John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I have no objection.

Mr. CORNYN. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I have 1 minute remaining? Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Arizona, of course. My belief would be that if our friends on the other side of the aisle wanted to move up the cloture vote on the Levin amendment to 6 p.m. tonight, we could expedite things and get right to the vote that perhaps the distinguished majority whip wishes to have. I think there is no objection on this side to providing a vote on that cloture vote. We could do that sooner rather than later. I certainly would support that action. I will have to consult with the leaders on this side of the aisle, but that certainly might help us get to the bottom of things that much sooner. I urge all my colleagues to vote in support of the amendment before us that would be a vote against any action that would enhance the likelihood of a failed state in Iraq, which is not in America's best security interests. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. I will yield for a question.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the President yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment 2100 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the distinguished bill managers and I have been talking about a procedure whereby I was under the understanding that I would be allowed to lay down my amendment. It would be then set aside, and then later there would be an attempt to structure a side by side with the Reed-Levin amendment and the Cornyn amendment perhaps for next week, but it will have to be done by unanimous consent.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. CORNYN. If I may ask one more question, Madam President, is it the Senator's intention that following the disposition of the wounded warriors amendment that it would be in order for the distinguished ranking member on our side to lay down the Cornyn amendment?

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. My question, Madam President, is, my understanding is the Cornyn amendment would be laid down this evening perhaps, then set aside while we work on the UC that the distinguished chairman referred to and perhaps set it up for a vote next week. Is that correct?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we debate the so-called new strategy in Iraq, and as we once again engage in more than a little political posturing that has become so redundant, that has already delayed important legislation, not the least of which was the emergency appropriations bill to get proper funding and equipment to our troops, it appears once again that some of my colleagues in the Senate feel we should retreat, thus abandoning what al-Qaida views as the central front in their global war of terror, and in so doing, allowing Iraq to become a safe haven for al-Qaida, the same terrorist organization that hit this country on September 11, 2001. I ask my colleagues who want us to abandon this critical fight now, if we leave Iraq before the Iraqis can defend and govern themselves, then will they answer this question: Will that action strengthen or weaken al-Qaida and other foreign jihadists in Iraq and across the region? If there is one thing all of us should have learned by now, it is that al-Qaida and organizations that emulate it are the face of evil. These organizations and the individuals who subscribe to their ideology are dedicated to the destruction of the United States, to the destruction of Israel, and to committing the most barbaric and incomprehensible assaults on innocent civilians that any of us can possibly imagine. Without a stable government in Iraq, it becomes increasingly likely that the training and equipping of terrorists and the planning and execution of terror operations can proceed in both Iraq and throughout the region with impunity, and that our adversaries will operate with little fear of discovery or disruption. I also ask my distinguished colleagues who believe that we ought to leave Iraq before it is stable: Will al-Qaida and other terrorists then follow us here into the United States, even while expanding their influence in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and Africa? We have already seen numerous attacks occur throughout Europe and Africa from al-Qaida- linked or al-Qaida-inspired terrorists. With a firm foothold in Iraq, al-Qaida would have a safe and unthreatened sanctuary to serve as their new base of operations from which they can expand further into the Middle East or Africa or Europe, spreading chaos, fear, and strife. How long would it be before al-Qaida is able to continue unabated with further attacks against the United States including operations into and within our country? I ask my distinguished colleagues who believe we should retreat and surrender before stabilizing Iraq, before providing them the opportunity to govern and defend themselves: How will we address Iran's continued support of Iraqi insurgents and terrorists now that we have definitive evidence of their involvement in activities such as the training of terrorists and Shiite militias in Iran; operations in Iraq by terrorists trained in Iran by Al-Quds and other Iranian special military forces; alliances with Hezbollah and other groups, including Iranian-trained and equipped Hezbollah fighters operating in Iraq; the provision of the explosive formed penetrator and other improvised explosive devices that are killing American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen; and other aid and assistance directly resulting in the death of American citizens serving us bravely in Iraq? We must be especially concerned as Iran spreads its power and influence in the region, considering their insistence on developing nuclear capabilities. I ask my colleagues who subscribe to this proposed policy of retreat and surrender: What will Iran do to expand their influence in Iraq through their Shia alliances if we stage an immediate withdrawal? We have seen the impact of Iranian-supported terrorist activity in Iraq. Not only have we lost hundreds of American servicemembers due to Iranian involvement, not to mention those who still live but live with grievous injuries, but scores of Iraqis have died too, including innocent civilians who have been the victims of these savage attacks. I ask my colleagues who believe we ought to retreat and surrender regardless of the circumstances on the ground, regardless of the ability of the Iraqis to govern and defend themselves: Will Sunni majority nations outside of Iraq, including Saudis and others, stand by and let Shiites massacre Sunnis in Iraq? Conversely, will Iran, Hezbollah, and others stand by when Sunnis then massacre Shiias in retaliation? It is clear that this situation could rapidly deteriorate into a full-scale civil war, a massive religious conflict or, at worst, uncontrolled genocide on both sides. I ask my distinguished colleagues who believe we ought to withdraw from Iraq before that country is able to defend and govern itself: What is the resultant impact with the Kurds in northern Iraq and with Turkey if we stage an immediate withdrawal? Cross-border incursions by both PKK elements operating from Kurdish safe havens in northern Iraq, and retaliatory attacks by Turkish forces could become routine, further destabilizing Iraq, Turkey, and the region. I ask my distinguished colleagues who believe we ought to withdraw from Iraq before that country is able to govern and defend itself: What will happen to our Iraqi allies who have fought alongside of us? How will this affect America's ability to conduct future multinational operations? Some have argued we should have shaped and relied upon a stronger coalition before undertaking operations in Iraq. Clearly we lose the ability to build such a coalition in the future if we leave our allies behind as we precipitously withdraw from Iraq. I ask my distinguished colleagues who believe we ought to withdraw from Iraq before that country is able to govern and defend itself: What is the scope of humanitarian and refugee crisis that will ensue if we suddenly depart from Iraq? Where and how will the United States address that consequent crisis? It was not that long ago we experienced the largest scale humanitarian and refugee flow after the first gulf war. We were able to eventually deal with that situation through a substantial commitment of forces to Joint Task Force Provide Comfort in northern Iraq. Under this new scenario, it would be difficult if not impossible for us to adequately help the large segments of the Iraqi population trying to flee from unrelenting terror when our forces suddenly withdraw. I ask our colleagues who believe we ought to withdraw from Iraq before the Iraqis are able to govern and defend themselves: Are the Iraqis ready to assume full responsibility and control of their own security, economic development, reconstruction, and governance? If not, how can we posture the Iraqis for that desired end state, while at the same time withdrawing under continued enemy pressure? Finally, I ask my colleagues on the other side this important question: What is your plan? What is your plan for the way forward in Iraq and in the region? Our presence in Iraq is not about pride. It is not, as some have suggested, solely to benefit the Iraqis. Instead it is about our own vital national security and our ability to address the threats to our Nation. Our success is not just about providing the people of Iraq a safe environment to develop and provide for their own self-governance, it is about America's national security, the stability of the Middle East, and our partners in the war on terror. We have to do what is right for America's national security, which means helping to stabilize the Middle East and supporting our partners in the war on terror. These 10 concerns have caused me to draft an amendment which I believe must be added to this bill. This amendment expresses the sense of Congress that ``the Senate should commit itself to a strategy that will not leave a failed state in Iraq.'' It also states that ``the Senate should not pass legislation that will undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq.'' The Iraq Study Group, National Intelligence Estimates, and even the New York Times have all repeatedly warned against the consequences of a failed state in Iraq. Instability in the region could lead to genocide, retaliatory attacks against our allies, invasions from neighboring countries, and the proliferation of global terrorism. We cannot allow these possibilities to become realities. Withdrawing our troops now or on the expedited basis proposed by Senators Reed and Levin, when Iraq is not yet able to sustain itself, will only sink the fledgling nation into further chaos and disorder while ensuring that either we will recommit our troops later to a more tumultuous and dangerous battle or that we will leave ourselves open to future attacks from a fortified terrorist network. I urge all my colleagues to reject any notion of a premature troop withdrawal and join me in expressing the importance of a stable Iraqi nation, not just for the benefit of the people of Iraq but for our own national security. We can't talk about ideas such as withdrawing our troops without looking at the consequences. I know all of us join in believing that we want to get our troops home as soon as we can. The only difference between us is those who believe we ought to do so based on an arbitrary timetable and those who believe we ought to do so after we are able to leave the Iraqis in a position to govern and defend themselves, not just, again, for their security and safety but for ours as well. Because a failed state in Iraq is a clear and present danger to the American people. It would be terrible, indeed, if, having let that happen and seeing more Americans die as they did on 9/11 as a result of al-Qaida's strength and its ability to recruit, train, and then export terrorist attacks to the United States and around the world, that more people in this country and other countries around the world had to die. That is at stake. If we are going to talk about ideas such as those proposed in the Reed-Levin and other amendments, we need to confront directly the consequences of our actions. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that we will take no action that will make it more likely that Iraq will end up a failed state, again, in the national security interest of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I celebrate the life and mourn the recent passing, of a great Texan, Thurmond Bernard Woodard. Mr. Woodard recently lost a courageous battle with cancer, a foe he had been battling since 2005. Born on January 9, 1949, in Ocala, FL, Thurmond Woodard learned the importance of family at an early age. His childhood and adolescence were marked by the qualities that would later endear him to all--strong will, strong character, and uncompromising integrity. He went on to earn a bachelor's degree in accounting from Hampton University and then embarked on a storied career in finance, marketing, sales, and human- resources management. In October 2000, Woodard was serving as president and chief operating officer for Roosevelt Thomas Consulting and Training in Atlanta. In that role, he spent his days advising the company on the importance and necessity of integrating diversity within business strategies. Recognizing his talent and vision, Austin-based Dell Inc. decided to try and lure him away by offering him the job of vice president for global diversity and chief ethics, privacy, and compliance officer. Thankfully for Dell, he accepted the offer and never looked back. He held those positions until his death in April. Known for his dedication to creating cultures of dignity, respect, and inclusion, Thurmond promoted the importance of leadership through creating opportunity for all. ``We cannot resist change that is inevitable,'' he said. ``We have to get on board and help drive that change.'' That eloquence earned him the admiration of his colleagues, including Dell's chief executive Michael Dell who said, ``His sensible counsel, generosity of spirit, tireless dedication, and optimism were appreciated and admired by all he touched. His passing leaves a void impossible to fill.'' That void is seen not only at Dell but also in the many Texas communities in which he had a profound impact. Even in the difficult stages of his illness, he served as deacon and Sunday school teacher at the David Chapel Missionary Baptist Church in downtown Austin. His work as a mentor and community activist was recognized last year when the Austin Area Urban League honored him with the Whitney M. Young Jr. Award for his efforts to promote diversity through the strengthening of business and community partnerships. Thurmond's impact could also be seen in our Nation's Capitol, where he served as a board member of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and was the key architect of the foundation's AVOICE virtual library on the history of African Americans in Congress. Other organizations that continue to benefit from his efforts and generosity in Washington include the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's Center for Latino Leadership and Operation Hope's financial literacy center in Anacostia. Dell will honor his legacy of outreach by endowing a scholarship in his name for students of color and students from disadvantaged economic backgrounds around the world. Even though he was known for being an incredibly successful businessman and community leader, Thurmond was known first as an incredibly successful family man. A beloved father and husband, he leaves behind his wonderful wife of 37 years Suzanne, his children Michelynn and Derek, and countless friends. They recall with fondness Thurmond's love of humor, friendship, and the occasional round of golf. He lived life with vigor, passion, and unwavering optimism. And even though he has been called home to God, Thurmond's selflessness and decency will always serve to guide and inspire us all. Mr. President, please join me in celebrating the life of Thurmond Bernard Woodard.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wanted to come to the floor to offer a few thoughts and observations on the important vote we had earlier today on the immigration bill. I know many people are puzzled when they watch us debate big and important issues such as this. What usually happens is our views are reduced to a bumper sticker. Particularly on complex topics such as immigration, a bumper sticker doesn't tell the whole story. So I wish to offer a few thoughts on the way forward on this important issue. I have not found an issue in my short time in the Senate, now about 4\1/2\ years, which has been more closely followed and on which there has been more passion than the subject we have been debating this week and which we voted on this morning. Sometimes, as we all know, passion can produce more heat than light, but what we need is some light and some clear thinking and some better solutions to our broken borders and our broken immigration system than we have had so far. I don't say that with the intent to criticize the hard work that people have put into this effort. I am proud of the fact that since I have been in the Senate, I have tried to constructively contribute to a solution to this problem. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and as a former chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee of that Judiciary Committee, now as the ranking member, I have tried my best to contribute to a solution. But I think the one message I would take away from what we saw happen earlier today is the American people, my constituents in Texas, are profoundly skeptical of big Government solutions with a lot of moving parts based on big, grandiose promises, when our history has been one of not delivering consistent with what we promised. Let me mention what I mean by that. In 1986, we had a big immigration bill, supposedly one to fix all the problems. President Ronald Reagan signed that bill. I remember Ed Meese, his Attorney General, wrote a piece in I believe the New York Times explaining what was going through President Reagan's mind as he signed that amnesty for 3 million people. Ed Meese explained that President Reagan was told in 1986 that if you do this amnesty one time, that will be the end of it; you will never have to do another one, as long as we have enforcement of our laws that go hand in hand with that grant of amnesty for 3 million people. Part of the skepticism that I think the American people and certainly my constituents in Texas have had about this bill is that they saw coupled with a path to legalization and ultimately American citizenship for roughly 12 million people that we mean it this time, we are going to get serious about border security, we are going to get serious about eliminating the document fraud and identity theft that makes our current worker verification system virtually unworkable, and they saw a repetition of 1986. There were components of this bill that I thought were actually pretty good, that represented an improvement over the status quo. But I think some of the debate got a little bit hard to believe such as when people said the only way you are going to get border security is if you agree to a path to citizenship for 12 million people. The American people are pretty smart. They can see through that, and they know there is no obvious linkage between border security and a path to citizenship for 12 million people. They know if we were serious about border security, we would have already done it. So I think, at least the lesson I have learned from this vote this morning is not that we can give up because the problem is not going to go away. It may get caught up in Presidential election politics and maybe part of what we need to do is continue this grand national conversation about how do we solve this problem because I don't believe there is any problem that is too big for the American people to solve. Certainly, they are not waiting for some pronouncement from Mount Olympus in Washington, DC, about here is the answer and you have to swallow it. We work for the American people. We work for the constituents who sent us here. The power we get to act on their behalf comes from the bottom up; it doesn't come from the top down. I think part of the rejection that we saw of this particular bill was the sense that Washington was trying to dictate a solution about which the American people had a lot of questions and a lot of reservations. I think we need to go back to basics. We need to go back and listen to our constituents. We need to talk to them and explain to them what the problem is. We need to have a transparent process that is an interactive process where we can listen to them and we can tell them what we have learned about this issue and about some of the problems and try to come up with a solution. One of the lessons may be that big, multifaceted, complex programs such as this bill offered, particularly on something where the Federal Government doesn't have a whole lot of credibility when it comes to actually enforcing the law or securing the border, the American people are not going to accept it, and I think that was reflected in the vote we had today. That is not the same thing as saying give up, because we can't give up. This problem is not going away. As somebody who represents a border State with about 1,600 miles of common border with Mexico, I say we have to find a rational solution to this problem. I know that passions have run high, but I, for one, am very pleased with the level of the debate in the Senate because, as we all know, sometimes this topic is susceptible to some pretty irresponsible language and dialog. This was not a rejection of our heritage as a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. And I think what the American people saw--certainly my constituents in Texas saw--is the status quo of a kind of lawlessness and a lack of commitment to simple law and order which they wanted to see restored. I think if we demonstrate that we have heard the message they have sent us--if we demonstrate that, yes, we are serious about border security; yes, we are serious about enforcing the law--then I think we can continue that conversation and talk about the other aspects of this legislation that we need to continue to work on. What are the legitimate needs of American employers for legal workers? Certainly, we would prefer that they get legal workers rather than workers who are not respecting our laws. Certainly, we would all want, I would think, to have a system whereby someone can show up at a workplace and present a tamper-proof, secure identification card and virtually guarantee that they are legally eligible to work in the United States as opposed to the kind of document fraud and identity theft that now runs rampant and which makes it impossible even for good employers trying to honor the law to know that the person standing before them can actually legally work in the United States. We recently had an example of a company, a Swift meatpacking plant, which was the subject of a raid by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service in multiple States, including my State of Texas. What they found was this company was using the only Government program--the only Government program--known as Basic Pilot, to try to match up the identity of people who came to work there with a Social Security number. Basic Pilot confirmed that, yes, that is John Cornyn, and that is John Cornyn's Social Security number, but that is about all Basic Pilot could tell them. What they wouldn't tell them is if it was somebody else masquerading as John Cornyn and claiming his Social Security number. That company sustained a huge business loss because the Federal Government failed it by not providing it with a reliable means to determine whether people who claim to be American citizens and eligible to work were, in fact, eligible. So we have a lot of credibility we need to restore at the Federal Government level when it comes to enforcing the law and securing our borders. I think if we perhaps break down this big problem into smaller solutions, step by step, and work our way through this, we can continue to find an opportunity to solve this problem bit by bit and piece by piece. What I saw rejected this morning were big, grandiose government solutions where our credibility was seriously lacking because of a lack of followthrough on earlier promises, particularly when it comes to enforcing our laws and securing our borders. I would just like to say to all my colleagues who have worked so hard on this issue that you have my commitment that I will continue to work with you in good faith to try to solve the problems. That is what I thought my constituents wanted me to do. That is what I know they want me to do. They do not want us pointing the finger of blame. They do not want us calling each other names. And they do not want the sort of ``hyperpartisanship'' that unfortunately too often characterizes our activities in Washington. But they also don't want to be sold a bill of goods. They do not want to be promised a lot when they know we are going to deliver little. So this is a big issue, one that is worthy of the greatest deliberative body in the world--the U.S. Senate--and it is an issue on which I assure each of my colleagues that I intend to do my part to try to solve. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleagues and good friends, Senator George Voinovich and Senator Saxby Chambliss, who share my commitment that every dime sent by taxpayers to Washington, DC, is spent wisely. The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007 creates an eight member bipartisan Commission, made up of four Senators and four Representatives. The Commission will look at the effectiveness and efficiency of all Federal programs, but will especially focus on unauthorized and ineffective programs. The bill is modeled after the sunset process that the State of Texas instituted in 1977 to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. This process has led to the elimination of dozens of agencies that have outlived their usefulness and has saved Texas taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The job of the Commission is to ask the fundamental question: ``Is an agency or program still needed?'' The Commission has two major responsibilities. First, the Commission must submit a legislative proposal to Congress at least once every 10 years that includes a review schedule of at least 25 percent of unauthorized Federal programs and at least 25 percent of ineffective Federal programs or where effectiveness cannot be shown by the Office of Management and Budget's, OMB, Performance Assessment Rating Tool, PART. The Commission's schedule will abolish each program if Congress fails to either reauthorize the program or consider the Commission's recommendations within 2 years. Second, the Commission must conduct a review of each program identified in its review schedule and send its recommendations for congressional review. Congress will then have 2 years to consider and pass the Commission's recommendations or to reauthorize the program before it is abolished. Congress has two bites of the apple when it comes to evaluating Federal spending. First, when it authorizes a program and second when it appropriates the money for it. Yet a study by the Congressional Budget Office found that Congress spent just under $160 billion in 2006 on agencies and programs despite the fact that their authorization had expired. The list included hundreds of accounts, big and small, ranging from the Coast Guard, $8 billion, to the Administration on Aging, $1.5 billion, to section 8 tenant-based housing, $15.6 billion, to foreign relations programs, $9.5 billion. Many of these expired programs and agencies, perhaps most, deserve reauthorization. Nonetheless, Congress should aggressively determine whether these programs and agencies are working as intended and the Commission will help serve this purpose. In addition, the Commission will use OMB's PART, which is a tool to assess and improve program performance. PART looks at all factors that affect and reflect program performance including program purpose and design, performance measurement, evaluations, and strategic planning, program management, and program results. Using PART, OMB has scored 793 Government programs and found that 4 percent are ineffective and the results for 24 percent could not be shown. Programs rated as ``ineffective'' or ``results not demonstrated'' account for $152 billion in budget authority. The Commission's work will be guided by 10 criteria, including the program's effectiveness and efficiency, achievement of performance goals, and whether the program has fulfilled its legislative intent. Unfortunately Congress has a tendency to create commissions and then ignore their work and continue on with business as usual. This bill solves this problem. It requires Congress to consider, debate, and vote on the Commission's report under expedited procedures. The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007 is an important step to getting our fiscal house in order and to making sure that Congress gets back to the hard work of oversight to determine if programs actually fulfill their stated purpose or yield some unintended or counterproductive results. Periodic assessments are essential to good Government and this is what the Commission will provide to Congress and to taxpayers across the country. For this reason, I ask that my colleagues join me in cosponsoring the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleagues and good friends, Senator George Voinovich and Senator Saxby Chambliss, who share my commitment that every dime sent by taxpayers to Washington, DC, is spent wisely. The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007 creates an eight member bipartisan Commission, made up of four Senators and four Representatives. The Commission will look at the effectiveness and efficiency of all Federal programs, but will especially focus on unauthorized and ineffective programs. The bill is modeled after the sunset process that the State of Texas instituted in 1977 to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. This process has led to the elimination of dozens of agencies that have outlived their usefulness and has saved Texas taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The job of the Commission is to ask the fundamental question: ``Is an agency or program still needed?'' The Commission has two major responsibilities. First, the Commission must submit a legislative proposal to Congress at least once every 10 years that includes a review schedule of at least 25 percent of unauthorized Federal programs and at least 25 percent of ineffective Federal programs or where effectiveness cannot be shown by the Office of Management and Budget's, OMB, Performance Assessment Rating Tool, PART. The Commission's schedule will abolish each program if Congress fails to either reauthorize the program or consider the Commission's recommendations within 2 years. Second, the Commission must conduct a review of each program identified in its review schedule and send its recommendations for congressional review. Congress will then have 2 years to consider and pass the Commission's recommendations or to reauthorize the program before it is abolished. Congress has two bites of the apple when it comes to evaluating Federal spending. First, when it authorizes a program and second when it appropriates the money for it. Yet a study by the Congressional Budget Office found that Congress spent just under $160 billion in 2006 on agencies and programs despite the fact that their authorization had expired. The list included hundreds of accounts, big and small, ranging from the Coast Guard, $8 billion, to the Administration on Aging, $1.5 billion, to section 8 tenant-based housing, $15.6 billion, to foreign relations programs, $9.5 billion. Many of these expired programs and agencies, perhaps most, deserve reauthorization. Nonetheless, Congress should aggressively determine whether these programs and agencies are working as intended and the Commission will help serve this purpose. In addition, the Commission will use OMB's PART, which is a tool to assess and improve program performance. PART looks at all factors that affect and reflect program performance including program purpose and design, performance measurement, evaluations, and strategic planning, program management, and program results. Using PART, OMB has scored 793 Government programs and found that 4 percent are ineffective and the results for 24 percent could not be shown. Programs rated as ``ineffective'' or ``results not demonstrated'' account for $152 billion in budget authority. The Commission's work will be guided by 10 criteria, including the program's effectiveness and efficiency, achievement of performance goals, and whether the program has fulfilled its legislative intent. Unfortunately Congress has a tendency to create commissions and then ignore their work and continue on with business as usual. This bill solves this problem. It requires Congress to consider, debate, and vote on the Commission's report under expedited procedures. The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007 is an important step to getting our fiscal house in order and to making sure that Congress gets back to the hard work of oversight to determine if programs actually fulfill their stated purpose or yield some unintended or counterproductive results. Periodic assessments are essential to good Government and this is what the Commission will provide to Congress and to taxpayers across the country. For this reason, I ask that my colleagues join me in cosponsoring the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I almost hesitate to talk after those kind comments from my colleague from Alabama. I am afraid anything I might say would be a disappointment. But let me try. This immigration bill is leaving all of us with a sense of deja vu. That is the sense that we have been here before. Strangely, not much has changed. Once again we see that this process ignores the request, the stated desire of many of us, to have an open and transparent debate, an opportunity to offer amendments and to have votes on those amendments. As a matter of fact, I understand the condition upon which some of us are even being allowed to speak now is that we just debate, and we not even be so presumptuous as to seek to offer a unanimous consent request for amendments. This is a bizarre process. As we have seen so far, we started off rather inauspiciously, where because of constraints being placed on Senators, denying them the rights they have--Senators, I thought, had--and the responsibility that each of us has on behalf of our constituents to try to improve this legislation, to debate it--because we have been denied those basic rights of a United States Senator, we find ourselves in a strange position now. We have motions to table being offered. I don't know whether all 26 or so of the amendments contained in this so-called clay pigeon device, this arcane procedural device used to usurp the authority and the rights of Senators in order to railroad this bill through the floor--whether we are going to see all of these amendments tabled; in other words, without debate, without an up-or-down vote on the amendments and with the American people scratching their heads and wondering what in the world is going on. How much more out of touch can people inside the Capitol be than they are now? We continue to see a bizarre process going forward. Last night we received a 373-page, so-called clay pigeon amendment. This is the bundle of the 26 amendments that had been preapproved, screened, cherry-picked by the select few behind closed doors. You know what. We got that, the Members of the United States Senate and our staffs, after a special interest group had already posted it on their Web site. That is right. U.S. Senators and their staffs got a copy of this 373-page monstrosity, which nobody had a chance to read--we got it after a special interest group that had been participating in these closed-door negotiations got it and put it on their Web site. Today, we are told: No, that is a work in progress. We are not yet through. Today we get a new 400-page version of the same package of amendments. I understand it is at the desk, but so far as I know, we have not yet received a copy of it. We have not had time, obviously, to review it and know what is in it. But that does not deter those proponents of this legislation on the floor who are going to keep charging ahead, regardless of our request to actually read the legislation, to understand what is in it, to offer amendments to improve it and to debate its contents. That is what I thought I was elected to do on behalf of my constituents when I came to the Senate. I have to tell you, I think this all bodes very poorly for the likelihood that we are going to successfully accomplish true immigration reform and border security as a result of this legislation. I think we are heading toward a cloture vote tomorrow where it is looking increasingly like we are not going to be able to get the job done. I think it is a product, in large part, of secret negotiations. I have to correct my comments. I just got the 400-page monstrosity known as the revised clay pigeon amendment. I look forward to reading it, hopefully, before the next vote is scheduled on the contents of this monstrosity. As I was saying, by secretly negotiating this legislation, skipping the committee process, and then pushing it through the Senate without people having an adequate time to read it, we risk passing legislation which clearly is not thought out and which Members have not had sufficient time to review or to study in any detail, particularly because the language keeps changing, it seems, almost daily. This may, in the end--and this is the most important part--it may, in the end, do more harm than good. For example, written into this legislation are provisions that will directly result in an increased likelihood that dangerous persons will get at least a probationary legal status that confers upon them a variety of rights and privileges that I do not think, on further reflection, we would want these people to have. These problems could be fixed if we had a rational process of debate and offering amendments and an opportunity to vote on those amendments but, without committee review, without ample time to have that kind of debate and vote on amendments, there is really no hope to correct these flawed provisions. I have spoken before about the type of amendments which I personally believe would improve this legislation. I want to talk about them. I understand I am constrained by an agreement that I not bring up these amendments, so I am not going to do that now. I may do it later and see if attitudes have changed, but I do want to talk about six of the most important amendments which I believe could and should be added. These are only six of the amendments that I personally think would make this bill better. I know my colleagues have other good ideas on how to improve this legislation. We are going to be living with this legislation for many years to come--decades. We find ourselves now, 20 years later, living with the consequences of unenforceable legislation that was passed in 1986. So I think greater care needs to be taken. One amendment I would offer would prevent criminal aliens from getting an enforcement holiday by authorizing them to delay, and even possibly avoid, deportation by filing frivolous applications for legal status as well as appeals from the denial. That is right. It would prevent them from getting virtual impunity, even though they filed a frivolous application for legalization, as well as multiple appeals. Another amendment I would offer would prohibit criminal aliens, including gang members and absconders, people who have defied lawful court orders and either have gone underground or have been deported and entered the country illegally--technically felons under the Immigration and Naturalization Act--my amendment would prohibit them from tying up the process, gumming up the courts by appealing the denying of a request for a waiver of grounds for removal. The court clogging that would ensue without these two provisions is almost sure to cause extensive delay that will almost certainly increase the costs associated with this bill and frustrate the intent of Congress trying to pass a truly workable system. This is not a hypothetical concern. As we debate this bill there is a lawsuit pending by people who have been deported from this country and therefore were not eligible to receive the 1986 amnesty, but they have been litigating their request that the INS, and now the Department of Homeland Security, grant them a waiver from that part of the 1986 law that said they were ineligible. This litigation is still going on, 21 years after the 1986 amnesty was passed. Don't you think we would like to learn from our mistakes? Don't you think we would like to try to fix those problems? Under this process, we are not given an opportunity to do that. My amendments would prevent decades-long litigation and frivolous lawsuits from occurring with respect to the provisions of this bill. Another amendment I would offer if given an opportunity would require judges to consider national security implications before issuing nationwide injunctions against immigration enforcement. That is an essential provision to protecting our Nation, something that this bill claims to do but which it omits. I would note that that provision passed in last year's immigration bill but yet was consciously omitted from this one. There is no good reason to weaken last year's bill in this regard. Another amendment I would offer would limit the timeframe of any appeal from a denial of Z status to 2 years, so that any error is promptly corrected and so that court proceedings would not tend to drag on endlessly, wasting tax dollars and logjamming our courts and allowing a person who has been determined not to be eligible for legal status to stay in the country indefinitely, under the guise of appealing their denial. Another amendment I have would prevent those who have committed terrorists acts or provided material support to terrorism from qualifying for legalization under the ``good moral character standard'' under this bill, something that seems to be inherently obvious to me. It ought to be included. I am shocked it is not included. I will give you one example. Last year, Mohammed El Shorbagi pled guilty to providing material support to the terrorist organization Hamas. Hamas, by the way, is identified by our own State Department as a terrorist organization, as well as by the European Union. This individual's conviction did not specifically bar him from becoming a U.S. citizen because, under the law in effect, aiding an organization that routinely fires rockets on innocent civilians, families, and neighborhoods; people who abduct innocent individuals; and those who have most recently staged a violent coup in Gaza, does not in any way affect their good, moral character. Don't you think the Senate, the world's greatest deliberative body, representative of the 300 million people of the United States of America, would want to fix this glaring omission in the underlying bill? Well, I have been told that, no, we are not interested in that amendment. We have our cherry-picked set of preselected, prescreened, preordained, and no one else is going to be able to offer one. In fact, you cannot even debate them, much less offer them and have a vote on them. I appreciate that some have finally recognized the significant flaws and security risks that are inherent in the bill as it is currently written. I would note, though, that it was not until late yesterday afternoon that some agreed that such a change was needed to improve enforcement and protect U.S. national security and included a version in the divided amendment. Now, as I mentioned a moment ago, because the so-called clay pigeon that includes 26 amendments is not yet--well, it was only a moment ago handed to me, hot off the press, I have not yet had time to study that version, I don't know whether the modified version that was sent to the desk today changes it. But at least there appears to be some movement toward closing that loophole. But what other enforcement loopholes and flaws remain in the bill? I fear that under this expedited process, the train has left the station, and it is going to blow right through the middle of the Senate until we pass something without proper consideration, and we are going to make mistakes. I think that is a bad idea. During the previous debate, I introduced an amendment that would bar criminals, felons, from ever being able to obtain Z status. While it did not pass during the previous debate, I am still clueless as to why that happened. I think now that people have had time to study it and to think about it, hear from their constituents about it, more members would be supportive of closing that loophole for felons. I have refiled this. This is another amendment I have that I hope we will be able to vote on eventually. I hope the Senate does not consciously allow felons the benefit of a pathway to legalization and American citizenship. I cannot imagine why in the world we would. As I said, those are only six of the amendments that I think need to be offered and added to this bill. Let me mention one other thing. I see the Senator from Kentucky, who perhaps would like to add his comments. Let me mention one other glaring loophole that I talked about a little yesterday. This was a provision that requires a 24-hour background check for someone who applies for legal status. But failing that, the default position is they get a probationary Z visa. In other words, we put a provision in here that says: If the background check can't be completed in 24 hours--and it can't, I promise you--that the applicant will be automatically granted legal status on a probationary basis. I am concerned particularly because what that does is not only gives them an ability to obtain a probationary Z visa or legal status, the White House has said: Oh, don't worry about it. If we cannot get the background check done in 24 hours, and we find out they are disqualified because they do not pass a background check, we will send someone out to pick them up. Do you know how many absconders there are in the United States who are under lawful orders of deportation and have simply gone underground and the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has failed to pick them up and to execute the lawful orders of our courts? There are 623,000 absconders who meet that definition. Are we supposed to believe that people who fail the background check for this probationary Z visa are now going to be picked up, when 623,000 people who have defied lawful court orders, who are on the lam, who have gone underground and whom the Department of Homeland Security has failed to pick up and deport, according to the lawful orders of a court, that now all of a sudden the policy has changed? Trust us. Trust us. Well, I tell you what, the American people do not trust the Federal Government, particularly in this area. I hesitate to say it, but it is with good cause, based on hard experience, based on overpromising and underdelivering when it comes to our immigration program. I support increasing legal immigration, looking at how to recruit the best and the brightest and allowing them to come here, particularly if they come to our universities and study at our world-class universities and stay, so we do not have to send them home and so they end up competing with us and taking jobs overseas. I support comprehensive immigration reform. But I do not support promising the American people that, oh, yeah, trust us this time, we are serious, when there are such obvious flaws in the underlying legislation, that we are being prohibited by this railroad of a process from being able to offer amendments, to get votes on those amendments, to be able to fix the underlying bill. I can see why the American people would be skeptical, because I am skeptical. I am increasingly skeptical as a result of the way this process and this legislation has been handled. My hope is that should this cloture vote fail tomorrow, which I think, under the circumstances, looks increasingly likely, we will come back and reassess what we have done, or, moreover, what we have failed to do and try to be more serious, more deliberate, more conscious of trying to actually deliver on our promises rather than continuing to overpromise and underdeliver on this great issue of national concern. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two members of my staff, Jared Najvar and Crystal Y'Barbo, be given the privilege of the floor through July 1, 2007.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I was forwarded a copy of a transcript of an interview of a White House official yesterday commenting on some remarks I made on the floor regarding the immigration bill. I wish to speak to that. I have argued the current bill sets up the Department of Homeland Security for failure because it requires the Department of Homeland Security to grant full work and travel authorization to applicants for Z visas within 24 hours of their application, whether or not a background check has been completed. That is the text in the current immigration bill. Yesterday, though, the White House told reporters this was part of a ``misunderstanding and mythology'' surrounding this provision. Let me quote the text of the provision. It reads: No probationary benefits shall be issued to an alien until the alien has passed all appropriate background checks or the end of the next business day, whichever is sooner. That is what the bill says. There is no mythology, no misunderstanding. I know people think that draft language is a perfect draft and believe it should attain its own mythological status, but this is pretty straightforward. If an alien applies, he or she gets legal status, full travel and work authorization no later than the next day. The White House official believes this provision is workable because, as he says, ``Four of the layers of that background check are almost invariably completed within 24 hours.'' ``Almost'' always completing a background check within 24 hours is not always completing a background check within 24 hours. He acknowledges that one of the checks takes longer than 24 hours. So by his own admission, the Department of Homeland Security will confer legal status to nearly every applicant, even though they have not completed a background check. This is not what the American people are hearing when they are selling this bill. The American people are being told that foreign nationals will have to pass a background check before they are granted legal status. This is not true, according to the text of the underlying bill, and it is not factually possible, according to the lead negotiator from the White House. Not to be deterred by facts, however, this official believes this should be of no concern because if anything comes up in the background check beyond the 24-hour period, then the Department of Homeland Security will declare that person ineligible and deport them. Certainly, that is a concept we can all support; that is, if someone is ineligible, they should be deported. My concern is the gulf between the promise being made to the American people and the likelihood that that promise will be carried out. The White House said this is of no concern because they will declare them ineligible and deport them. But the question Americans are asking is: Will they? Can they? If they already have this capability, why has nothing been done about 623,000 alien absconders already? The Department of Homeland Security has reportedly created a unit to track down, apprehend, and deport these fugitives, but no appreciable dent has been made in this number. The Department of Homeland Security has information on these individuals already. But let's keep in mind that as the Department of Homeland Security is so diligently tracking down the thousands of criminal aliens who have already had a chance and have gone underground, or have left the country and reentered illegally based on a deportation order, they have to do a lot of other things, and Americans are asking can they get all of this done? Can they train, hire, and deploy up to 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents? Can they implement a worker verification system to screen the workers around the country? Can they build up to the 370 miles of fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers? Can they deploy the secure border initiative? Can they deploy the exit monitoring system of the US-VISIT Program? Can they process 12 million initial applicants for Z visas? Can they build 105 radar and camera towers? Can they detain all removable aliens caught on the southern border utilizing detention facilities with a capacity of only 31,500 people per day? I think the American people can be forgiven for doubting the commitment of the Federal Government and the willingness of the Federal Government to actually do all the things it is promising. That is why this bill is such a tough sell, to say the least--especially because, as of 2 years ago, we were doing nothing to beef up border security. It is hard to take the commitment at face value that, yes, now we are serious about it. So I fear that, similar to 1986, we are being promised something the American people know we cannot and will not deliver. We should slow down, read this bill, offer and debate amendments that will improve the bill and vote on amendments freely. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming and offer my congratulations, together with the entire Senate family, to our new Senator from Wyoming. He has big shoes to fill, but I know he is ready to work hard, and he certainly couldn't have come to this body at a more propitious and challenging time. Immigration Reform

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we continue to debate proposed solutions to our Nation's immigration crisis, we have heard a lot of strong language about how important it is that we find a solution. I couldn't agree more. At the same time we have been treated to some incredible claims, if not downright myths. That is not to say this bill is all bad, because it isn't. But neither is it true that it is all good and can't be improved by a little time to offer amendments and debate them. Instead of a reasonable approach, however, we have been told, for example, that this bill is better than the status quo which some have defined as de facto amnesty. I disagree. What we have now is lawlessness and disorder, not a de facto amnesty. It has been suggested this bill is better than rounding up 12 million undocumented immigrants, so the only option is to confer upon them the greatest gift America can give a human being, which is American citizenship. The American people can see through that argument in a heartbeat. There are plainly other options available, somewhere in the middle between those two extremes. Then we have been told unless we agree to what some have rightly identified as indistinguishable from the 1986 amnesty, we can't get border security or a secure means of identifying legal workers on the job. I ask: Why should security be made a hostage to those demands? Employers have been told the only way they can get legal workers to fill in labor shortages is the present bill. That clearly is not the case. I believe we can do better than this bill. I sincerely want to fix this problem in all of its manifestations. What I do not want to be a party to is trying to fool the American people. I value the trust my constituents have placed in me too highly to overpromise, which this bill does, when the American people have good cause and good reason to know we cannot deliver as advertised. The fallacious arguments I have referred to and the process by which this bill has been produced, which further inflame the skepticism of the American people, seem only to confirm for many Americans that the Senate is not serious about fixing our broken immigration system. If we are going to insult the intelligence of the American people with such specious justifications for this bill, how can they trust us? Moreover, how can they have any confidence that the various assurances on border security, worksite enforcement, security checks, and implementation of the provisions of this bill will actually work as advertised? We all know our broken immigration system is a serious threat to national security. Border security, after all, is about national security. So the question we have to ask ourselves is: Does this bill make us safer? The more we have debated the bill, the more I have become convinced this legislation is not only dysfunctional, but unless corrected, some provisions of this bill present an actual danger to our Nation. This bill puts such onerous burdens on our law enforcement officials and ties the Government's hands in so much redtape that it will make us less, not more, safe. Some of the individuals involved in the recently foiled terrorist plots at JFK Airport and Fort Dix were in our country illegally. Some of those involved had even been granted citizenship by our current flawed immigration system. Thankfully, these plots were uncovered before they could be carried out. But knowing that there are likely terrorist cells already present in the United States, how can we in good conscience grant same-day legal status to more than 12 million foreign nationals? Naturally, this bill does purport to require a background check. But instead of providing a reasonable timeframe for these reviews, an impossible burden is placed on our already overworked citizenship and immigration services to provide these checks in 24 hours. It simply cannot be done. Under our current immigration system, this office already does more of these screenings than it can handle. The Government Accountability Office reported last year this agency was stretched to the breaking point already. This has resulted in an unofficial 6-minute rule, the most amount of time that can be spent adjudicating any one application. Adding an average of 48,000 applications a day more will further backlog an already overtaxed system, meaning less in-depth reviews and more haphazardly granted visas. Again, more cases and less time for review of these applications can do nothing but increase the likelihood of mistakes. An article in the June 17 edition of the Washington Post explained that a large part of the backlog involved in our current system was due to FBI name checks. Delays in FBI name checks already force long waiting times for citizenship applications. The Post reports that of about 329,000 cases pending as of May, 64 percent were stalled for more than 90 days, 32 percent for more than 1 year, and 17 percent for more than 2 years. They added that the backlog appears to get worse because of a fee increase slated to take place in July which has prompted a 50- percent rise in new naturalization applications so far this year. If a new immigration bill is enacted, millions of foreign nationals would also apply for legalization. This problem is even more apparent considering the difficulties the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security have had this summer in implementing the new western hemisphere travel initiative. Of course, this legislation requires American citizens to have a passport for travel to Canada or Mexico, where that requirement did not exist before. Although the Federal Government had 3 years to get ready for this new stricter visa requirement and passport requirement, the Federal Government failed to adequately prepare, causing disruptions in the lives of tens of thousands of American citizens. If the Federal Government can't get it right with 3 years' notice to process passport applications for American citizens, how will it deal with the increased complexities and burden of processing up to 12 million foreign nationals? I wonder what the Government's response will be to the even larger backlog this bill will create? Will we simply give up on background checks altogether, when the citizenship and immigration service realizes what an impossible burden has been placed upon it? As we overload our already fragile system and background checks are either too cursory to be safe or too delayed to meet unrealistic deadlines, we will be undoubtedly granting legal status to some individuals who should not get it. The potential danger is actually worse than it might appear at first blush. Not only do we need to be concerned about terrorist cells and other criminals in our country, we should also be concerned about the privileges these individuals will receive with same-day legal status. Most notably, the ability to travel in and out of the United States presents a great threat to us and to others. Those already in our country with the knowledge and ability to train others could travel to foreign nations, teaching terrorist cells everything from combat tactics to explosives construction. At the same time, terrorists in our Nation who do not possess the knowledge and training to participate in such attacks could use their new travel visas to visit training sites in other countries, bringing their newfound knowledge back home to America. For example, a May 28 article from the New York Times describes the problems created by free travel in and out of nations surrounding Iraq. That article says: The Iraq war, which for years has drawn militants from around the world, is beginning to export fighters and tactics they have honed in the insurgency to neighboring countries and beyond. The Times has reported: Some of the fighters appear to be leaving as part of the waves of Iraqi refugees crossing borders. . . . But others are dispatched from Iraq for specific missions. Granting same-day legal status and the privileges that accompany it to poorly screened foreign nationals has the risk of making us less safe and, indeed, potentially helping spread this threat not just to America but to other places around the world. The impossible goals of this bill do not stop there. The bill calls for the Department of Homeland Security to define, procure, develop, and implement a worker verification system to check 200 million Americans in less than 2 years. How can the American people have any faith in the enforcement provisions of this bill when these provisions include unattainable goals and untenable standards? For this reason, it is important we not pass any immigration legislation that makes these mistakes and repeats so many from the 1986 predecessor. I continue to hope we can pass meaningful, safe immigration reform. Everyone knows our current immigration system is broken, and I wish to see it fixed. But this bill will not do it. Finally, one of the biggest problems we have had with this legislation centers around the way it came to the floor of the Senate. Written behind closed doors, this bill did not even see the light of a committee room. Instead, it promptly proceeded to the floor of the Senate. The short-term result was predictable. Senators wanted to offer amendments, many of them including important improvements which might have been appropriately dealt with in the committee process. The majority leader's frustration with the number of amendments being offered led to that bill being pulled after almost 2 weeks on the Senate floor. Now a new bill is back. Instead of learning from our mistakes, the bill has once again been secretly negotiated, and will once again forgo the committee process. What is worse, we have been told it will be presented to us with bipartisan amendments already chosen by a select few Senators, unrepresentative of the wide variety of strongly held views in the Senate. There is a list of amendments which I believe ought to be included in this bill, amendments that I think might find support among my colleagues if given an opportunity to offer them--provisions such as one that would prevent criminal aliens from delaying and even avoiding their deportation by filing frivolous applications for a Z visa, and then appealing against those denied applications. Another amendment I would offer, if given an opportunity, would prohibit criminal aliens, including gang members and absconders, from tying up our courts with frivolous appeals from the denial of a request for a waiver of grounds for removal. The bottleneck sure to ensue without these two provisions will cause extensive delays that will only increase the costs involved with this bill and allow abuse of the system. A third amendment I would offer, if given an opportunity, would require judges to consider national security implications before issuing nationwide injunctions against immigration enforcement, an essential provision to protecting our border, something this bill claims to do. I wish to add an amendment preventing those who have committed terrorist acts or aided terrorists from asserting they are meeting the ``good moral character'' requirement--something that seems so inherently obvious that I am shocked this bill, as currently written, would allow it. Last year, Mohammed El Shorbagi pleaded guilty to providing material support to the terrorist organization known as Hamas. His conviction, however, did not specifically bar him from seeking American citizenship because under the law aiding an organization that routinely fires rockets on innocent civilians, families, and neighborhoods, abducts and kidnaps individuals, and has most recently staged a violent coup of an established unity government does not in any way affect your ``good moral character,'' as currently written. It is a dangerous shortcoming of our laws which will not be addressed because of the closed and secretive manner in which this bill is being considered. I wish also to limit the timeframe for an appeal to 2 years so that court proceedings do not drag on endlessly, wasting tax dollars, and allowing those who are not entitled to the benefits of our immigration system to remain here indefinitely under the cover of an appeal. These are only five of the amendments which I wish to offer which I think would make this bill better, if I had a chance to offer them and if Senators had a chance to vote on them. Others would make it harder for gang members to qualify, force immigrants to file a change of address notification with the Department of Homeland Security when they move, and authorize the detention of dangerous aliens during their deportation trial. Unfortunately, under the process the majority leader will provide us, no opportunity for these measures to be considered will be allowed and, thus, they will not be in the final bill. Rather, the world's greatest deliberative body will be presented with a bill that has not been fully considered, will not be fully debated, and where there will not be an adequate opportunity to offer and vote on amendments. Since when did the Senate have so little to say when shaping legislation which we will vote on? Since when did the majority leader get the power to force legislation on the rest of the Senate? I cannot support this flawed bill or this broken secret process that has produced it. I hope my colleagues will join me in insisting upon free and open debates, which are the hallmark of the Senate, and which are the only possible path forward to providing a rational, commonsense answer to the challenge of immigration reform. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is my understanding that roughly 30 minutes remains allocated between the Senator from Utah and myself.