Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need to restore and protect Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe is a national treasure. Her alpine beauty has drawn and inspired people for centuries: artists and poets, John Muir and Mark Twain, and millions…
Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need to restore and protect Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe is a national treasure. Her alpine beauty has drawn and inspired people for centuries: artists and poets, John Muir and Mark Twain, and millions of visitors from around the world.
As a girl, I went to Lake Tahoe to ride horses through the woods, bike around the magnificent Basin and swim in the clear blue waters.
Today, I am proud to work with representatives from different ends of the political spectrum to restore Lake Tahoe to that pristine State. For 14 years, we have come together to Keep Tahoe Blue.
That is why today I am reintroducing the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011, which is cosponsored by Senators Harry Reid, John Ensign and Barbara Boxer.
It would authorize $415 million over 10 years to improve water clarity, reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire, and restore the environment.
Specifically, it would provide $248 million over 10 years for the highest priority restoration projects, as established using scientific data. The legislation authorizes at least $72 million for stormwater management and watershed restoration projects scientifically determined to be the most effective ways to improve water clarity.
This bill also requires prioritized ranking of environmental restoration projects and authorizes $136 million for State and local agencies to implement these projects.
Now, and this is an important point, this legislation would direct investment to where it is needed most.
For example, today we know the major sources of stormwater runoff that send sedimentation into the lake, degrading water clarity.
So the monies would go to specific projects addressing California state roads, source of 23 percent of urban particle loads; the city of South Lake Tahoe, Calif., 22 percent; Washoe County, Nevada, 17 percent; and so forth.
In this bill, these stormwater projects are targeted to the areas of greatest concern. Priority projects will improve water quality, forest health, air quality and fish and wildlife habitat around Lake Tahoe. In addition, projects that benefit low-income neighborhoods are encouraged.
The bill authorizes $136 million over 10 years to reduce the threat of wildfire around Lake Tahoe. This would finance hazardous fuels reduction projects, at $17 million per year, including grants to local fire agencies.
It provides the Forest Service up to $10 million for fuels projects that have multiple environmental benefits, with an emphasis in restoring Stream Environment Zones.
This is critical because, again, these streams feed into the lake and form a critical link in the ecosystem. We need to pay attention to these stream zones if we hope to restore water clarity.
The bill protects Lake Tahoe from the threat of quagga mussels and other invasive aquatic species. Quagga mussels pose a very serious threat to Lake Tahoe, a threat made more intractable because these mussels have been shown to survive in cold waters. A few years ago University of California scientists reported that they found up to 3,000 Asian clams per square meter at spots between Zephyr Point and Elk Point in Lake Tahoe. The spreading Asian clam population could put sharp shells and rotting algae on the Lake's beaches and contribute to the spread other invasive species such as quagga mussels.
The bill would authorize $20.5 million for watercraft inspections and removal of existing invasive species. It would require all watercraft to be inspected and decontaminated.
One quagga or zebra mussel can lay 1 million eggs in a year. This means that a single boat carrying quagga could devastate the lake's biology, local infrastructure, and the local economy.
The damage that could be inflicted at Lake Tahoe by a quagga infestation has been estimated at tens of millions of dollars annually. The threat to Lake Tahoe cannot be overstated. There were no quagga mussels in Lake Mead 4 years ago. Today there are more than 3 trillion. The infestation is probably irreversible.
But there is some good news. Last summer, scientists placed long rubber mats across the bottom of Lake Tahoe to cut off the oxygen to the Asian clams. Early research suggests these mats were very effective at killing the clams. And scientists have also discovered how to decontaminate boats and kill quagga mussels.
We can fight off these invaders. But it will require drive and imagination--and the help authorized within this bill.
The bill supports reintroduction of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The legislation authorizes $20 million over 10 years for the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan. The Lahontan Cutthroat Trout is an iconic species that has an important legacy in Lake Tahoe.
When John C. Fremont first explored the Truckee River in January of 1844, he called it the Salmon Trout River because he found the Pyramid Lake Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The trout relied on the Truckee River and its tributaries for their spawning runs in spring, traveling up the entire river's length as far as Lake Tahoe and Donner Lake, where they used the cool, pristine waters and clean gravel beds to lay their eggs. But dams, pollution and overfishing caused the demise of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout.
Lake Tahoe is one of 11 historic lakes where Lahontan Cutthroat Trout flourished in the past, and it's a critical part of the strategy to recover the species.
The bills funds scientific research. The legislation authorizes $30 million over 10 years for scientific programs and research which will produce information on long-term trends in the Basin and inform the most cost-effective projects.
The bill prohibiting mining operations in the Tahoe Basin. The legislation would prohibit new mining operations in the Basin, ensuring that the fragile watershed, and Lake Tahoe's water clarity, are not threatened by pollution from mining operations.
The bill increases accountability and oversight. Every project funded by this legislation will have monitoring and assessment to determine the most cost-effective projects and best management practices for future projects.
The legislation also requires the Chair of the Federal Partnership to work with the Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and regional and state agencies, to prepare an annual report to Congress detailing the status of all projects undertaken, including project scope, budget and justification and overall expenditures and accomplishments.
This will ensure that Congress can have oversight on the progress of environmental restoration in Lake Tahoe.
The bill provides for public outreach and education. The Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will implement new public outreach and education programs including: encouraging Basin residents and visitors to implement defensible space, conducting best management practices for water quality, and preventing the introduction and proliferation of invasive species.
In addition, the legislation requires signage on federally financed projects to improve public awareness of restoration efforts.
The bill allows for increased efficiency in the management of public land. Under this legislation, the Forest Service would have increased flexibility to exchange land with state agencies which will allow for more cost-efficient management of public land. There is currently a checkerboard pattern of ownership in some areas of the Basin.
Under this new authority, the Forest Service could exchange land with the California Tahoe Conservancy of approximately equal value without going through a lengthy process to assess the land.
For example, if there are several plots of Forest Service land that surround or are adjacent to Tahoe Conservancy land, the Tahoe Conservancy could transfer that land to the Forest Service so that it can be managed more efficiently.
This legislation is needed because the ``Jewel of the Sierra'' is in big trouble. If we don't act now, we could lose Lake Tahoe--and lose it with stunning speed--as climate change increases in severity.
The effects of climate change on Lake Tahoe are already visible. It is making the basin dry and tinder-hot, increasing the risks of catastrophic wildfire. Daily air temperatures have increased 4 degrees since 1911. Snowfall has declined from an average of 52 percent of overall precipitation in 1910 to just 34 percent in recent years.
Climate change has raised Lake Tahoe's water temperature 1.5 degrees in 38 years. That means the cyclical deep-water mixing of the lake's waters will occur less frequently, and this could significantly disrupt Lake Tahoe's ecosystem.
Anyone doubting that climate change poses a considerable threat to Lake Tahoe should read an alarming recent report by the UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center.
It was written for the U.S. Forest Service by scientists who have devoted their professional careers to studying Lake Tahoe. And it paints a distinctly bleak picture of the future for the ``Jewel of the Sierra.''
Among its findings: The Tahoe Basin's regional snowpack could decline by as much as 60 percent in the next century, with increased floods likely by 2050 and prolonged droughts by 2100.
Even ``under the most optimistic projections,'' average snowpack in the Sierra Nevada around Tahoe will decline by 40 to 60 percent by 2100, according to the report.
This would bankrupt Tahoe's ski industry, threaten the water supply of Reno and other communities, and degrade the lake's fabled water clarity. It would be devastating.
Pollution and sedimentation have threatened Lake Tahoe's water clarity for years. In 1968, the first year UC Davis scientists measured clarity, the lake had an average depth of 102.4 feet. Clarity declined over the next 3 decades, hitting a low of 64 feet in 1997.
There has been some improvement this decade. This year scientists recorded average clarity at 69.6 feet--roughly within the range of the past eight years. But it is a fragile gain.
The University of California Davis report has determined that an all- out attack on pollution and sedimentation is the lake's last hope.
Geoff Schladow, director of the UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center and one of the report's authors, has highlighted the need to restore short-term water quality in Lake Tahoe--while there's still time to do it.
According to the report, ``reducing the load of external nutrients entering the lake in the coming decades may be the only possible mitigation measure to reduce the impact of climate change on lake clarity.'' In other words, the sediment and runoff entering the lake could fuel algal growth, creating a downward spiral in water quality and clarity.
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011 would directly fund efforts to address water clarity issues and impacts from climate change.
Last year, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2010 passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously, but there was not enough time for a floor vote. It is my hope that this legislation can be passed early in the legislative session.
A lot of good work has been done. But there's a lot more work to do, and time is running out.
Mark Twain called Lake Tahoe ``the fairest picture the whole world affords.'' We must not be the generation who lets this picture fall into ruin. We must rise to the challenge, and do all we can to preserve this ``noble sheet of water.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of the Buendias, a family who has lived in the Fresno area of California for more than 20 years. The beneficiaries of this bill include Jose Buendia Balderas, his wife, Alicia Aranda de Buendia, and their daughter, Ana Laura Buendia Aranda. I believe this family merits Congress' special consideration.
I would like to start with the story of Jose Buendia, a remarkable father and husband who has embraced the hard work ethic of this country. Many years ago, Jose's father worked as an agricultural worker on the Bracero program.
In 1981, he brought his son to the United States. Jose worked hard, providing financial support to his family in Mexico and working his way up through jobs in landscaping and construction.
Today, Jose is a valuable employee with Bone Construction, Inc. He has worked with this California-based company for nearly 10 years, developing skills and experience and now serving as a lead foreman. Timothy Bone, the owner of the company, calls Jose a ``reliable, hardworking and conscientious'' worker.
Jose is married to Alicia, who goes to work season after season in California's labor-intensive agriculture industry. She currently works for a fruit packing company in Reedley, California. Jose and Alicia have raised two outstanding children, Ana Laura, age 22, and Alex, age 20, who have both always excelled in school.
Ana Laura earned a 4.0 GPA at Reedley High School, and was offered an academic scholarship at the University of California, Berkeley. Unfortunately, she could not accept the scholarship because of her undocumented status.
Ana Laura nonetheless persisted. She enrolled at the University of California, Irvine and is on track to graduate this spring with a major in Chicano Studies and Art.
Ana Laura's younger brother, Alex, is a United States citizen. He graduated high school with a 3.85 GPA and now studies engineering at the University of California, Merced. Last spring, he graduated with honors and a scholarship from Reedley College with an Associate of Science degree in Engineering.
Remarkably, the Buendias should have been able to correct their immigration status years ago. Jose should have qualified for legalization pursuant to the Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986; however, his application was never acted upon because his attorney was convicted of fraudulently submitting legalization and Special Agricultural Worker applications, tainting all of his clients.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service took nearly 7 years to determine that Jose's application contained no fraudulent information, but at that point it was too late. Jose was no longer eligible for relief due to changes in U.S. immigration law.
Still, the Buendia family continued to seek legal status through other means. In 1999, it appeared they had succeeded when an Immigration Judge granted the family cancellation of removal based on the hardship their son, Alex, would face if deported to Mexico. However, the decision was appealed and ultimately overturned. At this point, the Buendias have exhausted their options to remain together as a family here in the United States.
In the more than 20 years of living in California, the Buendias have shown that they are committed to working to achieve the American dream. They have a strong connection to their local community, as active members of the Parent Teachers Association and their
church. They pay their taxes every year, paid off their mortgage, and remain free of debt. They have shown that they are responsible, maintaining health insurance, savings accounts, and retirement accounts.
Moreover, the Buendia children are excellent students pursuing higher education here in the United States. Without this private bill, these young adults will be separated from their family or forced to relocate to a country they simply do not know. I do not believe it is in the Nation's best interest to prevent talented youth raised here in the United States, who have good moral character and outstanding academic records, from realizing their future.
I respectfully ask my colleagues for their support of the Buendia family. I hope the Senate will consider this private relief legislation in the 112th Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today, I offer private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola. The Arreolas are Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California.
Esidronio and Maria Elena have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 25, and Cindy, age 20, also stand to benefit from this legislation.
The other three Arreola children, Robert, age 19, Daniel, age 15, and Saray, age 14, are United States citizens. Today, Esidronio and Maria Elena and their two eldest children face deportation.
The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.
The Arreolas are facing deportation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking the attorney's disbarment for his actions in his client's immigration cases.
Esidronio came to the United States in 1986 and was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years. As a migrant worker at that time, he would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers SAW, program, had he known about it.
Maria Elena was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy. She returned to Mexico to give birth because she wanted to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Because of the length of time that the Arreolas were in the United States, it is likely that they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, which would have allowed them to remain in the United States legally. However, their poor legal representation foreclosed this opportunity.
One of the most compelling reasons for my introduction of this private bill is the devastating impact the deportation of Esidronio and Maria Elena would have on their children--three of whom are American citizens--and the other two who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. For these children, this country is the only country they really know.
Nayely, the oldest, was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to graduate college. She attended Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition scholarship package and worked part-time in the admissions office. She graduated from Fresno Pacific University with a degree in Business Administration and is working on her graduate degree. Nayely recently got married.
At a young age, Nayely demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She worked hard to achieve her full potential both through her academic endeavors and community service. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services at Fresno Pacific University states in a letter of support, ``[T]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.''
In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service organization. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family, if forced to return to Mexico, will be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and further contribute to her community and to this country.
Nayely's sister, Cindy, also recently married and has a one-year-old daughter. Neither Nayely nor Cindy are eligible to adjust their status based on their marriages because they grew up in the United States undocumented.
The Arreolas also have other family who are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents of this country. Maria Elena has three brothers who are American citizens, and Esidronio has a sister who is an American 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, Esidronio was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business in California repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to
enable him to purchase a home for his family. He and his wife are active in their church community and in their children's education.
It is clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce private relief legislation for Robert Kuan Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei, ``Alice'', Hsu-Liang.
I first introduced a private bill for Robert and Alice in 2003. Since then this family has only further demonstrated their hard work ethic and commitment to realizing the American dream. I continue to believe that Robert and Alice merit Congress' special consideration and the extraordinary relief provided by private legislation.
Robert and Alice have been living in San Bruno, California, for the last 27 years. Robert is a national and refugee from Laos, and Alice is originally from Taiwan. They have three children who are all United States citizens. I am concerned that forcing Robert and Alice to return to their home countries would tear this family apart and cause immense and unwarranted hardship to them and their children.
Robert and Alice have called California their home since they first entered the United States in 1983. They came here legally on tourist visas. They face deportation today because they remained in the United States past the terms of their visas, and because their attorney failed to handle their immigration case on a timely basis before federal immigration laws changed in 1996.
In many ways, the Liang family represents a uniquely American success story. Robert was born in Laos, but fled the country as a teenager after his mother was killed by Communists. He witnessed many traumatic experiences in his youth, including the attack that killed his mother and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He routinely witnessed the brutal persecution and deaths of others in his village in Laos. In 1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan.
Robert and his wife risked everything to come to the United States. Despite the challenges of their past, they built a family in California and established a place for themselves in the local community. They are homeowners. They own a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant. They file annual income taxes and are financially stable.
Robert and Alice support their three children, Wesley, Bruce, and Eva, who are all American citizens. Wesley is now 18 years old and studying at City College of San Francisco. The younger children, Bruce and Eva, attend schools in the San Bruno area and continue to do well in their classes.
There are many reasons to believe that deporting Robert and Alice would have a harmful impact on the children, who have all of their ties to the United States. Deportation would either break this family apart or force them to relocate to a country entirely foreign to the one they know to be home.
The Immigration Judge who presided over Robert and Alice's case in 1997 also concluded that Robert and Alice's deportation would adversely impact the Liang children.
Moreover, Robert would face significant hurdles if deported, having fled Laos as a refugee more than 27 years ago. The emotional impact of the wartime violence Robert experienced at a young age was traumatic and continues to strain him. He battles severe clinical depression here in the United States. Robert fears that if he is deported and moves to his wife's home country, Taiwan, he will face discrimination on account of his nationality. Robert does not speak Taiwanese, and he worries about how he would pursue mental health treatment in a foreign country.
Robert and Alice have worked since 1993 to resolve their immigration status. They filed for relief from deportation; however, it took nearly five years for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, to act on the case. By the time their case went through in 1997, the immigration laws had changed and the Liangs were no longer eligible for relief. I supported these changes, set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. But, I also believe there may be situations worthy of special consideration.
Robert and Alice Liang represent one such example. They are long-term residents of the United States. Their children are all U.S. citizens. The Immigration Judge that presided over the appeal of this case determined that Robert and Alice would have qualified for relief from deportation, in light of these positive factors, had the INS given their case timely consideration. Unfortunately, their immigration case took nearly five years to move forward.
A private bill is the only way for both Robert and Alice to remain in the United States together with their family. They have worked extraordinarily hard to make the United States their home. I believe Robert and Alice deserve the relief provided by a private bill.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a private relief bill on behalf of Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas. Javier and Leticia, originally from Mexico, are the parents of three U.S. citizen children, Bryan, age 17, Ashley, age 13, and Nancy, age 7. This family lives in Fremont, California.
I first introduced a bill for Javier and Leticia in 2009, and I continue to believe they deserve Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Javier and Leticia are outstanding parents, volunteers, workers, and leaders in their community. Javier and Leticia came to the United States after each suffered the loss of a parent.
Leticia left Mexico at age 17 after her mother died from cancer. Javier came to the United States in 1990, at age 23, several years after the murder of his father in Michoacan, Mexico.
Javier had been living and working in the United States for over 25 years when I first learned about this case. He originally entered the country looking for work to support his extended family. Today, Javier is a Manager at Full Bloom Baking Company in San Mateo, California, where he has been an employee for over 18 years. In fact, Javier was the second employee hired at Full Bloom when the company first began.
Javier's fellow co-workers at Full Bloom have written compelling letters to me about Javier's hard work ethic and valuable contributions. The company owners assert that with his help, the company grew to be one of the largest commercial bakeries in the Bay Area, today employing approximately 385 people.
They write that Javier is a mentor to others and maintains a ``tremendous amount of `institutional knowledge' that can never be replaced.'' One of his co-workers wrote, ``Without Javier at the bakery, the lives of hundreds of people will change.''
Javier made attempts to legalize his status in the United States. At one point, he received an approved labor certification. However, his case could not be finalized due to poor timing and a lengthy immigration process. It took three years, for example, for his labor certification to be approved. By that time, Javier was already in removal proceedings and his case is now closed.
During consideration of Javier's case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the difficult situation Javier faces. The Court wrote, ``We are not unmindful of the unique and extremely sympathetic circumstances of this case. By all accounts, Petitioner has been an exemplary father, employee, and member of his local community. If he were to be deported, he would be separated from his wife, three U.S. citizen children, and the life he has worked so hard to build over the past 17 years. In light of the unfortunate sequence of events leading up this juncture and Petitioner's positive contributions to society, Petitioner may very well be deserving of prosecutorial grace.''
Unfortunately, the Court ultimately denied the case. Javier and his wife have no additional avenues for adjusting their status. A private bill is the only way for them to remain in the United States.
I believe it is important to consider the potentially harmful impact on Javier and Maria Leticia's three U.S. citizen children, Bryan, Ashley, and Nancy, should their parents be deported. Bryan, Ashley, and Nancy are all in school in California. Javier owns their home in Fremont. He is the sole financial provider for his wife and children, while also providing some financial support to extended family members in Mexico. Javier and Leticia are good parents and play active roles in their children's lives. The Principal of Patterson Elementary School described Javier and Leticia as ``two loving and supportive parents who are committed to their children's success.''
All too often, deportation separates U.S. citizen children from their parents. In 2009, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security found that, in the last ten years, at least 108,434 immigrant parents of American citizen children were removed from this country. Other reports show that deporting a parent causes trauma and long- lasting harm to children.
Moreover, the deportation of Javier and Leticia would be a significant loss to the community. Leticia is currently volunteering and training for a job with Bay Area Women Against Rape in Oakland, which provides services to survivors of sexual assault. She is also a certified health promoter and volunteer at Vazquez Health Center in Fremont.
Javier's community involvement is just as impressive. He has volunteered with the Women's Foundation of California, Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation, the Saint Patrick Proto Cathedral Parish, the American Red Cross, and the California AIDS Ride.
Patricia W. Chang, a long-time community leader in California and current CEO of Feed the Hunger, writes: ``Asking Mr. Urenda to leave the United States would deprive his children of their father, an upstanding resident of the country. It would deprive the community of an active participant, leader, and volunteer.''
Judy Patrick, President/CEO of the Women's Foundation of California, states that Javier ``is a model participant in this society.''
Clearly, Javier and Leticia have earned the admiration of their community here in the United States. They are the loving parents of three American children. Javier is a valued employee at Full Bloom Baking Company. This family shows great potential, and I believe it is in our Nation's best interest to allow them to remain here with their children and to continue making significant contributions to California and the Nation as a whole.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Shirley is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the proud mother of 14- year-old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.
I believe Shirley merits Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because I believe her removal from the United States would cause undue hardship for her and her family. Shirley faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety.
Shirley experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she left to come to the United States. When Shirley was only 14 years old, her cousin murdered her mother and her sister and shot Shirley in the head. While the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Shirley fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a visitor's visa in 1989.
Shirley's current deportation order is the result of negligent counsel. Shirley applied for asylum in 1995. While her case appeal was pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney failed to submit a brief to support her case. As a result, the case was dismissed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals granted Shirley voluntary departure from the United States.
Shirley never received notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals granted her voluntary departure. Shirley's attorney moved offices, did not receive the order, and ultimately never informed her of the order. As a result, Shirley did not depart the United States and the grant of voluntary departure automatically became a deportation order. Shirley learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody.
Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Shirley was denied the opportunity to present her case in U.S. immigration proceedings. Shirley later filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against her former attorney. She is not the first person to file such a complaint against this attorney.
In addition to the hardship that would come to Shirley if she is deported, Shirley's deportation would be a serious hardship to her two United States citizen children, Jashley and Joreine, who are minors.
Jashley and Joreine are currently attending Terra Nova High School in Pacifica, California, where they continue to be excellent students on the honor roll. The children are involved in their school's music program, playing the clarinet and the flute. The children's teacher wrote a letter to me in which she described Shirley's involvement in Jashley and Joreine's lives, referring to Shirley as a ``model'' parent and describing her active role in the school community. In addition to caring for her two children, Shirley is the primary caregiver for her elderly mother-in-law.
If Shirley were forced to leave the United States, her family has expressed that they would go with Shirley to the Philippines or try and find a third country where the entire family could relocate. This would mean that Jashley and Joreine would have to leave behind their education and the only home they know in the United States.
While Shirley and Jay are legally married under California law at this time, Shirley cannot legally adjust her immigration status through the regular family-based immigration procedures.
I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two United States citizen children, to make the choice between being separated and relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships.
Shirley and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic Church, volunteering for the church and the Mother Theresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Shirley has the support of dozens of members of her community who shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community.
Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Shirley today will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
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, originally from Mexico, is living in the San Jose area of California.
The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.
Jorge and his wife, Oliva, originally came to the United States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr. was just 2 years old. In 1995, they left the country to attend a funeral, and then re-entered the United States on visitor's visas.
The family has since expanded to include two sons, Alexis Rojas, now 18 years old, Matias, now a year old, a daughter Tania Rojas, now age 16, and a granddaughter, Mina Rojas, who is less than a year old.
The Rojas family first attempted to legalize their status in the United
States when an unscrupulous immigration consultant, who was not an attorney, advised them to apply for asylum. Unfortunately, without proper legal guidance, this family did not realize at the time that they lacked a valid basis for asylum. The asylum claim was denied in 2008, leaving the Rojas family with no further options to legalize their status.
Since their arrival in the United States more than 20 years ago, the Rojas family has demonstrated a robust work ethic and a strong commitment to their community in California. They have paid their taxes and worked hard to contribute to this country.
Jorge is a hard-working individual who has been employed by Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance in San Jose, California, for the past 16 years. Currently, he works on commercial landscaping projects. Jorge is well-respected by his supervisor and his peers.
In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time to provide modern green landscaping and building projects at his children's school in California. He is active in his neighborhood association, working with his neighbors to open a library and community center in their community.
Oliva, in addition to raising her three children, has also been very active in the local community. She works to help other immigrants assimilate to American life by acting as a translator and a tutor for immigrant children in local schools and after school programs in Northern California.
Before her youngest son was born, Oliva volunteered with the People Acting in Community Together, PACT, organization, where she worked to prevent crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and schools.
Both Jorge and Oliva are active volunteers with the Second Harvest Food Bank, assisting in distributing food to the needy at a community center.
Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the Rojas family to remain in the United States is the impact that their deportation would have on their three children. Two of the Rojas children, Alexis and Tania, are American citizens. Jorge Rojas, Jr. has lived in the United States since he was a toddler.
For Alexis, Tania, and Jorge, this country is the only country they really know.
Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his parents, recently became a father. He is now 22 years old and working at a job that allows him to support his daughter, Mina. Jorge graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007 and is taking classes at San Jose City College.
Alexis, age 18, graduated from Del Mar High School and is now a student at West Valley College in Saratoga, California. He is interested in studying linguistics. Tania, age 16, still attends Del Mar High School and plans to graduate next year. Their teachers describe them as ``fantastic, wonderful and gifted'' students.
It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear.
When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters from the community in Northern California in support of this family. Enactment of 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.
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.
Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and their daughter, Adilene Martinez. This family is originally from Mexico but has been living in California for twenty years. I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief.
When Jose came to the United States from Mexico, he began working as a busboy in restaurants in San Francisco, California. In 1990, he started working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award-winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco.
Jose worked his way through the ranks, eventually becoming Palio's sous chef. His colleagues describe him as a reliable and cool-headed coworker, and as ``an exemplary employee'' who not only is ``good at his job but is also a great boss to his subordinates.''
He and his wife, Micaela, call San Francisco home. Micaela works as a housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of whom are United States citizens. Their oldest child Adilene, age 22, is undocumented. Adilene graduated from the Immaculate Conception Academy and attended San Francisco City College. She is now studying nursing at Los Medranos College.
The Martinez's second daughter, Jazmin, is a senior at Leadership High School and has applied to attend several Universities in California. Jazmin is a United States citizen and has been diagnosed with asthma. According to her doctor, if the family returns to Mexico, the high altitude and air pollution in Mexico City could be fatal to Jazmin.
The Martinez family attempted to legalize their status through several channels.
In 2001, Jose's sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Jose to get a green card. However, the current green card backlog for siblings from Mexico is long, and it will be many years before Jose will be eligible to legalize his status though his sister.
In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent application for cancellation of removal because he could not find the ``requisite hardship'' required for this form of immigration relief. Ironically, the immigration judge who reviewed their case found that Jose's culinary ability was a negative factor weighing against keeping the family in the United States, finding that Jose's skills indicated that he could find a job in Mexico.
Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio D'Asti, petitioned for legal status for Jose based upon Jose's unique skills as a chef. Even though U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved Jose's work petition, there is a backlog for employment based visas and it may be many years before Jose can get a visa. Until then, he and his family remain subject to deportation.
Jose, Micaela, and their daughter, Adilene, have no other administrative options to legalize their status. If they are deported, they will face a several-year ban from returning to the United States. Jose and Micaela will be separated from their American citizen-children and their community.
The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in California. They are active in their faith community and their children's schools. They volunteer with community-based organizations and are, in turn, supported by their community. When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters of support from their fellow parishioners, teachers, and members of their community.
The Martinez family truly embraces the American dream. Jose worked his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. Adelene worked hard in high school and is now attending college.
I believe the Martinez family's presence in the United States allows them to continue making significant contributions to their community in California.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li. Steve is a Peruvian national who lives in San Francisco, California. He was brought to the United States as a child and is now a student at City College of San Francisco hoping to become a nurse.
I decided to introduce a private bill on Steve's behalf because I believe that Steve would suffer undue hardship if he were removed to Peru. Without this legislation, Steve would be separated from his family and his community, and returned to a country he does not know.
Steve was only 12 years old when his parents brought him to the United States. Steve's parents are Chinese nationals who originally fled China to escape economic oppression and the Chinese government's policies on reproductive rights. From China, his parents went to Peru, where Steve was born.
The family then sought asylum in the United States, which was denied. Steve was ordered removed to Peru, where he was born, while his parents were ordered removed to China, the country of their nationality. Steve's parents would not be able to accompany their son to Peru.
Steve's parents never told him about the asylum denial or the removal orders. Steve did not know that he was in the United States illegally, and he went through all of his teenage years in the United States believing he was legally allowed to be here. He did not learn about his deportation order until one morning this past September when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrived at his home and took him into custody.
All too often, youngsters like Steve are put in the position of being returned to a country they do not know. These young people did not make the choice to come to the United States but were brought to this country by their parents. Many of these young people grew up in America and have little or no memory of the countries they came from. They are hard working young people dedicated to their education. They have stayed out of trouble. Some are valedictorians and honor roll students. Many are community leaders and have an unwavering commitment to serving the United States.
I hoped that the Senate would pass the DREAM Act last year to provide qualified young people the opportunity to contribute to this country and their communities. Unfortunately, the bill fell short of the 60 votes it needed to move forward. I hope the Senate will one day pass the DREAM Act. The legislation I am introducing today will provide one of these youngsters the opportunity give back to the country he calls home.
Steve attended George Washington High School in San Francisco, California. While there, he was enrolled in the Honor's Program and became very involved in his high school community. Steve was an athlete on the cross country and track team. He worked for the school newspaper as a reporter, editor, and cameraman. Demonstrating his desire to educate his community on health issues, Steve also provided presentations to other students through his high school's wellness program on the risks of drinking and driving and sexually transmitted diseases.
Steve graduated high school in 2008 and enrolled at City College of San Francisco to pursue a career in nursing. City College of San Francisco awarded Steve the Goldman Scholarship to cover the cost of his tuition. Steve has continued his active involvement in his community, joining the Asian American Student Success Center, as well as the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Program, which is a 2-year outreach and educational support program.
Steve continued his commitment to academic achievement when he attended the San Francisco State University Summer Science Institute, which provided a year-long internship to prepare him for a career in health care upon his graduation from college.
Educators working with Steve highlight his potential for giving back to the United States, while Steve's friends and other community members have contacted me about the impact his compassion and helpfulness has had on the community. Steve's teachers call him a ``great student,'' ``hard working,'' ``an exceptional student,'' and ``goal directed.''
This private bill is an opportunity for Steve to finish his education and remain in the country he considers his only home. If he were forced to relocate to Peru, his education would be cut short, and Steve would be sent to a place where he knows no one. I believe that, by staying in California, Steve will only continue to serve his community and serve this country as a health care professional.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing private relief legislation on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel, a couple living with their family in Camarillo, California.
Joseph and Sharon are nationals of Egypt who fled their home country over twelve years ago after being targeted for their religious involvement in the Christian Coptic Church in Egypt. They became involved with this church during the 1990s, Joseph as an accountant and project coordinator helping to build community facilities and Sharon as the church's training director in human resources.
Unfortunately, Joseph and Sharon were also subjected to threats and abuse. Joseph was jailed repeatedly because of his involvement with the church. Sharon's family members were violently targeted, including her cousin who was murdered and her brother whose business was firebombed. When Sharon became pregnant with her first child, she was threatened by a member of a different religious organization against raising her child in a non-Muslim faith.
Joseph and Sharon came to the United States legally seeking refuge in November 1998. They immediately notified authorities of their intent to seek protection in the United States, filing for political asylum in May 1999.
However, Joseph, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating why he was afraid to return to Egypt, and one year later their asylum application was denied because they could not adequately establish that they were victims of persecution. Joseph and Sharon pursued the appropriate means for appealing this decision, to no avail.
It should be noted that sometime later Sharon's brother applied for asylum in the United States. He, too, applied on the basis of persecution he and his family faced in Egypt, but his application was approved and he was granted this status in the United States.
There are no other avenues for Joseph and Sharon to pursue relief here in the United States. If they are deported, they will be forced back to a country where they sincerely fear for their safety.
Since arriving in the United States more than twelve years ago, Joseph and Sharon have built a family here, including four children who are United States citizens: Jessica, age 12, Rebecca, age 11, Rafael, age 10, and Veronica, age 6. Jessica, Rebecca, and Rafael attend school in California and maintain good grades. Veronica is attending kindergarten at Camarillo Heights Elementary School.
Joseph and Sharon worked hard to achieve financial security for their children, and they created a meaningful place for their family in California. Both earned college degrees in Egypt. Joseph, who has his Certified Public Accountant license, has been working in the accounting department for a technology company in California.
Joseph also volunteers for his son's Boy Scout Troop, and has expressed interest in pursuing opportunities as an Arabic language expert here in the United States. Joseph and Sharon carry strong support from friends, co-workers, members of their local church, and other Californians who attest to their good character and community contributions.
I am concerned that the entire family would face serious and unwarranted hardships if forced to relocate to Egypt. For Jessica, Rebecca, Rafael, and Veronica, the only home they know is in the United States. It is quite possible these four American children would face discrimination or worse in Egypt on account of their religion, as was the experience of many of their family members.
Joseph and Sharon have made a compelling plea to remain in the United States. These parents emphasize their commitment to supporting their children and making a healthy and productive place for them to grow up in California. I believe this family deserves that opportunity.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I come to the floor to reintroduce private relief legislation on behalf of Jacqueline Coats, a widow living in the San Francisco Bay Area. I rise today to ask my colleagues to support this legislation in the 112th Congress, which would provide Jacqueline with the extraordinary relief I believe she deserves.
Jacqueline came to the United States from Kenya in 2001 on a student visa to study Mass Communications at San Jose State University. In January 2002, based on the advice she received from a college advisor, Jacqueline attempted to transfer to City College of San Francisco, which required her to file for reinstatement. However, the request for reinstatement was denied in October 2002, and Jacqueline's immigration status lapsed the following year.
Jacqueline married Marlin Coats, an American citizen, on April 17, 2006, at San Francisco City Hall. But not even a month after the marriage, on May 13, 2006, Jacqueline's husband died while heroically attempting to save two boys from drowning at Ocean Beach in San Francisco. The two children survived with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr. Coats was caught in a riptide and died. The sudden and unexpected loss of her husband devastated Jacqueline.
Unfortunately, a loophole in U.S. immigration laws meant that Jacqueline's status in the United States was suddenly in jeopardy due to the death of her husband. Jacqueline and her husband had prepared and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office just four days before Mr. Coats died. However, the petition did not get filed until after his death, meaning it could no longer be considered valid.
Jacqueline very likely would have received permanent residence in the United States were it not for the abrupt death of Mr. Coats. At the time, Jacqueline received a medal honoring her husband's heroic actions. The San
Francisco Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Police Department, and the San Francisco chapter of the NAACP all passed resolutions in support of her remaining in the United States.
In 2009, I co-sponsored legislation known as the Fairness to Surviving Spouses Act to address this hole in U.S. immigration laws that creates unnecessary hardship for foreign-born men and women--like Jacqueline--whose immigration status is at risk when the sponsoring U.S. citizen spouse dies. I do not believe our immigration system should penalize individuals whose earnest efforts to become permanent legal residents of this country are cut short when their sponsoring spouse dies.
I was pleased that the President signed the Fairness to Surviving Spouses Act into law as part of a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill on October 28, 2009. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is now implementing this law, which allows widows of American citizens to continue to petition for permanent residency as long as they can prove that they entered into their marriage in good faith. Jacqueline may be eligible for this form of relief; however, I believe that a private bill remains necessary until this process can be finalized.
Jacqueline has been a hard-working employee for a transit company in Oakland, California, since 2004. She is taking three classes at St. Mary's College, and she remains close with the family of her late husband. For Jacqueline, the Coats family here in the United States has become her own.
Ramona Burton, one of Mr. Coats' siblings, wrote in a letter to me: ``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her first American Thanksgiving . . . I can't imagine looking around and not seeing her there. She needs to be there.'' Another concerned California constituent wrote to me that common fairness, morality and decency'' should be the standards by which we view this case. I agree. Despite the tragedy of losing her husband, Jacqueline continues to work hard, take classes, and integrate herself within her community.
Without some form of relief, Jacqueline will be deported to Kenya, a country she has not lived in since she was 21 years old. This is never what her late husband, a citizen of the United States, intended.
I believe Congress should honor this family by granting Jacqueline permanent residency in the United States. I urge my colleagues to give consideration to Jacqueline and to support this private relief immigration bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to reintroduce private relief legislation for Claudia Marquez Rico. I first introduced a private bill for Claudia back in 2006. This young woman has lived in California for most of her life. She suffered tremendous hardship after the sudden death of her parents more than ten years ago. I believe she deserves the special relief granted by a private bill.
Claudia was born in Jalisco, Mexico. She was only 6 years old when her parents brought her, and her two younger brothers, to the United States.
Ten years ago, tragedy struck this family. Early in the morning on October 4, 2000, while driving to work, Claudia's parents were killed in a horrific car accident when their vehicle collided with a truck on a rural road.
Suddenly orphaned, Claudia and her siblings were fortunate enough to have a place to go. They were welcomed into the loving home of their aunt, Hortencia, and uncle, Patricio, who are both United States citizens. Hortencia and Patricio are active at Buen Pastor Catholic Church. Patricio is a youth soccer coach. This couple raised the Marquez children as their own, counseling them through the loss of their parents and helping them with their school work. They became the legal guardians of the Marquez children in 2001.
Claudia likely would have resolved her immigration status, were it not for poor legal representation. The death of the Marquez parents meant that Claudia and her siblings should have qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. Congress created this special immigrant status to protect children under extraordinary circumstances and spare them the hardship of deportation when a state court deems the children to be dependents as a result of abuse, abandonment, or neglect. In fact, Claudia's younger brother, Omar, was granted this special immigrant juvenile status, providing him legal permanent residency.
However, the lawyer for the Marquez children failed to secure this relief for Claudia. She has now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration status, making her ineligible for this special relief.
It is important to take note that the lawyer who handled this case currently faces charges on numerous counts of professional incompetence and moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases. The California State Bar accused him of a ``despicable and far-reaching pattern of misconduct.'' The Bar sought to disbar the attorney before he resigned with pending charges.
Claudia deserved a fair chance at resolving her immigration status, but her attorney's egregious behavior stripped her of this opportunity.
Claudia, nonetheless, finished school despite these adverse circumstances. She secured a job in Redwood City, California, and she currently lives with her younger sister, Maribel, in Menlo Park, where they care for their grandfather. Claudia also provides financial support to her two brothers, Jose and Omar, whenever necessary. She is still active in the local community, attending San Clemente Catholic Church in Hayward.
It would be an injustice to add to the Marquez family's misfortune by tearing these siblings apart. Claudia and her siblings have come to rely on each other in the absence of their deceased parents, and Claudia is clearly a central support of this family. Moreover, Claudia has never visited Mexico and has no close relatives in the country. She was so young when her parents brought her to the United States that she has no memories of Mexico.
I am reintroducing a private relief bill on Claudia's behalf because I believe her removal from the United
States would go against our standard of fairness and would only cause additional hardship on a family that already endured so much.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief legislation on behalf of Claudia Marquez Rico.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals who live in the San Bruno area of California.
I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their five children, all United States citizens, would face extreme hardship. Their children would either face separation from their parents or be forced to leave the only country they know and give up on their education in the United States.
The Plascencias have been in the United States for over 20 years. They worked for years to adjust their status through appropriate legal channels, but poor legal representation ruined their opportunities. The Plascencias' lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor representation they received, Alfredo and Maria only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the United States fifteen days prior to their scheduled deportation.
The Plascencias were shocked to learn of their attorney's malfeasance, but they acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and to file the appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any other legal action could be taken.
Since arriving in the United States in 1988, Alfredo and Maria have proven themselves a civic-minded couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to family, and devotion to community.
For over 15 years, Alfredo has been gainfully employed at Vince's Shellfish, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now oversees the market's entire packing operation and several employees.
The president of the market, in one of the several dozen letters I received in support of Alfredo, referred to him as ``a valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who have written to me praising Alfredo's job performance refer to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest'' and ``reliable.''
Maria has distinguished herself as a medical assistant at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. Not satisfied with working as a maid at a local hotel, she went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree, and improved her skills to become a medical assistant. She is now in a program to become a Licensed Vocational Nurse. She plans to graduate next year and start a nursing program with Kaiser to become a registered nurse.
Several Californians who wrote to me in support of Maria describe her as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.'' Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine wrote to say that Maria is ``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.''
Together, Alfredo and Maria have used their professional successes to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They saved up and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health care benefits, and they each have begun saving for retirement. They are sending their daughter, Christina, age 19, to college and plan to send the rest of their children to college as well.
Allowing the Plascencias to remain in the United States would preserve their achievements and ensure that they will be able to make substantive contributions to the community in the future.
In addition, this bill will have a positive impact on the couple's United States citizen children, who are dedicated to pursuing their educations and becoming productive members of their community.
Christina is the Plascencias' oldest child. She is 20 years old, working and taking classes at Skyline Community College and the College of San Mateo. She would like to be a paralegal. Erika, age 16, attends Peninsula High School in San Bruno and was recently named Student of the Month. Erika's teachers praise her abilities and have referred to her as a ``bright spot'' in the classroom.
Alfredo and Maria also have three young children: Alfredo, Jr., age 14, Daisy, age 9, and Juan-Pablo, age 5.
Removing Alfredo and Maria from the United States would be tragic for their children. The Plascencia children were born in America and through no fault of their own have been thrust into a situation that has the potential to dramatically alter their lives.
It would be especially tragic if Erika, Alfredo, and Daisy have to leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends, and their home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them.
The Plascencia family would then be in Mexico without a means for supporting themselves and with no place to live. The children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language, and way of life.
The only other option would be for Alfredo and Maria to leave their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which no parents should have to make.
I am reintroducing this legislation because I believe that the Plascencias will continue to make positive contributions to their community in California and this country. The Plascencia
children should be given the opportunity to realize their full potential in the United States, with their family intact.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.