[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 22, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3844-S3848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4387

  Mr. LEE. Our country is in the grips of the worst border security 
crisis in our history. President Biden's open border policies have 
caused an unprecedented humanitarian disaster, with grave consequences 
for public safety, national security, and, indeed, for the rule of law.
  For years, Democrats have stood by and watched as President Biden 
presided over and intentionally exacerbated this historic crisis. They 
know that President Biden has the authority to secure the border. Yet, 
instead of taking him to task, they remain silent.
  No, instead of calling on the President to fix the problem, we are 
here attempting to revise the so-called Border Security Act--a bill 
that has already failed to pass muster in this body and will do nothing 
to secure the border and, if anything, would likely make it worse if, 
heaven forbid, it became law. It would certainly make it worse when 
administered under this administration because of the amount of 
executive branch discretionary authority this bill creates.
  Look, let's be honest here. This is a political exercise, not a 
serious debate, because that bill is going nowhere, and we all know 
that.
  Since President Biden's inauguration, over 9.5 million undocumented 
immigrants have entered the United States illegally. Those are just the 
ones that we know about, just the ones that have been observed, that 
have been recorded by our border security

[[Page S3845]]

personnel. It is larger than the population of 36 States. Most of our 
States are smaller than the number of people who have been observed and 
recorded as crossing into our country through our southern border 
unlawfully just since January 20, 2021.
  The magnitude of the border security crisis is hard to comprehend. 
What is not hard to comprehend is that this is a public safety crisis, 
and it should be treated as such. Our constituents from our various 
States know this, and we know it from them. They feel strongly about 
it, and they don't like it.
  So let's not pretend that President Biden lacks authority to secure 
the border and needs new legislation or else he won't be able to do 
anything about it. That isn't true. That is science fiction fantasy. 
That is a fraudulently produced statement. It is a truth-free 
assertion.
  President Biden, you have the power right now to secure this border. 
You have it and you know that you have it and you deceive the American 
people when you suggest otherwise.
  Let's not waste the American people's time by debating a bill that 
stands to make the crisis even worse--even worse--by giving you, sir, 
more power to make this worse, which it would do. And we know already 
how you would utilize that discretionary authority because we know how 
you utilized the discretionary authority you have already been given.
  We should be considering measures that force this administration to 
actually secure the border, that stay the President's hand, and that 
force him to do his job, which is to secure the border. We can do just 
that or at least move in the right direction on that front simply by 
passing my legislation, known as the VALID Act.
  Thanks to the Biden administration, inadmissible aliens are not just 
entering the United States on foot, they are being flown on commercial 
flights--often at government expense--into and throughout the country. 
The CBP One mobile app, which was never intended to be used by migrants 
seeking entry into the United States, has been repurposed into a tool 
by the Biden administration to facilitate the entry of even more 
illegal aliens into the United States.
  Today, migrants can download the app, put in whatever identifiable 
information they would like--no matter the accuracy of the information, 
regardless of whether they just made it up, just like they walked into 
a party and wrote their name down on a name tag saying: Hello, my name 
is thus and such. And then they can use the app as their sole exclusive 
form of ID necessary to enter the United States.
  So the rest of us, if we travel outside the United States, need a 
passport to come back into the United States. But if you are an illegal 
alien: No documents, no citizenship, no visa, no problem; we got you 
covered. All you have got to do is color inside the lines. Just write 
down whatever information you want to make up. Put it on the app. That 
is your ticket. You are getting in.
  I can't tell you how many times my constituent service operation in 
my State office back in Utah gets calls from frantic, concerned 
American citizens. They are somewhere outside the United States. They 
lose their passport. It is a real crisis. We do our best to help them. 
We can almost always figure out a way to solve the problem, but it 
creates real difficulty.
  The American citizens don't have access to the CBP One mobile app, 
but do you know who does? Illegal aliens, and it helps them get into 
the country.
  Now, not only can illegal immigrants use the app to enter the United 
States by plane, but they can also use it to travel throughout the 
United States, within the United States, on domestic flights paid for 
by the U.S. Government. Migrants don't need a legitimate ID or a 
passport. They can board a plane using Biden's CBP One mobile app, 
which the TSA now proudly advertises at airports nationwide.
  Of course, if you are an American citizen, you will have an entirely 
different airport experience. You will be expected to wait in long 
security lines, show proof of valid identification, and then 
potentially be subjected to an additional invasive security screening. 
Americans are expected to follow our country's laws. Yet illegal 
immigrants who are in the United States only because they broke our 
country's laws that govern how you get into this country are held to a 
lower standard. It is almost an insult to standards to call it a 
standard at all. It is a nonstandard.
  The Biden administration is rewarding people illegally entering our 
country with their own personalized form of TSA PreCheck. But it is 
better than TSA PreCheck; it is free. You don't have to provide any 
documentation. You don't have to have any real security review.
  This backward policy has real consequences. Hundreds of thousands of 
otherwise inadmissible aliens have entered the United States using the 
CBP One mobile app as their sole form of identification for travel 
authorization.
  Among those who have entered by using the app include a Haitian 
migrant who, after entering the United States through the CBP One 
mobile app, was arrested for committing a double homicide in New York. 
Cory Alvarez, another man who entered the country through the app, was 
arrested for sexually assaulting a disabled 15-year-old girl.

  Americans deserve the right to fly without fear, which is impossible 
when we have a President who allows people without verifiable 
information to enter our country against our laws.
  My bill can end this unacceptable lapse in security and public 
safety, and it can do it today. All I am asking for is a vote, a vote 
on legislation that would prohibit individuals from flying from foreign 
countries into the United States if they are using the CBP One mobile 
app, a notice to appear order, or a notice to report order as their 
sole form of identification or travel authorization.
  This shouldn't be a hard idea to get behind. This shouldn't be 
controversial, not remotely. Before you board a plane, you should prove 
who you are, just like the rest of us have to do. We do it all the 
time. We have to prove who we are when we go to the doctor's office, 
the pharmacy, when we check into a hotel, pick out a rental car, if we 
get pulled over on the highway for speeding. Anytime we do just about 
anything of significance, it seems we have got to produce 
identification to show who we are.
  Look, this has been a pretty widespread practice that Americans have 
been required to follow for a long time at airports, certainly since 9/
11. Everybody just understands it is what you have got to do.
  Even for a U.S. citizen to fly from one U.S. city to another, he or 
she must establish identification, proving identity. President Biden is 
reversing that standard and importing crime into every community in 
America. No community in our country should be forced to fear that 
foreign nationals whose identities we cannot confirm can travel free 
throughout the United States--freely, often at government expense; 
freely, without even having to produce so much as identification 
papers.
  Earlier this month, one of our colleagues was quoted as saying: There 
is only one party that is serious about border security. It is the 
Democratic Party. We are going to ask Republicans to join us.
  Look, I will pose the same question that he asked and impose it now 
to all my Democratic colleagues. If you are, as you claim, the party 
that is serious about border security, then, for the love of Pete, 
prove it. Step up. Go on record and show the American people where you 
stand on this commonsense border security reform, and let's pass the 
VALID Act.
  (Ms. HASSAN assumed the Chair.)
  So to that end, Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and that 
the Senate proceed to S. 4387, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have a 
great deal of respect for my colleague from Utah. He and I have 
collaborated on a number of really important pieces of legislation, 
especially in the national security space. So I say all of this with 
tremendous respect for the Senator from Utah.
  First, let's go to the heart of the argument that he is making 
because he makes an argument that you hear very often on this floor, 
that tens of thousands of people are entering the country illegally. 
They are entering the country illegally.

[[Page S3846]]

  The Senator knows the law, I would probably guess, better than most 
here, and so he knows that those people who are entering the United 
States without permission also have a corresponding right to apply for 
asylum. So, technically, they enter the United States without 
permission, but then they are allowed to apply for asylum. And that 
right to asylum is a superseding right.
  And so there has been no dispute--whether the President is Joe Biden 
or the President is Donald Trump--that if you enter the United States 
and claim asylum and have a valid claim of asylum that you are able to 
make, thus passing the credible fear screen, you get to stay in the 
United States to process that claim.
  And so this idea that people coming to the United States to apply for 
asylum are here illegally is obviated by longstanding law that, in 
fact, requires the United States to allow those people to stay here 
while that claim is being processed.
  I just think it is important for everybody to understand what the law 
is and that both Democratic and Republican administrations have allowed 
people with valid claims of asylum to stay here and to process those 
claims.
  As to the specifics of this bill the Senator is asking for unanimous 
consent on--again, I say this with great respect for my friend--I have 
no idea what the Senator is talking about. I literally have no concept 
of the problem that he just described because it doesn't exist. There 
are not hundreds of thousands of people coming to the United States 
using CBP One as their only form of identification. That is not true, 
and I would suggest that the Senator check with his staff.

  In order to qualify for CBP One, you have to have a passport. In 
fact, you have to have another means of identification in order to 
qualify for the CBP One program.
  CBP One papers are not an accepted form of documentation by TSA. 
Individuals who are showing up at the airports are showing up with a 
passport or another means of acceptable identification.
  The Senator may have examples of exceptions, but there are certainly 
not hundreds of thousands of people coming to the United States with 
only CBP One documentation to present to TSA. It is just not true.
  CBP One, in fact, is the way by which we assure that individuals who 
are coming to the United States are, in fact, who they say they are. 
Many of the programs, through which we use CBP One, include a vetting 
process--a vetting process, frankly, that, admittedly, often does not 
take place outside of CBP One. When people come to the border and claim 
asylum, if you don't have detention capability--as has been the case 
under both President Trump and President Biden--many of those people 
are allowed into the country to process their asylum claim without the 
kind of vetting that is done in the CBP One program.
  I just don't recognize the problem that the Senator is trying to 
solve here today, and I do think it creates a pretty problematic 
misimpression that you have the idea that there are hundreds of 
thousands of people showing up at TSA and plopping down a CBP One 
document, coming to the United States with only that document.
  In fact, the only way you get the CBP One document is to have shown 
and verified your proper documentation.
  In addition, this amendment just feels kind of unworkable. And if 
there is a specific workaround to the existing system that requires 
documentation, proof of identity in order to get a CBP One document, 
then I am happy to work with the Senator on it, but this amendment or 
this bill makes the requirement operative on the airline. The airline 
is not actually the entity that checks documentation. Those are 
entities run by the Department of Homeland Security.
  So I just don't see the same problem that the Senator does. In fact, 
I think the CBP One program is an incredibly important way to validate 
identity to be able to do important vetting. And through certain 
processes through which we use CBP One documentation, it is a way to 
control the number of presentations at the border.
  Remember, through CBP One and the CHNV Program, we have been able to 
greatly reduce the number of people who are showing up in an unplanned 
way at the border, in particular Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans.
  I understand Republicans have a policy disagreement with the 
mechanism by which we use the CBP One Program to fly individuals into 
the country with a sponsor, with vetting, so they don't show up in an 
unplanned way at the border, but it is, in fact, greatly reducing the 
number of people who are stressing our resources at the southwest 
border.
  So I will continue to defend the use of CBP One as a very legitimate 
way to make sure that we have an ability to vet individuals and we have 
an ability to relieve pressure on the southwest border.
  I just see this bill as attempting to tackle a problem that I have 
not been able to exist--I am happy to talk to the Senator offline to 
see if there is a more limited problem that he has identified that we 
can perhaps discuss and work together on.
  But my broader frustration is this: If the Senator would just vote 
yes on the motion to proceed tomorrow, we could work on this in the 
context of a bipartisan foundation. If the Senator is upset about the 
underlying parole program, well, the bipartisan border security bill--
negotiated by Senator Lankford, Senator McConnell, myself, Senator 
Sinema--it makes significant changes to that parole program. In fact, 
it eliminates for all intents and purposes the parole program used in 
between the ports of entry, the 236(a) program. It makes other 
substantial reforms to the parole programs that limit the use of parole 
to true humanitarian purposes. That was vigorously negotiated by 
Senator Lankford and Senator Graham and others.
  I understand that the bipartisan bill is not perfect. It is not 
everything Senator Lee would want, not everything Senator Lankford 
would want, and not everything I would want. But it is a compromise. 
The vote tomorrow is just to begin debate, just to get on the bill so 
that we can see what amendments might be able to get to 60.
  Maybe there is a more limited version of this--I would argue--badly 
crafted bill that could be added on to the bipartisan border bill, but 
we can't even have that debate, we can't even get to the bipartisan 
foundation because, almost to a person, Republican Senators are 
choosing--are choosing--to vote against this bipartisan bill, even 
considering the bipartisan bill.
  Maybe this is not true for the Senator from Utah, but certainly 
others have been pretty clear about the fact that President Trump has 
decided that he wants no compromise, no changes in border policy before 
the election because he wants the border to be a mess. He thinks that 
is good politics for him. He wants Republicans to vote against 
everything--everything--in order to preserve this issue for political 
purposes.
  I think we would be better off having a debate next week, getting 
onto the bipartisan border bill, which does have Republican support and 
has Democratic support--not all Democratic support because it is a real 
compromise. There are many of my Members who don't support the 
bipartisan border bill. But we could choose to get on this bill 
tomorrow, take the Senator's idea, vet it, work it out between the two 
parties, and have an old-fashioned Senate debate. But we are not going 
to do that because Republicans are going to vote almost to a person to 
reject even taking up the bipartisan border bill. Maybe not for every 
Republican Senator, but for many, that seems to be because President 
Trump wants to keep the border a mess for political purposes. And I 
regret that. I think the American people regret that.
  I am looking forward to having a conversation with the Senator I have 
worked with on a lot of other issues, but this bill seems to attack a 
problem that I can't yet identify. For that reason, I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate the thoughtful analysis--
consistent with his always thoughtful, analytical approach to matters--
that has been offered up by my friend and colleague, the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut. Yes, he and I have worked together on a lot 
of things, including in the national security space. It reminds me, he 
and I need to talk about one of those things sometime soon.

[[Page S3847]]

  I do, however, disagree with a number of conclusions that he has 
reached. I think I see where he is going, and I understand how he gets 
there, but I think he is mistaken on a couple of points.
  No. 1, there have, in fact, been hundreds of thousands of people who 
have entered the United States using the CBP One mobile app as their 
basis for entering the country and as their form of identification--
hundreds of thousands.
  In fact, my understanding is that between October of 2022 and the end 
of September of 2023, that calendar year, there were a total of 221,456 
such people who did that just from four countries alone--from 
Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba, and Nicaragua--people being brought in and then 
paroled. These were people who, as I understand it--the Department of 
Homeland Security has acknowledged--had no valid basis for entering the 
country, and that is why they had to be paroled into the country. They 
were using immigration parole illegally, illegitimately, to bring them 
in because to actually use immigration parole, the statute requires 
that it be made on an individualized basis, not a categorical one. 
These were brought in categorically.
  With respect to his assertion regarding entry into the United States 
followed by an assertion of a right to proceed under our asylum laws, 
that is a different question altogether. First of all, if you enter the 
United States unlawfully and then apply for asylum, you still have 
entered unlawfully.
  He describes, then, these individuals as having a right to asylum. 
Nobody has a right to asylum in the United States. We do have asylum 
laws. Those laws allow the Department of Homeland Security, through 
authority that goes through the Secretary of Homeland Security, to 
extend asylum status on a discretionary basis. There is no statutorily 
conferred right, certainly no constitutionally conferred right to 
asylum.
  In effect, what we do have is that if you enter the United States 
without documentation and then you apply for asylum, you have to have 
your asylum claim adjudicated. That can take years. In fact, a number 
of people who are entering the United States now, if they apply for 
asylum after entering, they are often told that their court date may 
not occur until well into the 2030s.
  We know that most asylum applications are denied. Most people who 
apply for asylum are ultimately deemed not eligible for asylum.
  You can't call this a statutorily or a constitutional right--a 
statutorily conferred or a constitutionally conferred right--nor can 
you say that they are asylees as of the moment that they apply.
  Under our asylum laws, while there is some complexity to them, I 
think that the most natural reading of them is that they are supposed 
to be detained while their asylum applications are pending and until 
they are finally resolved, which, as I just noted, most asylum 
applicants are ultimately denied that.
  So to tell them: OK, fill out this form using the app. That could be 
your form of identification. You may enter the country using that as 
your ID. You may fly about the country at will using that ID.
  To say that that is based on some sort of lawful immigration status 
isn't accurate, and it certainly ignores the fact that we are flouting 
in countless circumstances either immigration parole or asylum in order 
to get them to that point.
  As to the suggestion that those entering the country with the CBP One 
mobile app--if I understand my colleague's assertion correctly, I think 
he is saying you have to have other forms of ID, perhaps a foreign 
passport or something akin to that, in order to use the CBP One mobile 
app to enter the United States. That is not my understanding at all. I 
have had countless conversations--I as well as my staff--with officials 
within the Department of Homeland Security when we have raised these 
concerns. I have never heard any suggestion anywhere that the ability 
to use the app in that fashion is conditioned upon the ability to show, 
to produce a foreign passport or other official form of foreign 
identification.
  I would add here, I am quite certain that that is not the case for 
the additional reason--not only because that would have come up by now 
in the countless conversations we had about this but also for an 
additional reason. You see along our southern border people ditching 
their identification papers--their identification cards, passports, 
driver's licenses, whatever they are--from their home jurisdictions at 
the moment they cross the border. They ditch them. They ditch them 
because they don't need them. They ditch them because that way, they 
can fill out the CBP One mobile app and make their name or their date 
of birth or whatever it is whatever they want. This is a very known 
phenomenon. These are varied widely observed facts along the southern 
border.

  He said that these are not hundreds of thousands who have been here. 
Look, this is not my understanding. Madam President, 221,000-some-odd 
people flew in just from the four countries I mentioned alone and just 
for the 12-month interval I mentioned. We have many hundreds of 
thousands who have come in using the CBP One mobile app.
  Look, at the end of the day, we do have a problem. We have a problem 
because we have so many people coming in here who don't have a visa to 
be here, who don't have citizenship, don't have status as lawful 
permanent residents or otherwise, and they are entering without 
documentation, without any other legal right.
  The fact that this administration has chosen to paper over the fact 
that in any other administration, in any other era of American history 
or at least modern American history since these things started 
happening, those would be regarded as illegal aliens, which, of course, 
they are.
  In this administration, they do their best to try to paper over that 
by either declaring them eligible for immigration parole even though 
they are not because you are not allowed to use immigration parole that 
way--you use immigration parole in two instances, both of which are 
specific, neither of which may be categorical.
  There is the humanitarian use. For example, your mother is in the 
United States. You are outside the United States. You don't have a 
visa. You are not a citizen. You are a citizen of another country. You 
want to come in because your mother is sick. She is about to pass away. 
For humanitarian purposes, they will let you in for a brief period of 
time, understanding that it is momentary. The other is a public use 
purpose--public use. Let's say you speak a language that is needed in 
the United States--I don't know, interpret at somebody's trial, 
translation services or something like that. Either way, it has to be a 
specific individualized determination.
  This administration is using these things by the hundreds of 
thousands to say: Come on in. If you are from Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba, 
Nicaragua, one of the other favorite countries on this, just come on 
in.
  So papering over them doesn't make them legal. They are still illegal 
aliens, and we are still facilitating the process by which they enter 
the United States and making it easier for them to enter the United 
States without proper identification. This would fix that. This bill 
would fix that.
  Now, I ask today not that we pass it by unanimous consent; I asked 
only that we turn to it, that we get on to it. Even that drew an 
objection. That is most unfortunate.
  Finally, I want to make the point with reference to the 45th 
President of the United States. I, like many--I believe like most of my 
Republican colleagues, have grave concerns with the so-called border 
security measure--it is really more of an immigration bill than a 
border security measure--that Democrats want us to turn to next, that 
they want us to get onto. I have grave concerns with that, and most of 
my Republican colleagues do.
  I will say this: Most of us had real concerns with this long before 
the 45th President of the United States weighed in on it.
  My objections, though, had nothing do and still have nothing to do 
with the preferences of the 45th President of the United States with 
regard to that bill. They have everything to do with what that bill 
actually said.
  Now, I understand a number of people put a lot of time into that 
bill. I get it.

[[Page S3848]]

But that bill didn't do what most of us as Republicans asked that it 
do, which is that it remove the President's vast discretion to make it 
easier to paper over and document illegal aliens to make them appear 
legal when, in fact, they are not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I know my other colleagues are waiting 
to speak. Very quickly, I know terminology matters a lot to my 
colleague, so I want just to put a fine point on this.
  Republicans may have an objection to the way in which the President 
uses his parole authority, but the President has always had broad 
parole authorities. And the individuals who are here under CBP One are 
not illegal. They have been granted the ability to be in the United 
States under the President's parole authority. You can have a policy 
objection to that, and the courts may opine on whether the President 
has the authority to use parole in the way that he is using it, but 
those individuals are not here illegally.
  That is really important. Again, it is, I think, an unfortunate 
misimpression to present.
  Second, there is a difference between people using CBP One as the 
legal means to enter the United States versus using CBP One as their 
documentation to get on an airplane.
  It is true. Tens of thousands of people from those four countries 
have used CBP One as the mechanism to be lawfully in the United States. 
It is not true that they are not providing documentation in order to 
use CBP One and in order to board an airplane. They are using passports 
and other documentation for those two purposes. So those are two 
different issues.
  Yes, tens of thousands of people use CBP One as the means to come 
into the United States legally. No, hundreds of thousands of people do 
not use CBP One as their identification mechanism to get on an 
airplane. I just think it is important to distinguish between the two.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, let me just defer to my colleague from 
Utah for a few short moments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I will be brief, and I appreciate my friend 
and colleague for indulging me on this as I have just a couple of 
points.
  Look, they are entering unlawfully. Again, this administration is 
using other laws to paper over their illegality. The fact that 
President Biden is unlawfully using immigration parole to make them 
appear legal still doesn't make it legal.
  I believe it was Mark Twain who asked rhetorically: If you count the 
tail of a dog as a leg, how many legs does the dog have? I would 
respond that it is still just four legs. It is still a tail and not a 
leg.
  Somebody who enters unlawfully isn't made lawful in the United States 
just because the President of the United States is unlawfully using an 
authority that doesn't allow him to make them legal to do that.
  As to the suggestion that those who enter using the CBP One app have 
uniformly provided a passport, it just isn't true. In fact, I had it 
confirmed right now with the person who helps me with these things, who 
helps constituents--the people in my State--who confirmed just now that 
it is not a requirement. They are not required to provide a passport in 
order to do this, and we know that this has been used over and over and 
over again by people who do not have documentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I have a handful of unanimous consent 
requests to get out of the way.

                          ____________________