Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022. This bipartisan bill would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act through 2027 and provide important updates to modernize the law that has been critical to protecting and supporting the survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. I was proud to support the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and have supported each reauthorization of the law. This includes the most recent reauthorization in 2013, which passed the Senate by a strong bipartisan vote of 78 to 22. It is an honor to introduce this reauthorization and expansion of protections for survivors. This bill is the result of a truly bipartisan effort. I would like to thank Senator Ernst, Senator Durbin, and Senator Murkowski for working with me to prepare this important piece of legislation. We have also had help from a number of our Senate colleagues who have made important contributions to this effort. I am proud that this bill has received strong bipartisan support in the Senate. I would also like to thank the many advocates who have lent their thoughts and support to this effort. This bill was written in close consultation with the people who are on the frontlines helping survivors of domestic violence every day. It is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill--it is a bill for survivors. Together, we drafted a bill that preserves the good work of the last Violence Against Women Act reauthorization and strengthens existing programs. For nearly 30 years, the Violence Against Women Act has played a vital role in the Federal response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. I hope that this bill will be an effective tool to build upon those efforts. Despite the progress made over the last three decades, sexual, emotional, and physical abuse are still painful realities for far too many Americans. More than one in three women experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Nationwide, an average of three women are killed each day by a current or former intimate partner. According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, in a single day in 2020, 76,525 domestic violence survivors received the resources they needed thanks to programs funded and supported by the Violence Against Women Act. It is clear that the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act are necessary, and they need to be continually updated to meet the needs of survivors. The bipartisan bill that we are introducing today reauthorizes these important programs and provides the necessary updates to strengthen them. This bill enhances and expands services for survivors of domestic violence, including survivors in rural communities, LGBT survivors, survivors with disabilities, and survivors who experience abuse later in life. This bill reauthorizes and strengthens the criminal justice response to domestic violence, including by improving the Justice Department's STOP grant program; expanding support provided to survivors in the legal system; and strengthening the ability of Tribal courts to address instances of domestic violence on Tribal lands. This bill also invests in prevention education efforts, improves the healthcare system's response to sexual violence across the country, and establishes a pilot program on restorative practices that focuses on preventing or addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking through community based, victim-initiated efforts to seek accountability. I am pleased that we have strong bipartisan support for this bill, but our work is not done. The survivors--who this bill is for--need the Senate to not only introduce this bill but to pass it. The prevention of domestic violence and the support for survivors of these heinous crimes is not a partisan issue. This is not a perfect bill. I regret that certain provisions were not able to be included in this bill, most notably the closure of the ``boyfriend loophole'' to ensure that individuals convicted of domestic abuse against a dating partner could not purchase firearms. Individuals convicted of domestic violence against a spouse are already prevented from purchasing a firearm, and it is deeply disappointing that there is not sufficient bipartisan support for this commonsense provision to close this loophole. I would have liked to include those additional provisions, as would many of my Senate colleagues. But though it is not perfect, it is a strong bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this bill through the Senate and get it signed into law as soon as possible. The time to act is now. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation, and I hope that it will come to the floor for a vote quickly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022. This bipartisan bill would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act through 2027 and provide important updates to modernize the law that has been critical to protecting and supporting the survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. I was proud to support the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and have supported each reauthorization of the law. This includes the most recent reauthorization in 2013, which passed the Senate by a strong bipartisan vote of 78 to 22. It is an honor to introduce this reauthorization and expansion of protections for survivors. This bill is the result of a truly bipartisan effort. I would like to thank Senator Ernst, Senator Durbin, and Senator Murkowski for working with me to prepare this important piece of legislation. We have also had help from a number of our Senate colleagues who have made important contributions to this effort. I am proud that this bill has received strong bipartisan support in the Senate. I would also like to thank the many advocates who have lent their thoughts and support to this effort. This bill was written in close consultation with the people who are on the frontlines helping survivors of domestic violence every day. It is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill--it is a bill for survivors. Together, we drafted a bill that preserves the good work of the last Violence Against Women Act reauthorization and strengthens existing programs. For nearly 30 years, the Violence Against Women Act has played a vital role in the Federal response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. I hope that this bill will be an effective tool to build upon those efforts. Despite the progress made over the last three decades, sexual, emotional, and physical abuse are still painful realities for far too many Americans. More than one in three women experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Nationwide, an average of three women are killed each day by a current or former intimate partner. According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, in a single day in 2020, 76,525 domestic violence survivors received the resources they needed thanks to programs funded and supported by the Violence Against Women Act. It is clear that the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act are necessary, and they need to be continually updated to meet the needs of survivors. The bipartisan bill that we are introducing today reauthorizes these important programs and provides the necessary updates to strengthen them. This bill enhances and expands services for survivors of domestic violence, including survivors in rural communities, LGBT survivors, survivors with disabilities, and survivors who experience abuse later in life. This bill reauthorizes and strengthens the criminal justice response to domestic violence, including by improving the Justice Department's STOP grant program; expanding support provided to survivors in the legal system; and strengthening the ability of Tribal courts to address instances of domestic violence on Tribal lands. This bill also invests in prevention education efforts, improves the healthcare system's response to sexual violence across the country, and establishes a pilot program on restorative practices that focuses on preventing or addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking through community based, victim-initiated efforts to seek accountability. I am pleased that we have strong bipartisan support for this bill, but our work is not done. The survivors--who this bill is for--need the Senate to not only introduce this bill but to pass it. The prevention of domestic violence and the support for survivors of these heinous crimes is not a partisan issue. This is not a perfect bill. I regret that certain provisions were not able to be included in this bill, most notably the closure of the ``boyfriend loophole'' to ensure that individuals convicted of domestic abuse against a dating partner could not purchase firearms. Individuals convicted of domestic violence against a spouse are already prevented from purchasing a firearm, and it is deeply disappointing that there is not sufficient bipartisan support for this commonsense provision to close this loophole. I would have liked to include those additional provisions, as would many of my Senate colleagues. But though it is not perfect, it is a strong bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this bill through the Senate and get it signed into law as soon as possible. The time to act is now. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation, and I hope that it will come to the floor for a vote quickly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I honor the memory and steadfast service of CDR Kristin Driscoll, a beloved mother, wife, daughter, sister, and Active-Duty Coast Guard Officer. To use a maritime metaphor from Lord Alfred Tennyson, Commander Driscoll ``crossed the bar'' on October 26, 2021, following a brave battle with a brain tumor. Kristin underwent brain surgery on November 13, 2017, 1 week after her 35th birthday. Although the surgeons were able to remove 97 percent of the tumor, the remaining 3 percent was rooted too deeply to reach. True to form, Kristin rebounded from her surgery with energy and renewed purpose. Despite her prognosis, she ran a half marathon in April 2018, reported to work every day, and planned family outings. Stanford Medical Center quickly took note of Kristin's energy and optimism and asked her to participate in a patient education video project, saying they had been looking for someone like her for nearly 2 years. She filmed the video the very next week. Commander Driscoll served in the U.S. Coast Guard for 20 years and was the first in her family to serve. For the majority of that time, she was stationed in California, from San Diego to Alameda, and had a clear passion for Coast Guard operations. Specifically, she focused on emergency management supporting natural disasters, oil and pollution response, and search and rescue. She was a leader on a diverse list of operational teams that ranged from the National Contingency Plan ``Special Teams'' that monitored Federal Marine Environmental Response operations across the southwest border to a Command Center that conducted search and rescue efforts across 3.3 million square miles of offshore waters from California to the Panama Canal. In reviewing the achievements of Commander Driscoll, I am struck by her unwavering dedication and poise in confronting terrific challenges. She contributed to the response to the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, led a security deployment to Guantanamo Bay, and oversaw the first-ever deployment of a U.S. Coast Guard standard boat from a foreign naval vessel in support of counter-drug smuggling operations in the Caribbean. She deployed in the wake of Hurricanes Irma and Maria as deputy incident commander to lead search and rescue and recovery efforts, took a leading role in supporting COVID-19 response efforts as planning section chief, and took the lead role as incident commander for the USS Bonhomme Richard fire. Commander Driscoll's ability was well-noted throughout her life, and her record of success is etched in Coast Guard history. After graduating cum laude from Baker University in 2005, Commander Driscoll earned a master's degree in Homeland Security Leadership from the University of Connecticut. Her personal awards include an Advanced Boat Force Operations Insignia, six Coast Guard Commendation Medals, two Coast Guard Achievement Medals, two Letters of Commendation, a NOAA Corps Directors Ribbon, and various service and unit awards. She was a leader in every sense, and I take some solace in the fact that her inspiration will live on in the thousands of officers she taught at the Coast Guard's Leadership Development Center. Today, I thank CDR Kristin Driscoll for her devotion, as well as her husband PJ, daughters Averie and Cameron, and son Nolan. Her service was an honor to us all.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam Vice President, I rise today in support of two important voting rights bills the Senate is now considering, the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. The Freedom to Vote Act would protect access to the ballot by permitting all voters to vote by mail, providing a minimum of 15 days of early in- person voting for Federal elections, and allowing same-day voter registration at polling places. The bill would also protect nonpartisan election officials from interference and intimidation and end partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by allowing the Justice Department to prevent discriminatory State voting laws from taking effect. The need for Federal legislation to protect the sacred and fundamental right to vote is clear. Over the last year, we have witnessed a disturbing increase in efforts by State legislatures across the country to make it harder for eligible voters to access and cast their ballots. Last year, legislators in 49 States introduced more than 440 bills that would make it harder to vote and easier for improper, partisan interference in our election processes. At least 34 of these restrictive bills have become law in 19 States. For example, one new law in Georgia gives the partisan State election board--composed of members appointed by the majority party of the State legislature--the authority to take over election administration from the existing nonpartisan county boards of elections that have historically been responsible for conducting elections. Another example is a new law in Iowa that makes it harder for Americans with disabilities to vote by restricting access to absentee ballots and restricting who is allowed to help voters with disabilities return their ballots. And across the country in red and blue States alike, State legislators are engaging in partisan gerrymandering, strategically redrawing congressional and State legislative maps to prevent some voters from fully participating in the political process by diluting the power of their votes. This partisan gerrymandering, in effect, allows elected officials to choose their voters rather than allowing voters to choose their elected officials. This allows one party to design maps that give it a disproportionate edge in State legislatures and delegations in the House of Representatives. It also has an outsized impact on minority communities, who all too often see their votes diluted when maps are drawn to minimize their voting clout. The right to vote is a cornerstone of our democracy, enshrined in our Constitution. And the Constitution also makes clear that it is the duty of Congress to ensure that the fundamental right to vote is protected. Sadly, this legislation has become a partisan issue, even though voting rights has traditionally passed the Senate by a strong bipartisan majority and been signed into law by Presidents of both parties. In today's Senate, it has become all too easy for either party to block action on important legislation. Blocking debate or preventing votes is as easy as denying requests for unanimous consent; Senators don't even have to enter into debate or explain their opposition to a measure. Having been in the Senate since 1992 and seen important legislation pass this body, I have resisted calls to change the Senate rules and to limit the rights of the minority. But the Senate filibuster, which was intended to be a tool to promote bipartisanship, has become a tool to stop almost any major legislation. When Americans thinks about the filibuster, many recall the image of Jimmy Stewart in ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' speaking on the Senate floor, actively debating a piece of legislation and explaining their support or opposition. It is time that we return to that tradition of debate and not use the filibuster to prevent us from even talking about a bill. If my Republican colleagues want to block this voting rights legislation, I believe they should have to stand on the Senate floor and explain to the American people why that is the case, even as the right to vote is under attack in statehouses across the country. As representatives of the American people, we should be fighting to protect the fundamental right to vote, not standing in the way of it. It should never be a legislator's goal to make it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots. We cannot wait any longer. It is time for Congress to do the job the Constitution gave us: To ensure that the right to vote is protected.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. One of my great joys is to work on a bipartisan basis, and the Senator from Alaska has been just wonderful. She is a 10, in my book. You have listened to us on this side. Our staffs have been able to work closely together, and I think, thanks to you, we have a workable, bipartisan product. So I just want to say thank you. I wish the Senate could be more like this all the time, but I think we made a great notch in the right track. So thank you very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Permit me a moment to interrupt you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to share my support of the ongoing bipartisan efforts to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. As you know from the prior speaker, the distinguished Senator, negotiations to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act on a bipartisan basis have been ongoing now for three years. Since the beginning of this year, my office has been working closely with Senator Ernst's, Senator Durbin's, and Senator Murkowski's offices to negotiate bipartisan agreement to reauthorize this important and critical law. I am thrilled that we are now able to share that we have reached a bipartisan framework which will strengthen, modernize, and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. We are committed to introducing this bill next month. This bipartisan agreement would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act through 2026 and provide important opportunities to modernize the law that has been so critical to protecting and supporting survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Our bipartisan agreement would enhance and expand services for survivors of domestic violence--including survivors in rural communities, LGBT survivors, survivors with disabilities, and survivors who experience abuse later in life. Our agreement would reauthorize and strengthen the criminal justice response to domestic violence, including by improving the Justice Department's STOP grant program, closing the ``dating partner loophole'' on a prospective basis, and strengthening the ability of Tribal courts to address instances of domestic violence on Tribal land. Our agreement would also invest in prevention education efforts. It would expand access to emergency housing support for domestic violence survivors, and it would improve the healthcare response to sexual violence across the country. These protections are urgently needed, and the time to act is now. I have been here for a while. I have never seen the coming together of the two sides of the aisle any stronger than it is now to work together to solve this problem. So I look forward to participating in the introduction of this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act next month.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would, if I could, also like to speak briefly in support of Holly Thomas, who has been nominated to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Thomas is an experienced appellate litigator and currently serves as a judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. And I hope my colleagues will support her. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Holly Thomas to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Thomas is an experienced appellate litigator and sitting State court judge in California. I believe she would make an outstanding addition to the NinthCircuit. Her credentials are impeccable. She is a graduate of Stanford University and Yale Law School. After law school, Judge Thomas spent more than a decade gaining experience and insight into the Federal appeals courts as a litigator whose primary focus was on appellate cases. She has served as a public interest lawyer with the NAACP, in the Federal Government as an appellate attorney with the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, and in State government in both California and New York. Though she began her career as an appellate litigator, Judge Thomas has been fascinated by judicial service since her childhood. When she was a young child, her mother--who was a bookkeeper--would take her to the San Diego courthouse to watch the legal proceedings in court. So it is fitting that in 2018, she was appointed to serve as a judge on the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. Judge Thomas works in the Family Law Division, where she hears between 10 and 30 cases on average each day, including a mix of hearings and trials. She has also served on a temporary basis as a State appeals judge on the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District. Judge Thomas has a breadth of experience and knowledge that would make her well-suited to sit on the Ninth Circuit. If confirmed, Judge Thomas would be the first Black woman to serve on the Ninth Circuit from California and only the second Black woman to ever serve on the Ninth Circuit. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for her confirmation. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing legislation that would help bolster the Nation's background check system for firearms. Under current law, the FBI is forced to remove records from incomplete background checks from their systems if those checks are not finalized within 90 days. As a result, many firearms are sold without completed background checks--a dangerous practice that allows individuals to access a firearm even if they are prohibited by law from possessing such weapons. In 2020, Americans purchased a record number of guns--over 23 million firearms--and this year is expected to set records once again. That record number of purchases is overwhelming our background check system. The large majority of background checks are straightforward and are completed within 3 days, but especially due to the volume of checks required by the increase in gun purchases, some can take significantly longer. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, between March 2020 and July 2020, the FBI was unable to resolve 207,694 background checks within 90 days and was therefore required to wipe the incomplete checks from their systems. Since these background checks were never completed, it is impossible to know how many firearms were transferred to prohibited purchasers. As firearms sales continue to soar, Congress must act to protect public safety by ensuring background checks are completed. This bill would do exactly that. It would allow the FBI to maintain gun purchase records until the background checks is completed. It would also require the FBI to query additional relevant databases as part of a firearm-related background check. This would guarantee that the information necessary for conducting effective firearm background checks is maintained. I thank Senators Blumenthal, Booker, Brown, Menendez, Murphy, Padilla, and Whitehouse for their support and urge the rest of my colleagues to support the bill as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing legislation that would help bolster the Nation's background check system for firearms. Under current law, the FBI is forced to remove records from incomplete background checks from their systems if those checks are not finalized within 90 days. As a result, many firearms are sold without completed background checks--a dangerous practice that allows individuals to access a firearm even if they are prohibited by law from possessing such weapons. In 2020, Americans purchased a record number of guns--over 23 million firearms--and this year is expected to set records once again. That record number of purchases is overwhelming our background check system. The large majority of background checks are straightforward and are completed within 3 days, but especially due to the volume of checks required by the increase in gun purchases, some can take significantly longer. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, between March 2020 and July 2020, the FBI was unable to resolve 207,694 background checks within 90 days and was therefore required to wipe the incomplete checks from their systems. Since these background checks were never completed, it is impossible to know how many firearms were transferred to prohibited purchasers. As firearms sales continue to soar, Congress must act to protect public safety by ensuring background checks are completed. This bill would do exactly that. It would allow the FBI to maintain gun purchase records until the background checks is completed. It would also require the FBI to query additional relevant databases as part of a firearm-related background check. This would guarantee that the information necessary for conducting effective firearm background checks is maintained. I thank Senators Blumenthal, Booker, Brown, Menendez, Murphy, Padilla, and Whitehouse for their support and urge the rest of my colleagues to support the bill as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Lucy H. Koh to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Koh is a highly respected member of the Federal judiciary and has served California well throughout her career. She would be a welcome addition to the Ninth Circuit bench. I have long supported Judge Koh and am pleased that the Senate will soon be considering her nomination. I recommended Judge Koh for a seat on the Ninth Circuit back in 2016 and was pleased that President Obama nominated her at that time. And I was disappointed that she did not receive a vote on the Senate floor, even though she received strong bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee, which favorably reported her nomination. I am pleased that Judge Koh was among the first circuit court nominees announced by President Biden earlier this year. Her credentials are undeniably impressive. She received her undergraduate degree from Harvard College in 1990, and her law degree from Harvard Law School in 1993. Judge Koh spent several years early in her career in public service, first as a legal fellow on the Senate Judiciary Committee's Immigration Subcommittee and then with the Department of Justice. Among her achievements while at the Justice Department, Judge Koh received an award from the FBI for ``Demonstrated Excellence in Prosecuting a Major Fraud Case.'' She then brought her skills to the private sector, spending nearly a decade in private practice in Palo Alto, CA, where she became a distinguished intellectual property lawyer working on patent, trade secret, and commercial civil litigation. In 2008, she was appointed by California's then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, to serve as a judge on the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County. In 2010, President Obama nominated her to serve as a Federal district judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Senate voted unanimously, 90 to 0, to confirm her to that position. She has served with distinction as a Federal district judge for more than a decade. Judge Koh has excelled throughout her career as a Federal prosecutor, in private practice, and as both a state and Federal judge. I have no doubt that she will continue to excel if she is confirmed to the Ninth Circuit. Judge Koh has received bipartisan support each time her nomination has come before the Senate, including a bipartisan vote earlier this year in the Judiciary Committee. I urge all of my colleagues to support her nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, CA. She is the proud mother of 20-year-old twin boys, Jashley and Joriene, who are U.S. citizens. She is married to Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen. Ms. Tan faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress's special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because her removal from the United States would cause serious, undue hardship for her and her family. Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she came to the United States. When she was only 14 years old, Ms. Tan's cousin murdered Ms. Tan's mother and sister and shot Ms. Tan in the head. The cousin was eventually prosecuted, but he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Ms. Tan fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a visitor's visa in 1989. Ms. Tan faces a deportation order because of negligent counsel. Ms. Tan applied for asylum in 1995. When her case went before the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney was supposed to file a brief in support of her case, but the attorney failed to do so. As a result, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Ms. Tan's case and granted her voluntary departure from the United States. However, Ms. Tan's negligent counsel never notified Ms. Tan that the Board of Immigration Appeals issued an order granting her voluntary departure. Because she did not know about the order, Ms. Tan did not depart the United States, so the grant of voluntary departure automatically led to a removal order. She learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody. Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to present her case in immigration proceedings. She later filed a complaint against her former attorney, who had similar complaints from other clients, with the State Bar of California. On February 4, 2015, Ms. Tan's spouse, Mr. Mercado, a U.S. citizen, filed an approved spousal petition on her behalf. On August 20, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied her application due to the fact that she still had a final order of removal. Ms. Tan must go back to the immigration court and ask for the court to terminate her case and then reapply for her green card. Ms. Tan still faces the threat of deportation while she seeks to close her case before an immigration court. In addition to the hardship that would come to Ms. Tan if she is deported, her deportation would be a major loss to her community and would cause serious hardship for her two children, Jashley and Joriene, who are U.S. citizens. Ms. Tan used to run an in-home daycare, and she is now a homemaker caring for her husband and two sons. Ms. Tan and her family are heavily involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends and volunteers at Good Shepherd Catholic Church. They also volunteer with the Mother Theresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Ms. Tan has the support of dozens of members of her community who have shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community. Joriene is a junior at Stanford University and is premed, majoring in human biology. In addition to his studies, Joriene is involved in Stanford's Pilipino American Student Union. Jashley is a junior at Chapman University, majoring in business administration. If Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has stated that they would go with her to the Philippines or try to find a third country where the entire family could relocate together. This would mean that Jashley and Joriene would have to leave behind their education and the only home they have known. I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two U.S. citizen children, to make the choice between being separated or relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, CA. She is the proud mother of 20-year-old twin boys, Jashley and Joriene, who are U.S. citizens. She is married to Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen. Ms. Tan faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress's special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because her removal from the United States would cause serious, undue hardship for her and her family. Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she came to the United States. When she was only 14 years old, Ms. Tan's cousin murdered Ms. Tan's mother and sister and shot Ms. Tan in the head. The cousin was eventually prosecuted, but he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Ms. Tan fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a visitor's visa in 1989. Ms. Tan faces a deportation order because of negligent counsel. Ms. Tan applied for asylum in 1995. When her case went before the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney was supposed to file a brief in support of her case, but the attorney failed to do so. As a result, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Ms. Tan's case and granted her voluntary departure from the United States. However, Ms. Tan's negligent counsel never notified Ms. Tan that the Board of Immigration Appeals issued an order granting her voluntary departure. Because she did not know about the order, Ms. Tan did not depart the United States, so the grant of voluntary departure automatically led to a removal order. She learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody. Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to present her case in immigration proceedings. She later filed a complaint against her former attorney, who had similar complaints from other clients, with the State Bar of California. On February 4, 2015, Ms. Tan's spouse, Mr. Mercado, a U.S. citizen, filed an approved spousal petition on her behalf. On August 20, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied her application due to the fact that she still had a final order of removal. Ms. Tan must go back to the immigration court and ask for the court to terminate her case and then reapply for her green card. Ms. Tan still faces the threat of deportation while she seeks to close her case before an immigration court. In addition to the hardship that would come to Ms. Tan if she is deported, her deportation would be a major loss to her community and would cause serious hardship for her two children, Jashley and Joriene, who are U.S. citizens. Ms. Tan used to run an in-home daycare, and she is now a homemaker caring for her husband and two sons. Ms. Tan and her family are heavily involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends and volunteers at Good Shepherd Catholic Church. They also volunteer with the Mother Theresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Ms. Tan has the support of dozens of members of her community who have shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community. Joriene is a junior at Stanford University and is premed, majoring in human biology. In addition to his studies, Joriene is involved in Stanford's Pilipino American Student Union. Jashley is a junior at Chapman University, majoring in business administration. If Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has stated that they would go with her to the Philippines or try to find a third country where the entire family could relocate together. This would mean that Jashley and Joriene would have to leave behind their education and the only home they have known. I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two U.S. citizen children, to make the choice between being separated or relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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. 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.

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 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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 TENDR. Families deserve to know that the products they're consuming aren't exposing them to unnecessary harm. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue, and I urge my fellow Senators to cosponsor the ``Preventing Harmful Exposure to Phthalates Act.'' Thank you Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.