[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.
____________________