skills as a chef. Although Mr. Martinez's work petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, there is a backlog on these visas, and Mr. Martinez is on a waiting list for a green card through this channel, as well. Mr. and Mrs. Martinez have no other administrative options available to them at this point and if deported, they will face a 5 to 10 year ban from returning to the United States. In addition, this bill remains the only means for Adilene to gain legal status. The Martinez family has become an important and valued part of their community. They are active members of their church, their children's school, and Comite de Padres Unido, a grassroots immigrant organization in California. They volunteer extensively--advocating for safe new parks in the community for the children, volunteering at their children's school, and working on a voter registration campaign, even though they are unable to vote themselves. In fact, I have received 46 letters of support from teachers, church members, and members of their community who attest to their honesty, responsibility, and long-standing commitment to their community. Their supporters include San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom; former Mayor Willie Brown; President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Aaron Peskin; and the Director of Immigration Policy at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Mark Silverman. This family has truly embraced the American dream. I believe their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Martinez family to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Hatch, Bayh, Kerry, Murray, Kyl, and Specter in introducing comprehensive anti-gang legislation--the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2009. This bill has changed significantly since Senator Hatch and I began introducing gang legislation over 10 years ago. The current version of the bill reflects changes that have been made to comprehensively address the gang problem, including provisions emphasizing prevention and intervention programs, as well as enforcement funding. This bill recognizes that the root causes of gang violence need to be addressed--identifying successful community programs and then investing significant resources in schools and religious and community organizations to prevent young people from joining gangs in the first place. The bill constitutes a balanced approach to fighting the gang problem, with authorization for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used for proven gang prevention and intervention programs, as well as strong enforcement provisions. The rise of criminal street gangs and the effect these gangs are having on our Nation are two of the fundamental issues facing us today. This country is in the midst of an epidemic of gang violence that cuts across every age and every race and plagues our cities, suburbs and rural areas. This violence often involves teens and children as both victims and perpetrators. Almost every day, gang violence is in the news across the country, with gang-related killings of children and innocent bystanders almost too numerous to count. A person only needs to pick up a newspaper or watch the evening news to see how gang violence is affecting our communities. A snapshot of gang violence that occurred over a 4-day period in Los Angeles in March 2008 illustrates how insidious gangs have become. On March 2, 2008, Jamiel Shaw, a 17-year-old high school football star, was shot to death just three doors from his home in Mid-City Los Angeles as he rushed home to make curfew. Two gang members pulled up in a car, asked if Jamiel was a gang member, and then shot him when he didn't answer. Jamiel was not in a gang and was a model student and athlete who was being recruited by Stanford and Rutgers to play collegiate football. His mother, a sergeant in the U.S. Army who was serving her second tour of duty in Iraq, had to return home to Los Angeles to bury her son. On March 4, 2008, 6-year-old Lavarea Elvy was shot in the head in the Harbor Gateway area of South Los Angeles as she sat in the family car. A gang member and a gang associate of a Hispanic street gang have been charged in this attempted murder. On March 6, 2008, 13-year-old Anthony Escobar was killed while picking lemons in a neighbor's yard in the Echo Park area of Los Angeles. Anthony was not a gang member, and police believe he was targeted by gang members who came to his neighborhood for no other reason than to kill someone. Stories like these are not limited to California. They are becoming commonplace across the country. Consider the following incidents of gang violence from across the country: In February 2008, Julia Steele, an 80-year-old woman from St. Louis, Missouri, was killed when she was caught in the crossfire of gunfire between rival gang members. Julia's 80-year-old friend was also injured when their car slammed into other vehicles after the shooting. Beginning in May 2008, police in Billings, Montana had to increase neighborhood patrols due to repeated drive-by shootings conducted by gang members. In July 2008, a 7-year-old boy was wounded while playing kickball near his suburban Roxbury, Massachusetts home. He was shot by an adult gang member from Boston, who police believe had traveled to the suburbs for no other reason than to shoot someone. In October 2008, Christopher Walker, a 16-year-old high school junior and member of the varsity basketball team, was shot and killed by a gang member near Henry Ford High School, his high school in Detroit, Michigan. According to media reports, Chris' death has sparked much anger in the community over growing gang violence in the area. Across the country, in rural areas, suburbs, and cities, gang violence is literally holding neighborhoods hostage and Congress needs to do something about it. Our national gang problem is immense and growing, and it is not going away. On January 18, 2007, FBI Director Mueller acknowledged that gang crime has become ``part of a clear national trend.'' FBI statistics show that there are over 30,000 criminal street gangs operating in the United States, with more than one million gang members. According to the FBI, gangs have an impact on at least 2,500 communities across the Nation. These criminal street gangs engage in drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, gun trafficking, and murder. They recruit children and teens, destroy neighborhoods, cripple families, and kill innocent people. In California, the State Attorney General has estimated that there are 171,000 juveniles and adults committed to criminal street gangs and their way of life. That's greater than the population of 28 California counties. From 1992 to 2003, there were more than 7,500 gang-related homicides reported in California. In 2007, 469 of the 2,258 homicides in California were gang-related. Los Angeles Police Department Chief Bill Bratton put it bluntly: ``There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You can't.'' It's not just a California problem or an issue limited to big cities. In Chicago, the FBI estimates that there are over 60,000 gang members. A 2008 DOJ Report notes the rapid spread of gangs and violence to suburban areas. FBI Director Mueller recently recognized the national scope of the gang problem when he said: ``Gangs are no longer limited to Los Angeles. Like a cancer, gangs are spreading to communities across America.'' Our cities and States need our help--a long-term commitment to combat gang violence and a Federal helping hand to get our youth out of gangs and keep them from joining gangs in the first place. Senator Hatch and I have now been introducing comprehensive Federal gang legislation for over a decade. Our gang bills have been modified and refined over the years, most recently in the bill that passed in the Senate in the 110th Congress by unanimous consent. The bill that we introduce today is a balanced and measured approach to dealing with the gang problem. It has no death penalty provisions, no mandatory minimums, and we have eliminated juvenile justice changes that previously proved to be an impediment to the larger bill's passage. The bill that we offer today provides a Federal helping hand to fight the gang problem. It provides a comprehensive solution to gang violence, combining enforcement, prevention, and intervention efforts in a collaborative approach that has proven effective in models like Operation Ceasefire. The bill recognizes that the Federal Government can do more to fight gangs and that more tools must be made available to Federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors to stop the epidemic of gang violence. To this end, the bill establishes new, common sense Federal gang crimes and tougher Federal penalties. Existing Federal street gang laws are frankly weak, and are almost never used. Currently, a person committing a gang crime might have extra time tacked on to the end of their Federal sentence. That is because Federal law currently focuses on gang violence only as a sentencing enhancement, rather than as a crime unto itself. The bill that I offer today would make it a separate Federal crime for any criminal street gang member to commit, conspire or attempt to commit violent crimes--including murder, kidnapping, arson, extortion-- in furtherance of the gang. The penalties for gang members committing such crimes would increase considerably. For gang-related murder, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or maiming, the penalties would range up to life imprisonment. For any other serious violent felony, the penalty would range up to 30 years. For other crimes of violence--defined as the actual or intended use of physical force against the person of another--the penalty could bring up to 20 years in prison. The bill also creates a new crime for recruiting juveniles and adults into a criminal street gang, with a penalty of up to 10 years, or if the recruiting involved a juvenile or recruiting from prison, up to 20 years. It also creates new Federal crimes for committing violent crimes in connection with drug trafficking, and increases existing penalties for violent crimes in aid of racketeering. Finally, the bill also makes a host of other violent crime reforms, including closing a loophole that allows carjackers to avoid convictions, increasing the penalties for those who use guns in violent crimes or transfer guns knowing they will be used in crimes, and limiting bail for violent felons who possess firearms. But the bill also recognizes that we cannot simply arrest our way out of the gang problem. It also focuses on prevention and intervention strategies to prevent our youth from joining street gangs and to give existing gang members a way out of that lifestyle. Specifically, the bill would authorize over $1 billion in new funds over the next 5 years to address the gang problem, including: $411.5 million to fund gang prevention and intervention programs, like Operation Ceasefire, a proven gang prevention and intervention program successfully used in communities across the country; $187.5 million to establish High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas--Federal, State, and local law enforcement task forces to combat gangs and implement prevention programs; $100 million to fund the DOJ's Project Safe Neighborhood Program, the Federal Government's primary anti-gang initiative; $50 million for the Project Safe Streets Program, the FBI's primary gang investigation tool; $100 million for more prosecutors, technology, and equipment for gang investigations; $270 million for State witness protection programs in gang cases. This balanced approach--of prevention and intervention plus common sense enforcement--will send a clear message to gang members: a new day has arrived and the Federal Government will no longer sit on the sidelines while gang violence engulfs the country. This bill will provide gang members with new opportunities, with schools and social services agencies empowered to make alternatives to gangs a realistic option. But if gang members continue to engage in violence, they will face new and serious Federal consequences. For more than 10 years now, Senator Hatch and I have been trying to pass Federal anti-gang legislation. There have been times when we have gotten close, including last session when the Senate passed this same bill. Unfortunately, while Congress as a whole has failed to act, violent street gangs have only expanded nationwide and become more empowered and entrenched in other States and communities. I believe this bill can again pass in the Senate and be enacted into law. The time has arrived for us to finally address this problem, and I believe this bill is well-suited to help solve it. I urge my colleagues to favorably consider this legislation in the 111th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for supporting the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. This trafficking bill includes a provision I authored over 8 years ago--the Unaccompanied Alien Minor Act--to ensure that unaccompanied children receive humane and appropriate treatment while in the custody of the U.S. Government. Today Congress took an important step to protecting unaccompanied alien children, the most vulnerable immigrants. I believe we have a special obligation to ensure that these children are treated humanely and fairly. Unfortunately, without this legislation, there would be no procedure to make sure that happens. Currently, when a child is apprehended by immigration authorities, that child usually knows nothing about U.S. courts or immigration policies and frequently does not speak English. As a result, many are sent to detention facilities--often with adults or hardened criminals with no idea that they might be eligible for foster care or immigration relief. This bill is necessary because every year, more than 7,000 undocumented and unaccompanied children are apprehended in the United States or at our borders. This bill deals with how these thousands of children will be treated while awaiting a final decision on their immigration status in this country. Today Congress took the first step to ensure that unaccompanied minors in temporary Federal custody are treated as children and not as criminals. I first became involved in this issue when I saw the treatment of a 15-year-old Chinese girl, who fled persecution in her country and had spent 9 months in a juvenile jail. She came to her asylum hearing shackled and in prison clothing. As she told her story to an immigration judge, she could not wipe away her tears because her hands were chained to her waist. This bill seeks to protect children like this girl, who have escaped traumatic situations such as armed conflict, sweatshop labor, human trafficking, forced prostitution, and other life-threatening circumstances. These children have seen their family members threatened, tortured and even murdered. Many have been targets of attacks themselves. Indeed, it is through their resilience and indomitable spirit that they have found themselves in our country. And they need our help. Yet, our Nation's response over the several years has been unacceptable. According to a report issued by Amnesty International in June of 2004, unaccompanied children have too often languished in an unregulated immigration system. According to Amnesty International, investigators identified situations where children were strip-searched or kept in solitary confinement. Others were victims of extreme brutality or refugees from war zones and rather than being placed in appropriate facilities, they were thrown in juvenile jails. Most children reported that they had not received weekly visits from officials specializing in juvenile care. In addition, 83 percent of these facilities reported that they routinely restrained the children with handcuffs or leg irons when they are transported. One attorney told the story of a 7-year-old boy who had been forced to appear before a judge in handcuffs. The majority of these children have been forced to struggle through an immigration system designed for adults. Today, Congress will pass the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act to remedy this by requiring that children who pose no danger to themselves or others be placed in the least restrictive setting possible; requiring the Office of Refugee Resettlement to do a suitability assessment before placing the child with any agency or person; and prohibiting placing children, who have committed no crimes, in a prison with hardened criminals. This legislation also requires, whenever possible, family reunification or other appropriate placement in the best interest of the unaccompanied alien children. For example, the Office of Refugee Resettlement must do a home study before placing a child into a home or foster care. The bill also provides for pro bono legal representation for unaccompanied alien children in their immigration matters, where possible, at no expense to the Government. And finally, the bill requires training for Department of Homeland Security personnel and others who come into contact with unaccompanied children. I would also like to be clear about what this bill would not do. This legislation does not expand the current immigration rights of any child. Instead, it presumes that children will be placed in removal proceedings--unless they qualify for immigration benefits under current law. It does not remove the jurisdiction and responsibility for adjudicating immigration status from the Department of Homeland Security or the Executive Office for Immigration Review, where such jurisdiction and responsibilities currently reside. It does not interfere with the custodial rights of a parent or guardian in situations where a parent or guardian seeks to establish custody. Like the Trafficking bill, these provisions have received broad bipartisan support. Among the endorsers of this legislation are organizations representing mental health and child welfare professionals, as well as legal, human rights, immigration and religious organizations. It is a moderate, reasonable bill that by and large addresses issues of a child's care and custody, and not issues of substantive immigration relief. I thank my House and Senate colleagues for passing this important bill. I also specifically thank Senators Biden, Brownback, Kennedy, and Leahy, as well as Representatives Berman, Lofgren, and Conyers for their hard work and leadership in securing the passage of this bill. I urge the President to sign this important legislation.