[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 157 (Monday, September 13, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6458-S6460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Rounds, and Mr. 
        Booker):
  S. 2716. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to 
establish country of origin labeling requirements for beef, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.

                                S. 2716

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``American Beef Labeling Act 
     of 2021''.

     SEC. 2. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING FOR BEEF.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 281 of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (8), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(1) Beef.--The term `beef' means meat produced from 
     cattle (including veal).''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) (as so 
     redesignated)--
       (A) in clause (i), by inserting ``, beef,'' after ``lamb''; 
     and
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``, ground beef,'' after 
     ``lamb''.
       (b) Notice of Country of Origin.--Section 282(a)(2) of the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638a(a)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``beef,'' after 
     ``for'';
       (2) in each of subparagraphs (A) through (D), by inserting 
     ``beef,'' before ``lamb'' each place it appears; and
       (3) in subparagraph (E)--
       (A) in the subparagraph heading, by inserting ``beef,'' 
     after ``Ground''; and
       (B) by inserting ``ground beef,'' before ``ground lamb'' 
     each place it appears.
       (c) Means of Reinstating MCOOL for Beef.--
       (1) Determination of means.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the United States Trade 
     Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, shall determine a means of reinstating mandatory 
     country of origin labeling for beef in accordance with the 
     amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) that is in 
     compliance with all applicable rules of the World Trade 
     Organization.
       (2) Implementation of means.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the United States Trade 
     Representative and the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     implement the means determined under paragraph (1).
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) take effect on the earlier of--
       (1) the date on which the Secretary of Agriculture 
     publishes a determination in the Federal Register that the 
     means determined under paragraph (1) of subsection (c) have 
     been implemented under paragraph (2) of that subsection; and
       (2) the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Lee, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. 
        Cruz, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2718. A bill to clarify that an authorization to use military 
force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not 
authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful 
permanent resident of the United States, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing legislation 
to ensure that no American Citizen or green card holder faces 
indefinite detention without charge or trial.
  Indefinite detention is an unfortunate legacy of America's not-too-
distant past. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II 
remains a dark spot on our Nation's legacy, and it is something we 
should never repeat.
  To ensure that this reprehensible experience would never happen 
again, Congress passed, and President Nixon signed into law, the Non-
Detention Act of 1971. The Act states that ``no citizen shall be 
imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant 
to an Act of Congress.''
  One would have hoped that this legislation would have brought an end 
to the notion that Americans could ever again be imprisoned at the whim 
of the Executive. Yet, in 2002, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was 
arrested in Chicago. He was initially detained pursuant to a material 
witness warrant based on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but he was later 
designated as an ``enemy combatant'' who conspired with al-Qaeda to 
carry out terrorist attacks inside the United States.
  Padilla was transferred to the military brig in South Carolina, where 
he was detained for three-and-a-half years while seeking habeas corpus 
relief. Padilla was never charged with attempting to carry out a 
terrorist attack. Instead, he was transferred to Federal civilian 
custody in Florida in November of 2005, where he was convicted of other 
charges related to terrorist plots overseas.
  While he was detained by the military, Padilla filed a habeas corpus 
petition, which was first litigated in the Second Circuit Court of 
Appeals. The Second Circuit rejected the argument, advanced by the Bush 
Administration, that Padilla's detention was authorized

[[Page S6459]]

by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-
Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups, concluding instead that 
``clear congressional authorization is required for detentions of 
American citizens on American soil'' and the AUMF was ``not such an 
authorization.'' Ultimately, however, the Supreme Court reversed the 
Second Circuit's decision on other grounds, leaving an open question as 
to whether the AUMF or other military authorities can be used to 
indefinitely detain Americans apprehended in the United States.
  It is past time for Congress to resolve this legal ambiguity, 
consistent with our values, by stating once and for all that the AUMF 
and similar authorities do not authorize the indefinite detention of 
Americans apprehended in the United States. The Due Process Guarantee 
Act would accomplish this by codifying the ``clear statement'' rule 
articulated by the Second Circuit in Jose Padilla's case and clarifying 
that authorizations for the use of military force and similar 
authorizations cannot be construed as acts of Congress that permit 
indefinite detention.
  There is no legitimate reason to detain Americans without due 
process. We have a court system that is fully capable of trying and 
convicting terrorism suspects using existing laws and processes. We 
made a serious mistake when we detained Japanese-Americans during World 
War II, and we must never repeat it.
  I thank the Senator from Utah for his long partnership with me on 
this issue as well as the Senators from Rhode Island, Texas, and Maine 
for their longstanding support. We were able to pass this bill in the 
Senate in 2013, and I am confident we can do so again.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be included in the 
Record.

                                S. 2718

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Due Process Guarantee Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF CITIZENS 
                   AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS.

       (a) Limitation on Detention.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4001(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``No citizen'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) No citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United 
     States''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Any Act of Congress that authorizes an imprisonment 
     or detention described in paragraph (1) shall be consistent 
     with the Constitution and expressly authorize such 
     imprisonment or detention.''.
       (2) Applicability.--Nothing in section 4001(a)(2) of title 
     18, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1)(B), may be 
     construed to limit, narrow, abolish, or revoke any detention 
     authority conferred by statute, declaration of war, 
     authorization to use military force, or similar authority 
     effective prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Relationship to an Authorization To Use Military Force, 
     Declaration of War, or Similar Authority.--Section 4001 of 
     title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a) is 
     further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b)(1) No United States citizen or lawful permanent 
     resident who is apprehended in the United States may be 
     imprisoned or otherwise detained without charge or trial 
     unless such imprisonment or detention is expressly authorized 
     by an Act of Congress.
       ``(2) A general authorization to use military force, a 
     declaration of war, or any similar authority, on its own, may 
     not be construed to authorize the imprisonment or detention 
     without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent 
     resident of the United States apprehended in the United 
     States.
       ``(3) Paragraph (2) shall apply to an authorization to use 
     military force, a declaration of war, or any similar 
     authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the 
     enactment of the Due Process Guarantee Act.
       ``(4) This section may not be construed to authorize the 
     imprisonment or detention of a citizen of the United States, 
     a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any 
     other person who is apprehended in the United States.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2722. A bill for the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria 
Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I offer private immigration 
relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to 
Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola 
Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola. The Arreolas are Mexican nationals 
living in the Fresno area of California.
  Esidronio and Maria Elena have lived in the United States for over 20 
years. Two of their five children, Nayely and Cindy, also stand to 
benefit from this legislation.
  The other three Arreola children, Roberto, age 29, Daniel, age 25, 
and Saray, age 24, are U.S. citizens.
  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 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 to the Executive Office of 
Immigration Review seeking the attorney's disbarment for his actions in 
his clients' 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 immigration issues.
  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, the poor legal representation they received 
foreclosed this opportunity.
  One of the most compelling reasons for my introduction of this 
private bill is the devastating impact that 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. America is the only country the 
Arreola children have ever known.
  Nayely, the oldest, was the first in her family to graduate from high 
school and the first to graduate college. She recently received her 
Master's degree in Business Administration from Fresno Pacific 
University and now works at Gap, Inc. Nayely is married and has a young 
son named Elijah and a young daughter named Brooklyn.
  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, ``the leaders of Fresno 
Pacific University saw in Nayely[ ] a young person who will become 
exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.''
  In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual 
Determination, a college preparatory program in which students commit 
to determining their own futures by attaining a college degree. Nayely 
was also President of the Key Club, a community service organization. 
Perhaps the greatest hardship to Nayely's U.S. citizen husband and 
child, if she were forced to return to Mexico, would be her lost 
opportunity to realize her dreams and contribute further to her 
community and to this country.
  Nayely's sister, Cindy, is also married and has three children. 
Neither Nayely nor Cindy is eligible to automatically adjust their 
status based on their marriages because of their initial unlawful 
entry.
  The Arreolas also have other family who are U.S. citizens or lawful 
permanent residents. Maria Elena has three brothers who are American 
citizens, and Esidronio has a sister who is an American citizen. They 
have no immediate family in Mexico.
  According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any 
problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their 
taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked 
hard to support themselves.

[[Page S6460]]

  As I 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.

                                S. 2722

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ESIDRONIO ARREOLA-
                   SAUCEDO, MARIA ELENA COBIAN ARREOLA, NAYELY 
                   ARREOLA CARLOS, AND CINDY JAEL ARREOLA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, 
     Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola shall each be 
     eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
     of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
     immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) 
     or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, 
     Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy 
     Jael Arreola enter the United States before the filing 
     deadline specified in subsection (c), Esidronio Arreola-
     Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, 
     and Cindy Jael Arreola shall be considered to have entered 
     and remained lawfully in the United States and shall be 
     eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply only if the applications for issuance of 
     immigrant visas or the applications for adjustment of status 
     are filed with appropriate fees not later than two years 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of immigrant visas or permanent residence to Esidronio 
     Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola 
     Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola, the Secretary of State shall 
     instruct the proper officer to reduce by four, during the 
     current or next following fiscal year--
       (1) the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
     available to natives of the country of birth of Esidronio 
     Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola 
     Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola under section 203(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)); or
       (2) if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that 
     are made available to natives of the country of birth of 
     Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely 
     Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola under section 202(e) 
     of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
       (e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.

                          ____________________