Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of my bipartisan bill, the National Commission on the COVID-19 Pandemic Act. This bill would establish a 9/11-style Commission to conduct an investigation on the COVID-19 outbreak and identify lessons learned regarding preparedness, response, and recovery. I would like to thank my cosponsors, Senators Marshall, Gillibrand, and Ernst, for joining me in introducing this crucial bill.

Like we did after the devastating September 11 terrorist attacks, our bill would establish a bipartisan Commission on the COVID-19 pandemic to better understand the vulnerabilities it has revealed in our national security and healthcare system and improve our preparedness for future crises.

It is crucial to improve our understanding of pandemic threats and health issues that the United States could face in the coming decades to better protect our population and mitigate the risk of a similar human and economic catastrophe in the future.

To date, COVID-19 has caused more than 750,000 deaths in the United States and infected at least 46 million people.

Beyond the devastating toll it has taken on human lives, the pandemic revealed vulnerabilities in our preparedness for dealing with such a deadly virus.

At the beginning of the U.S. outbreak, hospitals struggled to secure enough personal protective equipment to keep health workers safe. As the pandemic worsened, we saw additional shortages in critical medical equipment like ventilators and other medical products that save lives, including testing supplies.

As we waited for effective treatments and vaccines to be developed and approved, testing and mask wearing supplemented with physical distancing and other nonpharmaceutical tools were our only weapons combating the spread of the virus. However, we knew these tactics alone wouldn't ultimately defeat the virus.

After unprecedented scientific collaboration and innovation, we now finally have three FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines that are safe, effective, and free for all Americans. While getting as many people vaccinated as possible remains the only path out of the pandemic, barriers to access and misunderstanding about the safety of the vaccines have delayed too many Americans from getting their vaccine.

Disturbingly, throughout the pandemic, we have seen an increase in hate crimes against the Asian American and Pacific Islander community due to racially discriminatory language related to COVID-19. Possible underreporting means this problem may be even more prevalent than we know.

Finally, after examining all available intelligence reporting and information, the intelligence community remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. According to the latest declassified assessment on COVID-19 origins, more information is needed to provide a more definitive explanation of how the virus emerged.

The Commission that would be established by our bipartisan bill would conduct a comprehensive investigation of our government's preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic and make recommendations on how we can be better prepared in the future.

Modeled after the 9/11 Commission, this investigative body would complement other oversight efforts in Congress and the administration.

The Commission would be composed of 10 members who aren't current Federal officials, with the same partisan balance as the 9/11 Commissioners and with a variety of backgrounds in relevant fields, including public health, epidemiology, emergency preparedness, medical intelligence, and others; provide a full accounting to the President, Congress, and the American people of the facts and circumstances related to the outbreak in the United States as well as abroad, including our preparedness, the intelligence and information we had available before the virus reached the United States, and how Federal, State, and local governments, as well as the private sector, responded to the crisis; and gather information and hold hearings to eventually publish public reports on the Commission's findings and recommendations.

The global COVID-19 pandemic showed just how unprepared we were to respond to a major public health threat that has continued for almost 2 years. This lack of readiness caused widespread shutdowns of society in the United States and across the globe, resulting in a number of preventable deaths too high to comprehend.

As we mourn those we lost, we must acknowledge that this pandemic is still not over and the threat of a new virus emerging that has greater pandemic potential looms. This Commission will ensure we learn from our achievements as well as our tragedies during this modem plague so that it may never happen again.

I want to thank the Infectious Diseases Society of America for their support of our bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass it.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of my bipartisan bill, the National Commission on the COVID-19 Pandemic Act. This bill would establish a 9/11-style Commission to conduct an investigation on the COVID-19 outbreak and identify lessons learned regarding preparedness, response, and recovery. I would like to thank my cosponsors, Senators Marshall, Gillibrand, and Ernst, for joining me in introducing this crucial bill.

Like we did after the devastating September 11 terrorist attacks, our bill would establish a bipartisan Commission on the COVID-19 pandemic to better understand the vulnerabilities it has revealed in our national security and healthcare system and improve our preparedness for future crises.

It is crucial to improve our understanding of pandemic threats and health issues that the United States could face in the coming decades to better protect our population and mitigate the risk of a similar human and economic catastrophe in the future.

To date, COVID-19 has caused more than 750,000 deaths in the United States and infected at least 46 million people.

Beyond the devastating toll it has taken on human lives, the pandemic revealed vulnerabilities in our preparedness for dealing with such a deadly virus.

At the beginning of the U.S. outbreak, hospitals struggled to secure enough personal protective equipment to keep health workers safe. As the pandemic worsened, we saw additional shortages in critical medical equipment like ventilators and other medical products that save lives, including testing supplies.

As we waited for effective treatments and vaccines to be developed and approved, testing and mask wearing supplemented with physical distancing and other nonpharmaceutical tools were our only weapons combating the spread of the virus. However, we knew these tactics alone wouldn't ultimately defeat the virus.

After unprecedented scientific collaboration and innovation, we now finally have three FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines that are safe, effective, and free for all Americans. While getting as many people vaccinated as possible remains the only path out of the pandemic, barriers to access and misunderstanding about the safety of the vaccines have delayed too many Americans from getting their vaccine.

Disturbingly, throughout the pandemic, we have seen an increase in hate crimes against the Asian American and Pacific Islander community due to racially discriminatory language related to COVID-19. Possible underreporting means this problem may be even more prevalent than we know.

Finally, after examining all available intelligence reporting and information, the intelligence community remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. According to the latest declassified assessment on COVID-19 origins, more information is needed to provide a more definitive explanation of how the virus emerged.

The Commission that would be established by our bipartisan bill would conduct a comprehensive investigation of our government's preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic and make recommendations on how we can be better prepared in the future.

Modeled after the 9/11 Commission, this investigative body would complement other oversight efforts in Congress and the administration.

The Commission would be composed of 10 members who aren't current Federal officials, with the same partisan balance as the 9/11 Commissioners and with a variety of backgrounds in relevant fields, including public health, epidemiology, emergency preparedness, medical intelligence, and others; provide a full accounting to the President, Congress, and the American people of the facts and circumstances related to the outbreak in the United States as well as abroad, including our preparedness, the intelligence and information we had available before the virus reached the United States, and how Federal, State, and local governments, as well as the private sector, responded to the crisis; and gather information and hold hearings to eventually publish public reports on the Commission's findings and recommendations.

The global COVID-19 pandemic showed just how unprepared we were to respond to a major public health threat that has continued for almost 2 years. This lack of readiness caused widespread shutdowns of society in the United States and across the globe, resulting in a number of preventable deaths too high to comprehend.

As we mourn those we lost, we must acknowledge that this pandemic is still not over and the threat of a new virus emerging that has greater pandemic potential looms. This Commission will ensure we learn from our achievements as well as our tragedies during this modem plague so that it may never happen again.

I want to thank the Infectious Diseases Society of America for their support of our bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass it.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Air Travel Public Safety Act. This bill would require airline passengers flying domestically to provide proof that they are fully vaccinated and also encourage more healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID- 19.

The rise of the Delta variant and the latest COVID-19 surge in the United States continue to hit hospitals hard, and nearly all patients who are hospitalized or dying from COVID-19 are unvaccinated.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, surveillance data has shown that even after the more transmissible Delta variant became dominant during the summer, people who were fully vaccinated were still about five times less likely to be infected and more than 10 times less likely to be admitted to the hospital or die compared to those unvaccinated.

Further CDC studies have supported that our vaccines remain effective against the severe consequences of COVID-19. For this and other reasons, we must take every opportunity to get all eligible Americans vaccinated as quickly as possible.

We know that travel is a significant factor in the spread of COVID- 19. According to a study published in the ``Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,'' people traveling to other counties or States last year contributed to higher COVID-19 case numbers in their destination communities. This was especially true during the 2020 summer and winter holidays.

As friends and family gathered together for Thanksgiving, in particular, we experienced the start of major back-to-back surges that would culminate into the highest daily cases, hospitalizations, and deaths reported nationally during the pandemic.

While scientists aren't expecting COVID-19 peaks to reach these levels again, hospitals may still find themselves overwhelmed if large numbers of COVID-19 and influenza hospitalizations coincide this winter.

The U.S. Air Travel Public Safety Act would add an additional preventative layer to COVID-19 safety measures for domestic air travel. Specifically, it would require airline passengers to provide proof of vaccination before boarding a domestic flight within the United States.

The bill would also offer alternatives to airline passengers not yet fully vaccinated by allowing them to provide either proof of a negative COVID-19 test result or documentation proving that they have recovered from COVID-19.

Current CDC guidance notes that fully vaccinated travelers are much less likely to get and spread COVID-19 than people who are unvaccinated. Furthermore, new research published in a Mayo Clinic Proceedings study shows that COVID-19 testing requirements for airline passengers could have a meaningful effect on detecting active infections either immediately before or after a flight.

This legislation builds on current requirements in place since January 2021 that require proof of a negative COVID-19 test result for all airline passengers, including U.S. citizens, arriving from a foreign country to the United States. Many Americans have already experienced this process, and airlines are required to collect this passenger COVID-19 information on behalf of CDC.

When added to current safety interventions required for domestic flights, these measures could decrease the risk of transmission during air travel, as well as the potential of air travelers spreading COVID- 19 at their destinations.

The bill would also require CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices--ACIP--to develop recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine use in healthcare settings and among health care personnel in other settings. ACIP currently recommends that healthcare personnel be vaccinated for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as Hepatitis B, measles, and influenza.

ACIP's recommendation for the COVID-19 vaccine would further encourage health workers to get the shot and reduce the chances of spread. This is particularly important as vaccination rates among health workers remain lower than optimal.

This legislation may also positively affect vaccine acceptance among the general public. According to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, about 3 in 10 people surveyed who were waiting to be vaccinated said they would be more likely to get vaccinated if airlines required passengers to be vaccinated. This number increased to about 4 in 10 among unvaccinated individuals who said they would only get the vaccine if required.

We must ensure the millions of airline passengers that crisscross our country aren't contributing to further COVID-19 transmission. This is especially critical for young children, who remain ineligible to be vaccinated and are increasingly accounting for reported COVID-19 infections nationwide.

I want to thank the Infectious Diseases Society of America for their support for this bill. Getting vaccinated is a matter of life and death, and it is the only option to safely returning to normalcy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue, and I urge my fellow Senators to support the U.S. Air Travel Public Safety Act.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Air Travel Public Safety Act. This bill would require airline passengers flying domestically to provide proof that they are fully vaccinated and also encourage more healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID- 19.

The rise of the Delta variant and the latest COVID-19 surge in the United States continue to hit hospitals hard, and nearly all patients who are hospitalized or dying from COVID-19 are unvaccinated.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, surveillance data has shown that even after the more transmissible Delta variant became dominant during the summer, people who were fully vaccinated were still about five times less likely to be infected and more than 10 times less likely to be admitted to the hospital or die compared to those unvaccinated.

Further CDC studies have supported that our vaccines remain effective against the severe consequences of COVID-19. For this and other reasons, we must take every opportunity to get all eligible Americans vaccinated as quickly as possible.

We know that travel is a significant factor in the spread of COVID- 19. According to a study published in the ``Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,'' people traveling to other counties or States last year contributed to higher COVID-19 case numbers in their destination communities. This was especially true during the 2020 summer and winter holidays.

As friends and family gathered together for Thanksgiving, in particular, we experienced the start of major back-to-back surges that would culminate into the highest daily cases, hospitalizations, and deaths reported nationally during the pandemic.

While scientists aren't expecting COVID-19 peaks to reach these levels again, hospitals may still find themselves overwhelmed if large numbers of COVID-19 and influenza hospitalizations coincide this winter.

The U.S. Air Travel Public Safety Act would add an additional preventative layer to COVID-19 safety measures for domestic air travel. Specifically, it would require airline passengers to provide proof of vaccination before boarding a domestic flight within the United States.

The bill would also offer alternatives to airline passengers not yet fully vaccinated by allowing them to provide either proof of a negative COVID-19 test result or documentation proving that they have recovered from COVID-19.

Current CDC guidance notes that fully vaccinated travelers are much less likely to get and spread COVID-19 than people who are unvaccinated. Furthermore, new research published in a Mayo Clinic Proceedings study shows that COVID-19 testing requirements for airline passengers could have a meaningful effect on detecting active infections either immediately before or after a flight.

This legislation builds on current requirements in place since January 2021 that require proof of a negative COVID-19 test result for all airline passengers, including U.S. citizens, arriving from a foreign country to the United States. Many Americans have already experienced this process, and airlines are required to collect this passenger COVID-19 information on behalf of CDC.

When added to current safety interventions required for domestic flights, these measures could decrease the risk of transmission during air travel, as well as the potential of air travelers spreading COVID- 19 at their destinations.

The bill would also require CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices--ACIP--to develop recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine use in healthcare settings and among health care personnel in other settings. ACIP currently recommends that healthcare personnel be vaccinated for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as Hepatitis B, measles, and influenza.

ACIP's recommendation for the COVID-19 vaccine would further encourage health workers to get the shot and reduce the chances of spread. This is particularly important as vaccination rates among health workers remain lower than optimal.

This legislation may also positively affect vaccine acceptance among the general public. According to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, about 3 in 10 people surveyed who were waiting to be vaccinated said they would be more likely to get vaccinated if airlines required passengers to be vaccinated. This number increased to about 4 in 10 among unvaccinated individuals who said they would only get the vaccine if required.

We must ensure the millions of airline passengers that crisscross our country aren't contributing to further COVID-19 transmission. This is especially critical for young children, who remain ineligible to be vaccinated and are increasingly accounting for reported COVID-19 infections nationwide.

I want to thank the Infectious Diseases Society of America for their support for this bill. Getting vaccinated is a matter of life and death, and it is the only option to safely returning to normalcy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue, and I urge my fellow Senators to support the U.S. Air Travel Public Safety Act.

Thank you.

Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the ``Small Passenger Vessel Liability Fairness Act of 2021.''

This bill would help the families of 34 people who were tragically killed in the Conception boat fire off the coast of Santa Cruz Island, California on September 2, 2019, and other victims and their families of similar tragedies. This was the worst maritime disaster in modern California history, and my thoughts continue to be with the victims and their loved ones.

In December of last year, my bill, the Small Passenger Vessel Safety Act, passed as part of the annual National Defense Authorization Act. It goes a long way toward improving passenger vessel safety, but the families of the victims are still unable to seek compensation for the great loss of life they have suffered.

The victims of the Conception boat fire were killed when a fire started onboard the boat, while passengers and crewmembers were sleeping below deck after a nighttime swim.

The National Transportation Safety Board's final investigation report for the fire indicates that the victims were awake and trying to escape before they were overcome with smoke. Both exits from the bunkroom were blocked by flames, and coroner reports list smoke inhalation as the cause of death for all passengers.

The same NTSB investigation also determined that the owner and operator of the boat was at fault for failing to provide effective safety oversight. There was no roving watchman as required, the emergency procedures were not properly followed, and the Coast Guard failed to enforce safety requirements.

The families of the victims of the Conception boat fire have filed claims against the owners of the boat for violating federal safety rules. However, due to an outdated maritime liability law, The Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, the owner of the vessel may not be financially liable for any of the losses incurred as a result of the fire, including the enormous loss of life. My bill would address this issue.

How the bill would help:

My bill would amend the outdated law to allow families of victims to bring claims against owners of small passenger vessels found to be liable for maritime accidents such as the Conception boat fire, and receive proper compensation for their suffering. It would require small passenger vessels to be governed by liability laws that allow for victims to receive compensation.

I am very appreciative of the NTSB and Board Member Jennifer Homendy and the Coast Guard's responsiveness to several safety recommendations issued by the NTSB, and for their feedback on this bill. I am especially appreciative to the families of the Conception boat fire victims for bringing this issue to my attention, and for their tireless efforts to improve maritime safety and ensure just compensation for future victims.

This bill would provide a long overdue update to an outdated law. It is critical that Congress pass it in a timely manner, so as to ensure families of the 34 victims may have their day in court and that future victims of similar tragedies can also seek justice.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the ``Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego Protection Act,'' which I introduced today with Senator Padilla.

This bill would protect the historic Marine Corps recruit training base in San Diego and ensure that Marines have a world-class training facility on the West Coast.

The base became operational in 1921 and began its mission of training and ``the making of Marines'' in 1923. On January 1, 1948, Marine Corps Base, San Diego was officially renamed Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego.

As needed, the base has increased the number of new Marine recruits that it trains to ensure our readiness during periods of conflict.

For example, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego augmented troop training during the Korean War and expanded training during the Vietnam War. In recent decades, the base has prepared Marines to fight in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The installation's unique Spanish colonial design by Bertram Goodhue adds to its historical richness. Twentyfive of the Depot's original buildings have been deemed worthy of preservation for their historical significance and are part of the National Register of Historic Places.

In May, the San Diego Depot celebrated its historic graduation of its

first gender-integrated class of new Marines, well in advance of the requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 for Marines to conduct integrated gender recruit training by 2028.

Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego accomplished that mission this year, demonstrating the can-do spirit that has animated the base since its establishment.

Our bill would prohibit the closure of the historic Marine Corps Recruit Depot located in San Diego. It would protect regional jobs and tourist revenue generated by the installation.

The bill would also eliminate the need for costly new military construction if the training mission were relocated, and prevent the disruption of families and training.

Lastly, the bill would guarantee the annual basic training for Marine recruits at the place where their fellow Marines have trained for a century. On the 100th anniversary of the installation, we must continue this critical mission in San Diego and preserve its history.

It is imperative to maintain facilities that train and prepare our Armed Forces to meet the challenges of tomorrow. The protection of the Depot preserves an important legacy of the Marine Corps. The installation also offers a strategic location to position forces in the West.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Preventing Harmful Exposure to Phthalates Act.'' This bill would ban harmful chemicals known as phthalates from products used in food processing and packaging and would require the Food and Drug Administration to review other products under its purview that might also expose Americans to harmful phthalates.

The harm associated with phthalate exposure is well-documented, with studies showing that prenatal exposure to these chemicals can have lasting consequences to child brain development and increase children's risks for learning, attention, and behavioral disorders.

We also know that women are disproportionately affected by phthalates through higher exposure to these harmful chemicals in personal care products, like nail polish, fragrances, and hair products, as compared to men.

Pregnant women's exposure to phthalates has been shown to decrease fetal testosterone and harm reproductive development in male babies. Black and Latina women are also disproportionately affected, experiencing higher exposure to certain phthalates compared to white women.

Studies have demonstrated that Americans are exposed to phthalates through our diet. Phthalates from production materials involved in food processing and packaging are able to leach into our food. These materials include plastic equipment such as tubing used in commercial dairy operations, lid gaskets, food preparation gloves, conveyor belts, and food packaging materials.

People are also exposed to phthalates found in medical devices, flooring, and other home furnishing and building materials. The fact that phthalate exposure often comes from multiple sources simultaneously further emphasizes the unknown collective health risk that these harmful chemicals pose.

We must remove these harmful chemicals from consumer products with the utmost urgency. Congress has already banned them from children's toys and child care products due to the serious long-term health effects that they pose. We now need to remove them from our food packaging and the other remaining consumer products that are slowly poisoning us.

The ``Preventing Harmful Exposure to Phthalates Act'' would specifically ban phthalates from being used in materials that touch food and ensure that any substance used as a replacement is safe.

The bill would also require a review of other products to determine whether they lead to phthalate exposure. This review would need to include consideration of whether communities of color are disproportionately exposed to these harmful products as well as the health effects caused by exposure and any increased risk of preterm birth, low birth weight, or other risks to children's health.

I want to thank Senator Gillibrand for joining me in introducing this important legislation, as well as Representatives Lieu and Porter, who are sponsoring companion legislation in the House.

I also want to thank the health and consumer safety organizations for their support for this bill, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Earthjustice, Endocrine Society, Environmental Working Group, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, and Project

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Affordable EVs for Working Families Act of 2021.''

This bill is an important measure that will ensure more widespread, equitable adoption of electric vehicles by creating a tax credit for buyers of pre-owned electric vehicles, similar to the tax credit that exists for purchasers of new electric vehicles.

Starting now, and over the next several decades, the United States must take swift, decisive action to reduce our carbon emissions-- especially from the transportation sector, which makes up one-third of all U.S. carbon emissions.

I am proud to say that California has led the way in the adoption of low- and zero-emission vehicles for several decades by incentivizing the development and purchase of electric and hybrid electric vehicles, and setting high fuel economy standards that 13 States have opted to follow.

According to research released just last month by the Pew Research Center, California has by far the highest share of electric vehicles of any State in the Nation--on average, 12 electric vehicles registered per 1,000 people.

As a result, California now has the largest pre-owned electric vehicle market in the nation. Sales for pre-owned electric vehicles in California have grown significantly in recent years.

However, a study released just last month by Energy Innovation found that for lower-income households, the up-front costs of purchasing an electric vehicle presents an especially large hurdle, despite the long- term cost savings that they offer, such as on gas and maintenance.

Transportation is the second-largest expense for all U.S. households, but presents a particular burden for lower-income households-- suggesting that incentives for pre-owned buyers targeted toward lower and middle-income communities can increase adoption of electric vehicles in those communities significantly, and further accelerate overall adoption.

We cannot miss an opportunity to ensure that as we electrify our transportation sector, electric vehicles become an option for all families--not just those who can afford new ones.

My bill would do just that.

My bill would provide a $2,500 tax credit to purchasers of preowned electric vehicles, similar to the credit already offered to purchasers of new electric vehicles. The credit only applies to vehicles that cost $25,000 or less, and would be phased down for buyers whose adjusted gross income exceeds $75,000 per year for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.

My bill also includes critical safeguards such as a vehicle identification number reporting requirements and a 2-year previous ownership requirement to ensure that any attempted fraud is quickly caught.

I would like to thank Congressmen Jimmy Gomez who is introducing the House companion to this bill, and has carried this effort in the House, along with Congressman Mike Thompson who included a similar provision in the House clean energy tax incentives package, the GREEN Act.

I would also like to thank the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, California Air Resources Board, our utilities and other California localities that have led the way on this policy by offering their own rebates for pre-owned electric vehicles.

Now, with the Senate considering historic investments in electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, it is time for the federal government to follow California's lead and ensure that buyers of pre- owned vehicles receive a tax credit similar to the one for buyers of new EVs.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Affordable EVs for Working Families Act of 2021.''

This bill is an important measure that will ensure more widespread, equitable adoption of electric vehicles by creating a tax credit for buyers of pre-owned electric vehicles, similar to the tax credit that exists for purchasers of new electric vehicles.

Starting now, and over the next several decades, the United States must take swift, decisive action to reduce our carbon emissions-- especially from the transportation sector, which makes up one-third of all U.S. carbon emissions.

I am proud to say that California has led the way in the adoption of low- and zero-emission vehicles for several decades by incentivizing the development and purchase of electric and hybrid electric vehicles, and setting high fuel economy standards that 13 States have opted to follow.

According to research released just last month by the Pew Research Center, California has by far the highest share of electric vehicles of any State in the Nation--on average, 12 electric vehicles registered per 1,000 people.

As a result, California now has the largest pre-owned electric vehicle market in the nation. Sales for pre-owned electric vehicles in California have grown significantly in recent years.

However, a study released just last month by Energy Innovation found that for lower-income households, the up-front costs of purchasing an electric vehicle presents an especially large hurdle, despite the long- term cost savings that they offer, such as on gas and maintenance.

Transportation is the second-largest expense for all U.S. households, but presents a particular burden for lower-income households-- suggesting that incentives for pre-owned buyers targeted toward lower and middle-income communities can increase adoption of electric vehicles in those communities significantly, and further accelerate overall adoption.

We cannot miss an opportunity to ensure that as we electrify our transportation sector, electric vehicles become an option for all families--not just those who can afford new ones.

My bill would do just that.

My bill would provide a $2,500 tax credit to purchasers of preowned electric vehicles, similar to the credit already offered to purchasers of new electric vehicles. The credit only applies to vehicles that cost $25,000 or less, and would be phased down for buyers whose adjusted gross income exceeds $75,000 per year for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.

My bill also includes critical safeguards such as a vehicle identification number reporting requirements and a 2-year previous ownership requirement to ensure that any attempted fraud is quickly caught.

I would like to thank Congressmen Jimmy Gomez who is introducing the House companion to this bill, and has carried this effort in the House, along with Congressman Mike Thompson who included a similar provision in the House clean energy tax incentives package, the GREEN Act.

I would also like to thank the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, California Air Resources Board, our utilities and other California localities that have led the way on this policy by offering their own rebates for pre-owned electric vehicles.

Now, with the Senate considering historic investments in electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, it is time for the federal government to follow California's lead and ensure that buyers of pre- owned vehicles receive a tax credit similar to the one for buyers of new EVs.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Grown Flower and Foliage Month resolution. This resolution is cosponsored by Senator Padilla and Senator Sullivan, and I want to thank them for joining me in introducing this resolution.

This resolution designates July 2021 as ``American Grown Flower and Foliage Month'' and recognizes the important contributions of all those involved in the flower and foliage industry make to our Nation, and also notes the long history that flowers have in our Nation and society.

Every year, thousands of households in the United States purchase fresh cut flowers and foliage from more than 16,000 florists and floral establishments. American consumers spend $35 billion per year on floral products each year.

California is the cut flower capital of the United States, producing nearly 75 percent of American-grown flowers. While the majority of Americans would prefer to buy locally grown flowers, only 20 percent of the flowers sold in the United States are grown domestically.

Flowers are used for all types of occasions. They help us celebrate major life events, and help us to mourn. The flower and foliage industry is also a major employer in the United States. This industry supports hundreds of growers, thousands of small businesses, and tens of thousands of jobs in the United States.

Our resolution encourages consumers to look for the `Certified American Grown' label to support local farmers this month and throughout the year. If consumers are able to differentiate between American-grown flowers and those that have been imported, many would choose to purchase U.S.-grown flowers and support the U.S. industry.

This resolution is an important way to recognize a major part of the agricultural industry in the United States, and I encourage my colleagues to move to pass this resolution to commemorate this important month as ``American Grown Flower and Foliage Month.''

Thank you Mr. President. I yield the Floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Water Conservation Rebate Tax Parity Act,'' which I introduced today. Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA) has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

Access to water has always been a major issue in California and throughout the Western United States. That issue has only become more pressing as climate change increases the risk of drought in the West. Right now, 87 percent of California is facing ``Extreme Drought'' conditions and 33 percent of the state is experiencing ``Exceptional Drought'' conditions, the most severe category.

A growing number of States, including California, have begun offering rebates to homeowners to improve the water efficiency of their homes. Unfortunately, many homeowners are unaware that they are required to pay federal income taxes on these rebates and are surprised to be stuck with that bill. Still other homeowners aware of the tax implications are disincentivized from making these efficiencies to their homes.

The ``Water Conservation Rebate Tax Parity Act'' would exempt such State and local rebates for water conservation improvements, as well as improvements to better handle storm water runoff, from taxable income. This would eliminate the unexpected bill homeowners face, increasing the incentive to make these improvements, which benefit all of us.

I note that such State rebates for energy conservation improvements are already excluded from taxable income. Thus, my bill would simply put water conservation rebates on par with energy conservation rebates for tax treatment.

It is critical that Congress explore many ways to address climate change and mitigate the impacts that we are already seeing. Encouraging homeowners to make their properties more water-efficient is one way to do that.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Disaster Mitigation and Tax Parity Act,'' which Senator Burr and I introduced today. Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

Encouraging homeowners to take steps to reduce the risk of natural catastrophe damage to their homes has long been a goal of policy makers. In California, it has been a special challenge to incentivize individuals to purchase earthquake insurance and to harden their homes against potential earthquake damage.

The threat of natural disasters and extreme weather events has become a much greater problem in recent years due to climate change, which is driving an increasing frequency and severity of wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and other catastrophic events. This, in turn, is reducing the availability and increasing the costs of insurance for individuals and businesses.

A growing number of states, including California, have begun offering rebates to homeowners to improve their homes to mitigate against damage from such events. Unfortunately, many homeowners are unaware that they are required to pay Federal income taxes on these rebates and are surprised to be stuck with that bill. Other homeowners who are aware of the tax implications are disincentivized from making these improvements to their homes.

The ``Disaster Mitigation and Tax Parity Act'' would exempt such State rebates for disaster mitigation improvements from taxable income. This would eliminate the unexpected bill homeowners face, increasing the incentive to make these improvements, which benefit all of us.

I also note that such State rebates for energy conservation improvements are already excluded from taxable income. Thus, our bill would simply put disaster mitigation rebates on par with energy conservation measures.

I am pleased that Congress is exploring many ways to address climate change-related matters. Encouraging homeowners to make their properties more resistant to natural catastrophe damage is one way to help.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Water Conservation Rebate Tax Parity Act,'' which I introduced today. Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA) has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

Access to water has always been a major issue in California and throughout the Western United States. That issue has only become more pressing as climate change increases the risk of drought in the West. Right now, 87 percent of California is facing ``Extreme Drought'' conditions and 33 percent of the state is experiencing ``Exceptional Drought'' conditions, the most severe category.

A growing number of States, including California, have begun offering rebates to homeowners to improve the water efficiency of their homes. Unfortunately, many homeowners are unaware that they are required to pay federal income taxes on these rebates and are surprised to be stuck with that bill. Still other homeowners aware of the tax implications are disincentivized from making these efficiencies to their homes.

The ``Water Conservation Rebate Tax Parity Act'' would exempt such State and local rebates for water conservation improvements, as well as improvements to better handle storm water runoff, from taxable income. This would eliminate the unexpected bill homeowners face, increasing the incentive to make these improvements, which benefit all of us.

I note that such State rebates for energy conservation improvements are already excluded from taxable income. Thus, my bill would simply put water conservation rebates on par with energy conservation rebates for tax treatment.

It is critical that Congress explore many ways to address climate change and mitigate the impacts that we are already seeing. Encouraging homeowners to make their properties more water-efficient is one way to do that.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.