Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and myself, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the tremendously successful Breast Cancer Research Stamp for 2 additional years. Without Congressional action, the Breast Cancer…
Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and myself, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the tremendously successful Breast Cancer Research Stamp for 2 additional years.
Without Congressional action, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp will expire on December 31 of this year.
The life of this extraordinary stamp deserves to be extended as it has proven to be a highly effective and self-supporting fundraiser.
Since 1998, the American people have bought over 588 million breast cancer stamps--raising $42.66 million for breast cancer research.
The National Cancer Institute and the Department of Defense have put these research dollars to good use by funding novel and innovative research in the area of breast cancer.
Over a 7 year period, the Breast Cancer Stamp has demonstrated a very sustained and committed customer base.
Millions of Americans have bought the stamps to honor loved ones with the disease, to highlight their own personal battle with breast cancer or to promote general public awareness--in hope of helping to find a cure.
One cannot calculate in dollars and cents how the stamp has focused public awareness on this devastating disease and the need for additional research funding.
There is still so much more to do because this disease has far reaching effects on our Nation:
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the United States, ranking second among cancer deaths in women after lung cancer.
In 2005, approximately 211,240 women in the U.S. will get breast cancer.
About 40,410 women will die from the disease this year.
There are over two million women living today in the U.S. who have been treated for breast cancer.
Though much less common, about 1,300 men in America are diagnosed with breast cancer each year.
It is imperative that we extend the life of this stamp so that we can continue to reach out to American women and men who do not know of their cancer and to those who are living with it.
This legislation would extend the authorization of the Breast Cancer Research stamp for two additional years until December 31, 2007.
The stamp would continue to have a surcharge of up to 25 percent above the value of a first-class stamp with the surplus revenues going to breast cancer research.
Extending the Breast Cancer Research stamp does not affect any other semi-postal proposals under consideration by the Postal Service.
We urge our colleagues to join us in passing this important legislation to extend the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for another 2 years.
Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more people are becoming cancer survivors rather than cancer victims. Every dollar we continue to raise will help save lives.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
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 offer private relief immigration bills on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their three United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer.
The Liangs are foreign nationals facing deportation on account of their overstay of visitors visas and the failure of their previous attorney to timely file a suspension of deportation application before the immigration laws changed in 1996.
Mr. Liang is a foreign national and refugee from Laos. His wife is a citizen of Taiwan. They entered the United States 22 years ago as tourists and established residency in the San Bruno, CA. Because they overstayed the terms of their temporary visas, they now face deportation from the United States.
After living here for so many years, removal from the United States would not come easily or perhaps without tearing this family apart. The Liangs have three children born in this country: Wesley, 13 years old, Bruce, 10 years old, and Eva, 7 years old. Young Wesley suffers from asthma and has a history of social and emotional anxiety. The immigration judge who presided over the Liang's case in 1997 concluded that there was no question that the Liang children would be adversely impacted if they were required to leave their relatives and friends behind in California to follow their parents to Taiwan, a country whose language and culture is unfamiliar to them. And that was 7 years ago. I can only imagine how much more they would be adversely impacted now given the passage of 7 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 US 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 have been profound and continue to haunt him. In addition to being diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, his psychologist has also indicated that he suffers from severe clinical depression, which has been exacerbated by the prospect of being deported to Taiwan, where on account of his nationality, he believes he and his family would be treated as second-class citizens. Moreover, Mr. Liang believes that the pursuit of further mental health treatment in Taiwan would only exacerbate the stigma of being an outsider in a country whose language he does not speak. Given those prospects, he also fears the impact such a stigma would have on the well-being and future of his children.
Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs.
I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record and that the attached three letters of community support also be printed.
Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru Yamada, a 22-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista, CA.
I have decided to introduce a private bill on his behalf because I believe that Mr. Yamada represents a model American citizen, for whom removal from this country would represent an unfair hardship. Without this legislation, Mr. Yamada will be forced to return to a country in which he lacks any linguistic, cultural or family ties.
Mr. Yamada legally entered the United States with his mother and two sisters in 1992 at the young age of 10. The family was fleeing from Mr. Yamada's alcoholic father, who had been physically abusive to his mother, the children and even his own parents. Since then, he has had no contact with his father and is unsure if he is even alive. Tragically, Mr. Yamada experienced further hardship when his mother was killed in a car crash in 1995. Orphaned at the age of 13, Mr. Yamada
spent time living with his aunt before moving to Chula Vista to live with a close friend of his late mother.
The death of his mother marked more than a personal tragedy for Mr. Yamada; it also served to impede the process for him to legalize his status. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa for herself and her children qualified as her dependents. Her death revoked his legal status in the United States. In addition, Mr. Yamada's mother was engaged to an American citizen at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have become an American citizen through this marriage.
Mr. Yamada has exhausted all administrative options under our current immigration system. Throughout high school, he contacted attorneys in the hopes of legalizing his status, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Unfortunately, time has run out and, for Mr. Yamada, the only option available to him today is private relief legislation.
For several reasons, it would be tragic for Mr. Yamada to be deported from the United States and forced to return to Japan.
First, since arriving in the United States, Mr. Yamada has lived as a model American. He graduated with honors from Eastlake High School in 2000, where he excelled in both academics and athletics. Academically, he earned a number of awards including being named an ``Outstanding English Student'' his freshman year, an All-American Scholar, and earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award. His teacher and coach, Mr. John Inumerable, describes him as being ``responsible, hard working, organized, honest, caring and very dependable.'' His role as the Vice-President of the Associated Student Body his senior year is an indication of Mr. Yamada's high level of leadership, as well as, his popularity and trustworthiness among his peers. As an athlete, Mr. Yamada was named the ``Most Inspirational Player of the Year'' in Junior Varsity baseball and football, as well as, Varsity football. His football coach, Mr. Jose Mendoza, expressed his admiration by saying that he has ``seen in Shigeru Yamada the responsibility, dedication and loyalty that the average American holds to be virtuous.''
Second, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as a local volunteer. As a member of the Eastlake High School Link Crew, he helped freshman find their way around campus, offered tutoring and mentoring services, and set an example of how to be a successful member of the student body. After graduating from high school, he volunteered his time for 4 years as the coach of the Eastlake High School Girl's softball team. The former head coach, who has since retired, Dr. Charles Sorge, describes him as an individual full of ``integrity'' who understands that as a coach it is important to work as a ``team player.'' His level of commitment to the team was further illustrated to Dr. Sorge when he discovered, halfway through the season, that Mr. Yamada's commute to and from practice was 2 hours long each way. It takes an individual with character to volunteer his time to coach and never bring up the issue of how long his commute takes him each day. Dr. Sorge hopes that, once Mr. Yamada legalizes his immigration status, he will be formally hired to continue coaching the team.
Third, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would be an immense hardship for him and his family here. Mr. Yamada does not speak Japanese. He is unaware of the nation's current cultural trends. And, he has no immediate family members that he knows of in Japan. Currently, both of his sisters are in the process of legalizing their immigration status in the United States. His older sister is married to a United States citizen and his younger sister is being adopted by a maternal aunt, who is a United States citizen. Since as all of his family lives in California, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would serve to split his family apart and separate him from everyone and everything that he knows. His sister contends that her younger brother would be ``lost'' if he had to return to live in Japan on his own. It is unlikely that he would be able to find any gainful employment in Japan due to his inability to speak or read the language.
As a member of the Chula Vista community, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as an honorable individual. His teacher, Mr. Robert Hughes, describes him as being an ``upstanding `All-American' young man''. Until being picked up during a routine check of riders' immigration status on a city bus, he had never been arrested or convicted of any crime. Mr. Yamada is not, and has never been, a burden on the State. He has never received any Federal or State assistance.
Currently, Mr. Yamada holds sophomore status at Southwestern Community College. However, he is taking this semester off in order to alleviate his financial burdens by working full time. He had hoped to pursue a career in law enforcement, but his plans have recently changed due to his current immigration status dilemma. Until he obtains citizenship, Mr. Yamada will be prohibited from pursuing a career in law enforcement. Due to the circumstances, Mr. Yamada has changed his career goal to that of becoming a high school teacher. Mr. Yamada's commitment to his education is admirable. He could have easily taken a different path but, through his own ``individual fortitude,'' he has dedicated himself to his studies so that he can live a better life.
With his hard work and giving attitude, Shigeru Yamada represents the ideal American citizen. Although born in Japan, he is truly American in every other sense. I ask you to help right a wrong and grant Mr. Yamada lawful permanent resident status so that he can continue towards his bright future.
Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I offer today a private immigration relief bill to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for more than 20 years. The Fulops are the parents of six U.S. citizen children. Today, they face deportation having exhausted all administrative remedies under our immigration system.
The Fulop's story is a compelling one and one which I believe merits Congress' consideration for humanitarian relief.
The most poignant tragedy to affect this family occurred in May 2000, when the Fulops eldest child, Robert ``Bobby'' Fulop, an accomplished 15 year-old teenager, died suddenly of a heart aneurism. Bobby was considered the shining star of his family.
That same year their six-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life-threatening heart condition and a frightening situation similar to Bobby's. Not long ago, she successfully underwent heart surgery, but requires medical supervision to ensure her good health.
The Fulop's youngest child, Matthew, was born seven weeks premature. He subsequently underwent several kidney surgeries and is still being closely monitored by physicians.
Compounding these tragedies is the fact that today the Fulops face deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 the family traveled to Hungary and remained there for more than 90 days. Under the pre-1996 immigration law, prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, their stay in Hungary would not have been a factor in their immigration case and they would have been eligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents.
Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, for permanent resident status. Due to large backlogs, the INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time their applications were considered, the new 1996 immigration law had taken effect. Given their one-time 90 day trip outside the United States, they were statutorily ineligible for relief pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
One cannot help but conclude that had the INS acted on the Fulop's application for relief from deportation in a timelier manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation under the pre-1996 law, given that they were long-term residents of the United States with U.S. Citizen children and many positive factors in their favor.
The irony of this situation is that the Fulops were gone from the United States for nearly five months in 1995 because they traveled to Hungary to help Mr. Fulop's brother build his home. Mr. Fulop's brother is handicap 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 10 years and currently has three full-time employees.
The couple are 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 one year old to 17 years of age. Their eldest, Dennis, is a 4.0 honor student at Palomar Community College having graduated from high school one year early. His sister, Linda, has a 3.8 grade point average and is an honor student in high school.
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 and three letters be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2005. This legislation will require that individuals are notified when their most sensitive personal information is stolen from a corporate or government database. This is the second Congress in a row that I have introduced this legislation-- it is time for us to pass it to give Americans the notice they need to protect themselves from identity thieves.
Specifically, the bill would require government or private entities to notify individuals if a data breach has compromised their Social Security number, driver's license number, credit card number, debit card number or financial account numbers.
In most cases, if authorities know that someone is a victim of a crime, the victim is notified. But, that isn't the case if an individual's most sensitive personal information is stolen from an electronic database.
Measuring the problem of security breaches is difficult, because many companies never report breaches of their systems for fear that their reputation for securing data would be harmed. But, in a survey conducted in 2004 by the FBI and the Computer Security Institute, 52 percent of respondents reported some level of unauthorized use of their computer systems. (Source: 2004 CSI/FBI Computer Crime and Security Survey)
Data breaches are becoming all too common. Consider the following incidents which have compromised the
records of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
On January 10, 2005, George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia notified 30,000 students that their names, photos and Social Security numbers were taken by an online intruder; (Source: Cnet news, ``Hackers Steal ID Info from Virginia University,'' Monday, January 11, 2005)
On August 30, 2004, a University of California-Berkeley database containing the personal information of 600,000 people was penetrated. The computer contained names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and Social Security numbers; (Source: Associated Press, October 21, 2004)
Already in the new year, cell phone carrier T-Mobile announced that a hacker broke into its database and accessed the names and Social Security numbers of 400 customers. (Source: Cnet News, ``Hacker Had Limited Access'' January 12, 2004)
Last year, San Diego State University reported that hackers broke into a server, gaining access to names and Social Security numbers for more than 178,000 former and current students, alumni and staff; (Source: San Francisco Chronicle, ``Colleges Leaking Confidential Data,'' April 5, 2004)
At the Georgia Institute of Technology, a hacker downloaded information that could have included names, addresses, phone numbers and credit card numbers for about 57,775 people; (Source: San Francisco Chronicle, ``Colleges Leaking Confidential Data,'' April 5, 2004) and
Finally, in 2004, a Florida man and his employees hacked into Acxiom Corp.'s computer system for 16 months and stole large amounts of personal information. Christopher Way, a U.S. assistant attorney general, said then that the case represents ``what may be the largest intrusion of personal data ever.'' (Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, ``Hacker Accesses Load of Data from Acxiom,'' July 22, 2004)
My home State of California has a similar data notification law, on which my bill today is modeled. But this sort of protection needs to be extended to all Americans.
I strongly believe Americans should be notified if a hacker gets access to their most personal data. This is both a matter of principle and a practical measure to curb identity theft.
Let me take a moment to describe the proposed legislation.
The Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act will set a national standard for notification of consumers when a data breach occurs.
The legislation requires a business or government entity to notify an individual when there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a hacker or other criminal has obtained unencrypted personal data maintained by the entity.
Personal data is defined by the bill as an individual's Social Security number, State identification number, driver's license number, financial account number, or credit card number.
The legislation's notification scheme minimizes the burdens on companies or agencies that must report a data breach. In general, notice would have to be provided to each person whose data was compromised in writing or through e-mail.
But there are important exceptions.
First, companies that have developed their own reasonable notification policies are given a safe harbor under the bill and are exempted from its notification requirements.
Second, encrypted data is exempted.
Third, where it is too expensive or impractical (e.g., contact address information is incomplete) to notify every individual who is harmed, the bill allows entities to send out an alternative form of notice called ``substitute notice.'' Substitute notice includes posting notice on a website or notifying major media. Substitute notice would be triggered if any of the following factors exist:
(i) the agency or person demonstrates that the cost of providing direct notice would exceed $250,000;
(ii) the affected class of subject persons to be notified exceeds 500,000; or
(iii) the agency or person does not have sufficient contact information to notify people whose information is at risk.
The bill has a tough, but fair enforcement regime. Entities that fail to comply with the bill will be subject to fines by the Federal Trade Commission of $5,000 per violation or up to $25,000 per day while the violation persists. State Attorneys General can also file suit to enforce the statute.
Additionally, the bill would allow California's law to remain in effect, but preempt conflicting state laws. It is my understanding that legislators in a number of states are developing bills modeled after the California law. Reportedly, some of these bills have requirements that are inconsistent with the California legislation. It is not fair to put companies in a situation that forces them to comply with database notification laws of 50 different states.
A year after California's landmark legislation went into effect, the law has raised overall awareness of the need to have strong privacy protections in place. Chris Jay Hoofnagle, associate director of the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center, said: ``the California law has given the public a window into a very serious problem of information security.'' (Source: Associated Press, ``Authorities Probe U.C. Hacking Attack,'' October 21, 2004)
As Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, points out ``if [California] didn't have this law, the vast majority of these situations would go unreported.'' (Source: The Orange County Register, ``Ingram Micro Discloses Database Break-In,'' May 15, 2004)
I strongly believe individuals have a right to be notified when their most sensitive information is compromised--because it is truly their information. Ask the ordinary person on the street if he or she would like to know if a criminal had illegally gained access to their personal information from a database--the answer will be a resounding yes.
Enabling consumers to be notified in a timely manner of security breaches involving their personal data will help combat the growing scourge of identity theft. If individuals are informed of the theft of their Social Security numbers or other sensitive information, they can take immediate preventative action.
They can place a fraud alert on their credit report to prevent crooks from obtaining credit cards in their name;
They can monitor their credit reports to see if unauthorized activity has occurred;
They can cancel any affected financial or consumer or utility accounts; and
They can change their phone numbers if necessary.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this vitally needed legislation. This bill will give ordinary Americans more control and confidence about the safety of their personal information. Americans will have the security of knowing that should a breach occur, they will be notified and be able to take protective action. Thank you, Mr. President.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the ``Privacy Act of 2005.''
This legislation would establish, for the first time, a comprehensive national system of privacy protection. This is the second Congress in a row that I have introduced this legislation. Every year that we wait, millions more Americans become victims of identity theft. It is time for us to act.
As you know, Mr. President, I have ardently fought for years for legislation to hamper identity theft. Today, this legislation is one of three bills that I am introducing to continue that fight. I am also introducing the Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2005, and the Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2005. I urge my colleagues to pass all of them, to protect Americans from those who would steal our very identities.
At the heart of this bill is the requirement that companies may not sell consumers' most intimate personal information unless consumers affirmatively give their authorization. This is known as ``opt-in.'' Therefore, companies must obtain consumers' written consent prior to selling their personal health information, financial information, Social Security numbers, and drivers' license data (opt-in). For this sensitive data, the bill gives the individual ultimate control over whether
or not his or her information is shared. If an individual does not actively decide to permit sharing of personal data, the data is not disclosed.
The bill recognizes that different sorts of information deserve different levels of protection. For information that is still personal, but not as intimate, the bill allows businesses more flexibility. Therefore, for other personal information--names, physical addresses, e-mail addresses, telephones, photographs, birth dates, places of birth, and birth certificate numbers--companies can sell the information so long as consumers receive notice of the companies' intent, and an opportunity to object and prohibit the sale of their information. This is known as ``opt-out.''
That is structure of the overall bill. Let me take a moment to go over some of the specifics.
For financial data, the Privacy Act would tighten the information- sharing provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This legislation would modify that statute, to prohibit the sale or disclosure of sensitive personal financial information to third parties unless the consumer affirmatively consents or opts in. The legislation would also require that banks let consumers opt out of the sharing of their personal financial information with the bank's affiliates or joint partners. The bill makes exceptions for vital public safety concerns. The Privacy Act of 2005 also prohibits banks from denying a customer a financial product or financial service if the consumer withholds consent.
For sensitive medical information, this legislation would expand on the Department of Health and Human Services privacy regulations, by extending the restrictions placed on ``covered entities'' (health insurers, health providers, and health care clearinghouses) to ``non- covered entities'' (business associates, health researchers, schools or universities, and life insurers). All of those entities will be able to share information only with the patients' consent.
For Social Security numbers, this bill will prohibit the sale or display of an individual's Social Security number to the general public without the individual's express consent, and prohibit federal, state, and local governments from displaying the numbers on the Internet, or from printing them on checks and drivers' licenses. This legislation also recognizes legitimate uses of Social Security numbers, by allowing the sale of Social Security numbers between businesses, or between the government and businesses, among other exceptions.
This legislation protects the privacy of information regardless of the medium through which it is collected. Therefore, it recognizes that both paper and electronic records are important to protecting the identities of Americans.
To minimize the regulatory burden of these privacy rules, the bill sets up a safe harbor so that industries that established approved policies will be exempt from some regulatory requirements of the legislation.
To ensure uniformity of the laws across all 50 states, the bill preempts inconsistent state laws regarding the treatment of non- sensitive information.
I note that this legislation is modeled on the California Financial Information Privacy Act, which gives consumers the right to require their consent before financial companies share their most intimate data. The plan is a good one for Californians, and it is a good one for all Americans. The fact that the California law is under assault in the courts makes it all the more vital that the uniform, national standard I introduce today becomes law.
I want to give a sense of why this legislation is so necessary. Recent statistics on the growth of identity theft show we have no time to waste in protecting personal privacy.
For years, identity theft has topped the list of complaints reported to the Federal Trade Commission. In 2003, the Commission received over half a million such complaints, about 42 percent of the total. While the FTC will not report its numbers for 2004 until early February, I unfortunately expect to again see identity theft as the cause of the most complaints.
According to a 2003 report from the FTC, 10 million Americans discovered that year their identities had been stolen. The report also stated that consumers have to spend an average of 30 hours to clear their name; The Identity Theft Resource Center puts the number at 175 hours. And as Attorney General John Ashcroft said last August, ``Identity theft costs the nation's businesses nearly $50 billion a year in fraudulent transactions and often involves coordinated criminal conduct.''
My own State, California, has more victims of identity theft than any other state. The FTC recorded 39,452 complaints of identity theft cases in 2003 in California alone.
But the numbers tell only part of the story. More important are the individual people whose lives have been devastated by identity theft. Let me tell just one story that I find particularly disturbing:
Eric Drew was a patient in a hospital receiving a bone marrow transplant. Yet unbeknownst to him, a worker in the hospital had stolen Drew's identity, and had taken advantage of this sick patient. As the Associated Press reported, ``Drew said that while he was lying in a hospital bed, dying from cancer and weak from massive doses of chemotherapy, he began to get mail thanking him for opening accounts he knew nothing about.'' In this case, luckily, the criminal was caught and convicted.
Since I introduced this legislation for the first time in the 108th Congress, there are millions more stories like this one.
Indeed, there are also new common methods of identity theft. There has been a massive upswing in the phenomenon known as ``Phishing,'' in which criminals send emails to people, spoofed to fraudulently look like emails from banks and other financial institutions. These emails tell consumers to click on a Web page, and then to enter their name, account numbers, passwords, and other sensitive financial information. The criminals then use this information not only to steal from the unwitting consumers, but to literally lock them out of their own accounts. This one sort of identity theft has, according to a December study from e-mail security company MessageLabs, increased by almost tenfold over the last year.
Given the grave risks that technology poses to our privacy, it is our responsibility to start taking action. This is especially the case for older Americans, who are disproportionately vulnerable to identity theft, as I tried to highlight last year by cosponsoring the ``Protecting Older Americans From Fraud Month'' resolution last October.
I would like to highlight some of the key provisions of the law.
For financial information this legislation tightens the privacy provisions of the Financial Services Modernization Act, commonly known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Under Gramm-Leach-Bliley, a bank can share a customer's personal information with other companies so long as it gives consumers notice and the right to opt-out of the data sharing.
The problem with the prevailing opt-out is that most people throw away their privacy notices from banks along with the rest of the unrelenting pile of commercial solicitations they receive. Since the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, banks have sent out over one billion privacy notices.
According to available published information, fewer than 5 percent of bank customers have opted out of sharing their personal information, and for many financial institutions, the response rate has been less than one percent.
Accordingly, this legislation prohibits the sale or disclosure of sensitive personal financial information to third parties unless the consumer affirmatively consents or opts in--the burden thus shifts off of the consumer.
This legislation also toughens Federal financial privacy laws for affiliate-sharing and joint-marketing. An affiliate is a company that is linked by common ownership with another company. Under Federal law, a bank can share with affiliates or joint marketing partners regardless of whether the consumer wants this information shared.
This legislation would require that banks give consumers the option of opting out of the sharing of their personal financial information with the bank's affiliates or joint partners.
I would also like to describe several other key components of the financial privacy section.
The bill prohibits banks from denying a customer a financial product or financial service just because the customer chooses to not disclose his personal information to third parties, affiliates, or joint venture partners. However, the bill does allow banks to offer incentives to customers to encourage them to permit the sharing of their personal information.
Additionally, the bill permits banks to disclose, but not sell, personal information to third parties for vital public interest purposes such as identifying or locating missing and abducted children, witnesses, criminals and fugitives, parents delinquent in child support payments, organ and bone marrow donors, pension fund beneficiaries, and missing heirs.
Just as with financial data, personal health and medical data deserves the most stringent privacy protections.
The recently adopted Department of Health and Human Services privacy regulations set a basic opt-in framework for disclosure of health information. But more can be done to protect patient privacy.
The regulations only prohibit ``covered entities''--namely health insurers, health providers, and health care clearinghouse--from selling a patient's health information without that patient's prior consent.
Meanwhile, non-covered entities--such as business associates, health researchers, schools or universities, and life insurers--are not subject to this opt-in requirement, except through contractual arrangements.
This legislation would preserve the privacy of health information wherever the information is sold. Any business associate, life insurer, school or non-covered entity trying to sell or market protected health information would, like covered entities, have to get the patient's prior consent. This is a crucial step to protect what is truly our most intimate information.
Drivers' license data also are given the strongest level of protection under this bill.
The Driver's Privacy Protection Act, DPPA was amended in 2000 to offer some meaningful protections for drivers' privacy.
For example, under the DPPA, a State Department of Motor Vehicles must obtain the prior consent (opt-in) of the driver before ``highly sensitive information''--defined as a physical copy of the license, a Social Security number, medical or disability information, and other information can be disclosed to a third party.
However, loopholes remain. Other sensitive information found on a driver's license deserves equal protection.
This legislation would expand the definition of ``highly sensitive information'' to include a physical copy of a driver's license, the driver identification number, birth date, information on the driver's physical characteristics and any biometric identifiers, such as a fingerprint, that are found on the driver's license.
Thus, this bill would ensure consumers have control over how their motor vehicle records and driver's license data are used.
I would like to take a moment to highlight the Social Security number section of this legislation. I have also introduced this section as a stand-alone bill, the ``Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2005.''
It is crucial to protect Social Security numbers because Social Security numbers are the key to a person's identity. Many identity theft cases start with the theft of a Social Security number. Once a thief has access to a victim's Social Security number, it is only a short step to acquiring credit cards, driver's licenses, or other crucial identification documents.
This legislation bars the sale or display of Social Security numbers to the public except in a very narrow set of circumstances. In general display or sale is permitted only if the Social Security number holder affirmatively consents or if there are compelling public safety needs. Government entities will have to redact Social Security numbers from electronic records that are readily available to the public on the Internet. State governments will no longer be permitted to use the Social Security number as the default driver's license number.
The legislation, however, recognizes that some industries rely on Social Security numbers to exchange information for certain transactions.
Thus, the bill directs the Attorney General to develop regulations allowing for the sale or purchase of Social Security Numbers to facilitate business-to-business and business-to-government transactions, so long as businesses put appropriate safeguards in place and do not permit public access to the number.
This legislation codifies steps Congress can take to protect citizens from identity thieves and other predators of personal information.
It restores to an individual more control over her most sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers, health information, and financial information. It also sets reasonable guidelines for businesses that handle our personal information every day. Every American has a fundamental right to privacy, no matter how fast our technology grows or changes.
Last year, President Bush signed into law the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, legislation that I helped to write, to increase punishment on people who steal others' identities. I am proud of my work to make that bill into a law. But we all must realize that punishment is no substitute for prevention. My legislation today will make fewer suffer from identity theft in the first place.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Voinovich to introduce legislation to expand the federal loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers.
Nationwide, only 30 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree program.
In California, that number is even smaller: about eighteen percent of Head Start teachers have completed a bachelor's degree.
To prepare Head Start children for elementary school, we must recruit highly qualified teachers who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning.
Recruiting and maintaining teachers with such qualifications is the only way to jump-start cognitive development and ensure that our children start elementary school ready to learn.
A survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services called the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) found a strong relationship between the education of Head Start teachers and classroom quality. Teachers with higher education levels were found to be more sensitive and responsive to their children, to have more high quality language activities, and more creative activities in their classrooms.
Teachers with higher levels of education also had classes with higher quality language activities such as reading books for the children and provided more opportunities for children to develop skills in expressing thoughts.
Head Start is the primary federal program that has the potential to reach out to low-income children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing.
We know that poor children disproportionately start school behind their peers--they are less likely to count to 10 or to recite the alphabet.
Many of our nation's youngsters enter elementary school without the basic skills necessary to succeed. Often these children lag behind their peers throughout their academic career.
As taxpayers, we will spend millions on efforts to help these children catch up. Many of these children will never catch up. A recent national study by The High/Scope Perry Preschool confirms the importance of providing preschool children with the opportunity early on to gain the basic skills necessary for school.
The study found that preschoolers were more likely to graduate from high school and be employed at age 40, earn more money a year, and were more likely to own a home and have a savings account.
We can save millions by providing low-income children with access to quality preschool where they will gain the necessary skills to succeed in school and life.
In order to give every child a head start in life, we must continue to recruit highly qualified teachers to the Head Start field and prevent the best teachers from leaving.
Many Head Start programs across the country, including in California, are losing qualified teachers to local school districts in part because the pay is better.
Nationally, the average Head Start teacher earns a salary of $21,287 compared to $43,152 for an elementary school teacher.
Head Start teachers are making half of what elementary school teachers are paid on average.
Low pay, combined with increasing student debt, is a real deterrent to getting college graduates to become Head Start teachers.
And every teacher that Head Start loses impacts the quality and access to services for our nation's low-income children.
One way to recruit and retain highly qualified Head Start teachers is to offer incentives to pursue a career in this field.
Current law allows elementary and secondary school teachers to receive up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for five years of service.
We believe Head Start teachers should be given this same opportunity.
The legislation we are introducing today is meant to encourage recent graduates, current Head Start teachers without a degree, and college students to enter and remain in the Head Start field.
In exchange for 5 years of service, a Head Start teacher could receive up to $5,000 of their federal loans forgiven.
We must continue to improve the Head Start program so that children will have the necessary cognitive skills when they leave the program, such as being able to count to ten, begin to recite the alphabet, and recognize sizes and colors.
This is just the first step. To further ensure cognitive learning, we must also continue to raise the standards and pay for Head Start teachers.
Providing our nation's low-income children with access to highly educated and qualified teachers so that they enter school ready to learn is critical to their future success and should be a priority of this Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Maria Cristina Degrassi, a 37-year-old severely disabled Italian national currently living with her family in San Mateo, California.
I have decided to offer private relief legislation on Ms. Degrassi's behalf because I believe that her removal from the United States would be tragically unfair not only to her, but to her sister and brother-in- law, Daniela Degrassi and Luca Prasso, who reside legally in the United States and who are Ms. Degrassi's closest family and only willing caregivers.
Ms. Degrassi has legally resided in the United States since 1997 on a non-immigrant tourist visa. However, she is not like an ordinary tourist. She cannot enjoy California's beautiful coastline or stunning mountain ranges. She cannot tour Hollywood movie studios or Napa Valley wineries. Ms. Degrassi was born premature in 1965 and, consequently, is severely mentally handicapped and autistic. Because of these disabilities, Ms. Degrassi has the mental capacity of a two-year old, cannot speak and understands only a few sentences in Italian.
In addition to these challenges, Ms. Degrassi was diagnosed with diabetes in 2001 and now requires daily insulin shots and a carefully monitored diet.
For Ms. Degrassi, the sum of these health problems means that she must have 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week personal care and attention. Luckily, however, there are two people in Ms. Degrassi's life who are more than happy not only to care for her daily needs, but to love and nurture her.
Ms. Degrassi's sister, Daniela, and her brother-in-law, Luca, are legal permanent residents of the United States. Mr. Prasso is a highly skilled and valued employee of PDI-DreamWorks, the world renowned movie production company. Serving as a Character Technical Supervisor and earning nearly $200,000 per year, Mr. Prasso has worked on such critically acclaimed films as ``Shrek'' and ``ANTZ.'' In the course of that work, Mr. Prasso has developed and patented new technologies and become a leader in his field. In a letter in support of this private legislation, DreamWorks referred to Mr. Prasso's skills as ``rar[e]'' and ``irreplaceable.''
Daniela Degrassi has also excelled in the United States, starting a successful freelance photography career and business.
Together, Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi have provided Ms. Degrassi with the love, care and attention that she so desperately needs. When Ms. Degrassi's father and aunt died in 1997, the couple knew that they were the only family left who was willing to care for her. The choice for them was clear. Mr. Prasso wrote in a letter he sent me, ``My wife and I then faced a big decision. We refuse[d] completely to put her in an institution. We [could not] accept the idea of not being able to properly take care of her. No other relative was alive or came forward to offer help. We were the only and closest persons to Cristina. We decided to take care of her like a daughter.''
For the past seven years, Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi have done just that, organizing their lives around caring for and attending to Ms. Degrassi.
They cook for her and clothe and bathe her on a daily basis. Because of the close monitoring Ms. Degrassi's diabetic condition requires, when the couple wants to go out to dinner or see a movie, they must do so separately so that one of them is always with Ms. Degrassi in case of an emergency.
Despite the hardships that caring for Ms. Degrassi have imposed upon Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi, the experience has deeply enriched their lives. In Mr. Prasso's letter, he wrote, ``despite my long work hours and my wife['s] new successful business as a photographer, we are able and fully committed to continue to take care [of Cristina] 24 hours a day . . . The reward of a kiss, hug or smile from Cristina is an amazing thing and makes all the pain disappear.''
Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this wonderful family will face a tragic set of choices. Since 1997, Ms. Degrassi has applied for and always received six-month extensions of her non-immigrant tourist visa. The Degrassi's lawyer has informed the couple that approval of the current extension is unlikely and has recommended they withdraw their petition. This would leave Ms. Degrassi with nothing. There are no other avenues available for her to remain in the United States lawfully. In short, if this private relief legislation is not approved, Ms. Degrassi will be forced to return to Italy.
However, Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi's love for their sister will never allow her to return to Italy alone. Faced with Ms. Degrassi's removal, the couple will leave their lives in California and move back with her in order to continue to provide the care and attention on which Ms. Degrassi depends.
The consequences of such a move will be tragic for this family. It will mean the end of Mr. Prasso's highly accomplished career with DreamWorks, as well as, the end of the photography career Daniela Degrassi has worked so hard to build. In addition, both Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi are eligible to become United States citizens this year.
I can think of no compelling reasons why the United States should not enable this family to continue as they have in California. Because of the substantial salary that Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi earn and because of the monthly pension Ms. Degrassi receives, due to her disability, from the Italian government, there is almost no chance that Ms. Degrassi will become a burden on the state or federal government.
In Mr. Prasso's letter to me, he made this simple request, ``We are looking forward to find[ing] a permanent solution to this dilemma that does not involve dismembering this family or giving up on a wonderful job. A solution that will allow us to live a normal life like a normal family.''
We can make this solution a reality for Ms. Degrassi and this wonderful family. For that reason, I offer this private relief legislation and ask my colleagues to support it.
Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Ms. Degrassi.
I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I introduce today the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005'', legislation to reform the way the federal government treats unaccompanied alien children who are apprehended by federal immigration officials at our borders or within the United States.
I first introduced legislation similar to this bill during the 107th Congress and still strongly believe that its passage is necessary to ensure the proper treatment of unaccompanied alien children within our federal system. With each passing year, as members realize the necessity for this legislation, the bill has moved further along in the process.
I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins, Schumer, Hagel, Durbin, DeWine, Cantwell, Inouye and Feingold as original co-sponsors of this legislation.
During the 108th Congress, the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' passed the Senate by unanimous consent, after garnering no less than 34 co-sponsors. Unfortunately, the bill stalled in the House of Representatives.
So today I re-introduce this legislation, and again, this will be one of my top legislative priorities because I believe we have a special obligation to ensure that every child that comes into contact with federal officials is afforded fair and humane treatment.
In 2004, approximately 6,200 unaccompanied alien children were apprehended by Department of Homeland Security officials and transferred to the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services. This number has grown over the years and shows no signs of abating.
Thousands of foreign-born children under the age of 18 enter the United States each year unaccompanied by parents or other legal guardians. These children are among the most vulnerable of the immigrant population and these numbers are going to continue to grow given the greater emphasis on enforcement actions by immigration officials--which I support--and the relatively unchanged conditions bringing them here.
These children are from all over the world, although the majority encountered by immigration officials today are from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Some are asylum seekers fleeing human rights abuses and armed conflict in their homelands. Others are fleeing abuses specific to children, such as forced recruitment of child soldiers, forced prostitution and servitude, sexual slavery and exploitation, child labor, abuse of street children, child brides and female genital mutilation. Yet other children come to the United States because they have been abused, abandoned or neglected by their parents or caregivers. And finally, some come seeking to reunify with family members already in the United States or seeking a better life.
Historically, U.S. immigration law and policies have been developed and implemented without regard to their effect on children. This result has been similar to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole--it just doesn't work.
Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuanced legal principles or courtroom and administrative procedures. Because of this, children who may very well be eligible for relief are often vulnerable to being deported back to the very life-threatening situations from which they fled--before they are even able to make their cases before the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration judge.
Prior to March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service had responsibility for the care, custody and treatment of unaccompanied alien children. Unfortunately, the Immigration and Naturalization Service fell short in
fulfilling these responsibilities. The legislation that I am introducing today builds on Section 462 of Public Law 107-296, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which provided for the transfer of responsibility for the care and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the now-abolished Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services.
Section 462 was based on S. 121, comprehensive legislation relating to unaccompanied alien children that I introduced during the 107th Congress.
With the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, we set into motion the centralization of responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children with the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The first phase of this transfer of responsibility occurred on March 1, 2003. Once the transition was completed, we finally resolved the conflict of interest inherent in the former system which pitted the enforcement side of the Immigration and Naturalization Service against the benefits side of that same agency in the care of unaccompanied alien children.
I am pleased that the provision transferring responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was contained in the Homeland Security Act and that by all accounts the transition in the care of children between the affected agencies has gone well.
But, the transfer of authority to the Office of Refugee Resettlement--by itself--is not enough to ensure that these children are treated fairly and humanely. Congress now has a responsibility to go beyond the simple transfer to actually laying out the process and steps to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are treated fairly and humanely. We must provide the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice with the tools they will need to succeed in their missions regarding the care of unaccompanied alien children after the transfer of jurisdiction took place.
First of all, I want to stress that this bill is not about benefits, as it provides no new immigration benefit to unaccompanied alien children. Rather, this bill is about the process of how we treat these children.
The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' provides guidance and instruction to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice in the following areas:
First, in the custody, release, family reunification and detention of unaccompanied alien children;
Second, it provides access by unaccompanied alien children to guardians ad litem and pro bono counsel;
Third, it streamlines the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program and provides guidance on the training of federal government officials and private parties who come into contact with unaccompanied alien children;
Fourth, it requires the issuance of guidelines specific to children's asylum claims;
Fifth, it authorizes appropriations for the care of unaccompanied alien children; and
Sixth, it amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide additional responsibilities and powers to the Office of Refugee Resettlement with respect to unaccompanied alien children.
Central throughout the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' are two concepts:
The United States government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and in all proceedings and actions, the government should have as a priority protecting the interests of these children.
I first became involved in this issue in 2000 when I heard about a young 15-year old Chinese girl who stood before a U.S. immigration court facing deportation proceedings with her hands chained to her waist, like a criminal. She had found her way to the United States as a stowaway in a container ship captured off of Guam, hoping to escape the repression she had experienced in her home country.
She had been placed on a boat bound for the United States by her very own parents, fleeing China's rigid family planning laws. Under these laws, she was denied citizenship, education and medical care. She came to this country alone and desperate.
And what did our immigration authorities do when they found her? The Immigration and Naturalization Service detained her in a juvenile jail in Portland, Oregon for eight months before her asylum hearing, and more than seven weeks after she was granted asylum.
At her asylum hearing, the young girl stood before a judge, unrepresented by counsel, confused and unable to understand the proceedings against her. She could not wipe away the tears from her face because her hands were chained to her waist. According to a lawyer who later came to represent her, ``her only crime was that her parents had put her on a boat so she could get a better life over here.''
While the young girl eventually received asylum in our country, she unnecessarily faced an ordeal no child should bear under our immigration system. This young Chinese girl represents only one of the more than 6,000 foreign-born children who, without parents or legal guardians to protect them, are discovered in the United States each year in need of protection.
This is unacceptable treatment and we have a responsibility to do better than this.
Imagine the fear of an unaccompanied alien child, in the United States alone, without a parent or guardian. Imagine that child being thrust into a system he or she does not understand, provided no access to pro bono counsel or guardians ad litem, placed in jail with adults or housed with juveniles with serious criminal convictions. I find it hard to believe that our country would allow children to be treated in such a manner.
That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' will help our country fulfill the special obligation to these children to treat them fairly and humanely.
I am proud to have the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Amnesty International USA and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and many other organizations with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to join with me by cosponsoring this important measure and ensuring that these reforms are finally enacted.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
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 almost 20 years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 18, and Cindy, age 16, also stand to benefit from this legislation. Their other three children, Roberto, age 13, Daniel, age 9, and Saray, age 8, 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's 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 detriment 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, as I stated earlier, and the other two who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. For these children, this country is the only country they really know.
Nayely, the oldest, is a freshman at Fresno Pacific University. She was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to attend college. She attends Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition scholarship package and works part-time in the admissions office.
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 indications, this is the case as well for all of the members of her family.
The Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents of this country or United States citizens. Mrs. Arreola has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is also my understanding that they have no immediate family in Mexico.
According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family.
It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record and that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation cosponsored by Senator Boxer to adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the State of California to include the addition of the Mill Creek property. This continues the effort initiated in the last Congress with the leadership of Congressman Mike Thompson, to solidify and expand the co-operative management relationship between the United States Government and the State of California, working together to protect forever the ancient majesty of the redwood forest.
In 2002, the California Department of Parks and Recreation acquired from the Save-the-Redwoods League 25,000 acres of forest land known as the Mill Creek property in Del Norte County, which is contiguous with the Redwood National and State parks boundary. This bill would include within the park boundary the Mill Creek acquisition and about 900 acres of land acquired and added to the State redwood parks since the 1978 expansion of the Redwood National Park boundary. There would be no Federal costs for land acquisition or development resulting from this legislation.
Approval of the expansion of the boundary of Redwood National Park to include the headwaters of Mill Creek will complete the vision of the Redwood Park embraced by Senator Kuchel in S.1370 that he introduced in 1967, a vision dating back to the McLaughlin-Cook report issued by the National Park Service in 1937. Protection of the headwaters of Mill Creek will secure the long term viability of the ancient redwoods already within Redwood National and State Park. It would permanently safeguard the coho salmon who return to spawn in the clear, cold waters of this forest.
These lands will be managed by the same cooperative management agreement between the National Park Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. This partnership is viewed as a model of interagency cooperative management efforts and will provide for more efficient and costeffective management of an ecologically significant resource.
This bill enjoys strong support from local and Federal officials, including Del Norte County and the Department of the Interior. Given this support and lack of controversy, I believe this legislation to be of great importance to ensure that our Redwood National Park is further protected.
I have long held a deep interest in protecting California's magnificent Redwoods. The coast redwood, the sequoia sempervirens, is native only to the West Coast where it stands in a narrow band from the tip of the Big Sur Coast to the Chetco River, just north of the California-Oregon border. The redwood stands taller than any other tree in the world and traces its lineage to among the oldest of living things. The cathedrals formed by these ancient trees inspire the best in us as a people. The redwood forests of California are a national and worldwide treasure that is ours to protect and preserve.
In 1966, the Headwaters Agreement was negotiated in part in my offices to protect approximately 7,500 acres of old growth redwoods, which was the largest grove of redwoods held in private ownership at the time. It is my great pleasure today to introduce this legislation to extend our national commitment to collaboration in preservation of the redwoods and the watersheds they anchor.
I applaud Congressman Mike Thompson's commitment to this issue and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
I rise today to introduce a bill that combines needed help for small Yosemite schools, and an addition to the beautiful Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Each of these bills individually has passed both the House and Senate in previous Congresses.
The first title of this legislation provides critical funds to three small schools nestled in the heart of Yosemite National Park and authorizes the Yosemite Regional Transportation System to shuttle visitors in and out of the park.
Approximately 130 children of park service employees are taught in the three elementary small schools located in Yosemite National Park-- Wawona, El Portal, and Yosemite Valley elementary schools.
These schools represent a dying breed of education models; they are small schools that teach children who live in remote communities and are taught by one or a group of teachers. At El Portal, three teachers instruct 53 students in seven grades. Wawona has 17 students in 7 grades who are taught by one teacher/principal.
And Yosemite Valley serves 60 students in 8 grades who are taught by two teachers.
The remote location of these schools, their small sizes and California's unique method for funding education, have all contributed to the schools amassing a combined deficit of $290,000. In their efforts to continue to provide basic educational services to students, the schools have had to cut supplemental instruction that would normally be available to students taught outside of the park.
Some have suggested that these schools consolidate into one to pool their limited resources. While this may seem to solve the problem, you must understand that many of these students already travel many miles on treacherous mountainous roads to attend their current schools. If the three schools were to consolidate, this problem would be exacerbated, requiring many students to make a 2 hour commute to their new schools.
I do not believe this is a viable option and that is why I support this legislation.
Last year, Senator Bingaman, Congressman Radanovich and I worked out a compromise on this legislation that would help the schools while protecting the National Park Service's budget. The compromise includes the following terms:
For fiscal year 2006 through 2009, the Secretary of the Interior may provide up to $400,000 in funds to the Bass Lake Union Elementary School District and the Mariposa Unified School District for educational services to students who are dependents of persons engaged in the administration, operation, and maintenance of the Park or students who live at or near the Park; the Secretary can only provide the funds if the State of California and local agencies maintain 2005 per-student funding levels to the schools, and the Secretary also must make sure that the assistance to the schools does not reduce the remaining funding available to Yosemite National Park below fiscal year 2005 levels.
Furthermore, this legislation allows the Park Service to allot federal funds for the continuing operation of a bus service that shuttles visitors through Yosemite National Park--the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System.
The federally funded demonstration project that allowed YARTS to offer services on a temporary basis expired in May 2002 and since then, YARTS has leveraged local funds to ensure that services were not discontinued.
Both the Park Service and YARTS are supportive of continuing their mutually beneficial agreement. This legislation would do just that by taking the burden off local entities and providing the necessary assistance that this service needs.
I am also pleased to introduce today a second title in this legislation to allow the National Park Service to extend the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, GGNRA, by acquiring critical natural landscapes and scenic vistas.
This bill meets several distinct needs in California and national needs of all National Park System visitors by adding 4,600 acres of pristine natural land to the boundary of the Golden Gate Recreation Area. It will protect four major watersheds, preserve the home of numerous threatened, rare and endangered plant and animal species in the region, allow potential access to valuable future trail links to contiguous State and county parks, and establish a dramatic and logical southern entrance to the park.
A key component of this legislation is its three-way, local-state- federal partnership. Half of the total purchase price of these lands has already been donated by local and State sources. Additionally, this legislation specifically provides that all land transactions involve a willing seller and willing buyer.
Furthermore, this bill has the strong support of local community groups, the former Golden Gate National Recreation Area Advisory Commission, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, the National Park Service, and the California State Farm Bureau. It also has the endorsement of the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News. I know of no opposition to this bill.
Expanding the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to include Rancho Corral de Tierra through such a beneficial partnership is an opportunity not to be missed. A vast land within a major metropolitan area that offers extraordinary scenic views of the Pacific coastline and the greater Bay Area, a place with plants found nowhere else on earth find refuge, a home for rare and endangered animals, is available now for protection and enjoyment. We have the chance to enjoy this special land and to leave a lasting legacy for our children and our grandchildren.
California's national parks are truly invaluable and the park that this bill supports offers an opportunity for visitors and residents to enjoy unique national habitats and offers a unique chance for the National Park Service and the community to work together, not only to protect the environment, but also the interests of the nearby communities and national and international visitors.
This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman Tom Lantos plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his leadership on this issue.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.