Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this Congress, I have the great privilege of cochairing the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control with the senior Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein. As more families across the country lose their loved ones to the scourge of opioids, the work of this caucus could not be more important.

Today, people in our country are more likely to die from an opioid overdose than a car crash, but that hasn't always been the case. Our country's opioid abuse epidemic began in the 1990s when pharmaceutical companies promoted aggressive pain management, assuring the medical community that patients would not become addicted to these drugs. As a result, doctors began to prescribe more and more of them. We know what happened next. In the decades since, we have faced a steady increase in opioid abuse and have undertaken aggressive efforts to address this epidemic.

There has been a concerted effort across the country to attack overprescribing of opioids in the hope of preventing more people from becoming addicted. But that alone cannot be our sole focus. Of the more than 70,000 overdose deaths in America in 2017, more than half were the result of heroin and synthetic opioids, not prescription drugs.

The more we step up our efforts to limit prescription opioid diversion, the higher the demand for other illicit drugs, many of which are funneled into our communities by criminal organizations operating across international borders. These groups run sophisticated drug trafficking operations, moving vast amounts of cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, and other illegal drugs through Central America and Mexico and into the United States. With Customs and Border Protection personnel spread thin because of the current humanitarian and security crisis at the border, these criminal organizations have no problem exploiting the security gaps.

I can say confidently that without coordinated government response, the problem is going to get worse and worse, which means more and more Americans will die as a result of drug overdoses.

In the past, this caucus has examined everything from prescription drug abuse, to the expansion of fentanyl, to trafficking across our southern border. As these and other hearings have illustrated, there is no single contributor to this crisis and no silver bullet.

The opioid epidemic is called a crisis for a reason: It is pervasive and all-encompassing. We can't look at the problem through a soda straw, focusing only on how the drugs get here or how to more effectively treat those who are already addicted. We need to take a more holistic approach that focuses on reducing supply by reducing demand and eliminating the myriad of factors that fueled this fire.

The International Narcotics Control Caucus will hold a hearing this afternoon to examine how the U.S. Government can expand our international efforts against drug abuse and narcotics trafficking and take the first step toward developing a comprehensive strategy.

Our first witness will be the Secretary of State, Secretary Pompeo, whose Department works across the U.S. Government and with our partners around the world to combat this transnational crime. We look forward to hearing from him, as well as other experts on the second panel about the growing epidemic and what Congress must do, working in a bipartisan effort, to address it.

As I said earlier, our whole-of-government strategy must focus on supply and demand. Last Congress, we passed landmark legislation to combat the opioid crisis, which President Trump called ``the single largest bill to combat a drug crisis in the history of the country.'' Through the collaboration of 70 bipartisan proposals in the Senate, this law aims to not only stem the tide of drugs coming across the border but to offer some support and hope to those suffering from drug addiction. It was a major bipartisan accomplishment and one that I hope we can continue to build on in this Congress because a great deal of work remains to be done.

Beyond supply and demand, we need to take aim at the criminal organizations that traffic drugs and engage in a whole host of criminal activity. As others have pointed out, these criminal organizations are commodity-agnostic--they will engage in human trafficking, migrant smuggling, money laundering, counterfeit goods, public corruption, and the list goes on and on. What they are really about is making money. They don't care anything for the migrants or the people affected by their crimes. The real kicker here is that while these criminal organizations are

perpetuating the opioid epidemic, fueling a cycle of violence, and abusing innocent civilians, they are growing richer and richer by the minute.

Targeting these organizations means more than stopping the flow of drugs into our country; it means ending a cycle of crime and violence and working together with Mexico and Central American countries to help them escape the savage grip of these criminal organizations.

Additionally, we need to strengthen security cooperation with our international partners so that they are able to more effectively fight side by side with us. Mexico and Central and South American nations often lack the ability to adequately counter the trafficking occurring within their borders, and corruption serves as a major roadblock in efforts to stop criminal activity.

There are a number of programs in place already--many of which began through the Merida Initiative--which have yielded positive results, but we need to look at all of these and make sure we understand what works and what does not work so we can justify the expenditure of U.S. taxpayer dollars in this fight. By strengthening and expanding these operations, we can help our southern neighbors fight drugs, crime, and corruption within their own borders, which would more effectively reduce the flow of drugs and other illicit goods moving across our southern border.

Finally, if we want any of these efforts to be sustainable, we can't just focus on law and order; we must look at ways to invest in economic development to help these countries build stronger economies. These are beautiful, vibrant countries that are also victims of endemic crime in the region. Helping them promote economic security will carry immense benefits for the entire region, and it is something we need to discuss more in the coming months.

Senator Feinstein and I have worked together in the past on legislation to address the drug epidemic, such as the Substance Abuse Prevention Act, which is now the law of the land. This Congress, we will continue our important work together on the International Narcotics Control Caucus. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses this afternoon and engaging in a larger discussion--hopefully a nationwide discussion--about how we can reverse the devastation caused by the opioid crisis and drug overdoses in America.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 11, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 11, 2019, during schedule votes, to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Amy Karpel, of Washington, and Randolph J. Stayin, of Virginia, both to be a Member of the United States International Trade Commission.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 11, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 11, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety

The Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 11, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of William B. Kilbride, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Subcommittee on Intellectual Property

The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 11, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

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

Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Madam President, I suppose we were all shocked when Customs and Border Protection announced that more than 103,000 people illegally crossed our southern border in March. In April, we couldn't believe it when that number jumped to more than 109,000, and now we are in complete disbelief that in May more than 144,000

people illegally crossed our southern border.

I found it interesting that in comments by one of the Presidential candidates running on the other side of the aisle, Bernie Sanders, who, according to Axios, is running second to Joe Biden in the 2020 Democratic primary polls, called what is happening at the border now a ``serious problem'' but not a crisis. When asked what more urgent crises there may be, he said: Well, that is an issue we have to deal with, but the issue of climate change is a more serious crisis.

He mentioned that, among other items.

Senator Sanders finds himself in disagreement, I suppose, with President Barack Obama, who, in 2014, called what was happening at the border, when the numbers were far lower, a humanitarian and security crisis.

President Obama's Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, disagrees with Senator Sanders. He said: ``There is a crisis at the southern border that needs [the] urgent attention [of] Congress.''

As it turns out, it is something that Congress itself is capable of addressing but so far has refused any efforts to try to come up with a compromise piece of language that would deal with this ongoing humanitarian and security crisis.

Vice President Pence's Chief of Staff said: As opposed to bellyaching about the actions the President is taking to actually secure the border, it would be nice if they put as much energy into actually fixing the problem legislatively.

I couldn't agree more with the Vice President's spokesman, or Chief of Staff, in the remarks that he made.

In May of 2019, this was the third month in a row in which the number of individuals who crossed the border illegally was in six figures, a trend that we haven't seen since 2006, when the yearly total topped more than 1 million. I wouldn't be surprised if we hit that annual total again this year.

Since the beginning of October, Customs and Border Protection has encountered more than 667,000 illegal border crossings, making this the first time in a decade that we have exceeded half a million apprehensions in a year. Don't forget, we still have 5 months to go.

The government's spokesman said last week: ``We are experiencing a systemwide emergency that is severely impacting our workforce, facilities, and resources.''

``A systemwide emergency,'' he called it. This isn't a manufactured crisis, as we heard a few months ago from some of our Democratic friends and colleagues. This is not a political stunt. Our Democratic colleagues continue to pretend that there is not a problem.

In the face of rapidly dwindling funds and resources to manage the thousands of people in the custody of Customs and Border Protection, our Democratic colleagues will not even provide additional funding to help the officers and agents who are working day and night to safeguard our border and to care for the migrants in their custody. I hope this recent data will force our Democratic colleagues to recognize the reality that this crisis is happening and it is growing.

Even the editorial board of the New York Times, never quick to agree with President Trump or Republicans--they say it is time to do something about it. In an editorial in today's paper, they said: ``When Will Congress Get Serious About the Suffering at the Border?''

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a New York Times editorial dated June 9, 2019, following my remarks.

An excerpt from the editorial of the New York Times editorial board said:

Unequipped to deal with the crush, border facilities and

migrant shelters are dangerously overcrowded, and the staff

is overburdened. Dysfunction, disease and even death are a

growing reality.

``We are in a full-blown emergency, and I cannot say this

stronger: The system is broken,'' the Acting Commissioner of

Customs and Border Protection, John Sanders, said.

The editorial goes on to say:

In short, it is time for Congress to stop dithering and

pass emergency funding to deal with this nightmare.

When the President announced his intention to impose new tariffs on Mexico, trying to bring them to the bargaining table to make sure that it stood up its efforts to try to prevent this flow of humanity from Central America, there were many people who questioned the use of that negotiating tool. I, for one, was concerned that it would certainly have unintended effects, but this is something the President would never have had to do if Members of Congress on the other side of the aisle would simply work with us to provide a legislative solution and, certainly, if Democrats would work with Republicans to provide the emergency funding that is so urgently needed for this humanitarian crisis.

Thankfully, the President was successful in his negotiations with the Mexican Government, and now we will see whether that 144,000 number in May actually begins to come down. That will be the best evidence of whether Mexico's agreement with U.S. negotiators actually is providing concrete results.

It is time to put politics aside and start discussing real solutions. We know there are no quick fixes when it comes to improving the situation at the border. It is going to require a long-term commitment by Congress and the administration, as well as our Mexican and Central American counterparts. Part of that commitment involves making physical improvements along the border and investing in infrastructure, personnel, and technology. It is the three-pronged approach that experts have repeatedly told me is needed to be successful, and it is exactly what Congress ought to be all about providing. We can't just put up a strong physical defense and call it a day. We need to devote a great deal of time and effort to making improvements to reduce both the push factors from these Central American countries and the pull factors, which encourage these migrants to come to the United States in these kinds of incredible numbers.

My friend and colleague Henry Cuellar, who happens to be a Democrat in the House of Representatives, and I have introduced a bill called the HUMANE Act, which would help us begin to reduce the pull factors and improve the way we process people who seek asylum in the United States. The HUMANE Act would close a major loophole, the Flores settlement agreement, which is often abused and exploited by the human smugglers. This well-intentioned agreement was made so unaccompanied alien children could not be detained for more than 20 days, but a flawed court ruling subsequent to that imposed the same 20-day time limit on families traveling together.

Let me tell you, the people who are illegally entering our country are not fools. They know our laws, and they know how to get around them, as do the people getting rich by moving people from Central America across Mexico into the United States--the human smugglers.

These criminal enterprises know that if individuals travel alone, they will be detained and eventually returned to their home country, especially if you are a single adult. But if you are traveling with a child, the situation unfolds quite differently. After 20 days, they are released from detention and told to return for a court date that is who knows how many months or years in the future. Guess what. Many of them disappear into the great American landscape and never show up for their court date.

Of the more than 144,000 people who illegally crossed our southern border last month, 69 percent were either unaccompanied children or part of a family. We don't know if these are legitimate families or if a child is traveling with a human smuggler or human trafficker. What we do know is that children are often abused or sexually assaulted on the way here, and many arrive at our border in critical health. It is our responsibility to protect all of the children in our custody whether they are alone, with a legitimate family member, or with a criminal.

The HUMANE Act would clarify that the 20-day limit would apply only to those children. Family units would no longer receive the same treatment, which would deter criminals, smugglers, and traffickers from exploiting children as a free ticket into the United States. There simply has to be some sort of deterrence, and the only deterrence in this context is to detain these individuals until they can appear in front of an immigration judge and make their claim for asylum.

The vast majority of claimants for asylum are not ultimately successful, but if they are released into the great American countryside, they never show up again for their court hearing and essentially circumvent our laws and exploit those loopholes.

In addition, the HUMANE Act would provide protections for children, such as DNA tests, to ensure that they are actually traveling with a biological parent. It would prevent children from being released into the custody of a sex offender or a human trafficker.

I know these seem like commonsense reforms, ones that could protect vulnerable children and ensure that our laws are not abused and finally begin to reinstate the integrity of our legal immigration system. But that is not what is happening right now in the absence of congressional action. There are additional commonsense measures in the HUMANE Act, such as streamlining the processing of migrants, adding more Customs and Border Protection personnel, and training for those who work with these migrant children.

As I said earlier, it is important to note that this is the only bill that has bipartisan support. It is not a sweeping reform that will immediately fix every problem along our border, but it is an important place to start.

I believe there is more we need to do here at home to stem the crisis, but the truth is, we can't do it alone. We need to work with Central American countries, where the vast majority of these migrants are coming from, to help them build stronger and safer governments and countries. We can't do it for them, but we can help. We also need additional support from our southern neighbor, the country of Mexico.

I agree with President Trump that Mexico must do more to prevent the mass migration of Central Americans traveling across their countries en route to the United States. I commend the President, the administration, and the Mexican Government for working together to come up with a solution that will help stem the flow of migrants at our southern border, as well as avoid the costly economic mistake of additional tariffs. The fact is, we can achieve border security without compromising our economic security. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Let me say that one more time. We can achieve border security without compromising our economic security. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I am eager to continue our work in Congress to improve our immigration system in a way that prioritizes both physical and economic security. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me and join us in that effort.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bernadette Roberts, a State Department fellow in Senator Collins' office, be granted floor privileges through August 2, 2019.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kevin Deibler, a Defense fellow in Senator Rounds' office, be granted floor privileges through December 13, 2019.

Mr. President, since President Trump announced his intent to impose tariffs on goods imported to the United States from Mexico, I have been perplexed at the reaction from our Democratic colleagues on both sides of the Capitol. They seem to have washed their hands of the humanitarian crisis occurring at the border.

Again, these are President Obama's words. In 2014 he identified this crush of humanity coming across from Central America into the United States claiming asylum as a humanitarian and security crisis. But our Democratic friends are simply washing their hands of any responsibility and have not offered any solutions or any ideas on how to solve the problem.

Perhaps they feel like this is President Trump's problem, but this is more than just the President's problem. It is America's problem and challenge: How do we deal with this flood of humanity?

I would like to be clear on one point. I agree with the President that Mexico needs to do more to staunch the flow of people across its borders and into the United States. They must do more and we must do more to stop this mass migration, but any action must prioritize both our country's physical and our economic security.

Tariffs are not my first choice on how to address this problem. In fact, that is not the most responsible way to address this. The most responsible way to address it is by taking up, debating, and voting on bipartisan legislation that would actually fix the vulnerabilities in our current law that are being exploited by the human smugglers who are charging between $5,000 and $10,000 per person to smuggle people from Central America, across Mexico, and into the United States.

Tariffs, on the other hand, would be a massive tax. The U.S. Chamber estimates that Texas alone would face $5.35 billion in increased costs as a result of a 5-percent tariff that could take effect as early as Monday. This translates into about $1,000 more on a car.

I am happy that the Vice President and Secretary Pompeo are meeting with the Mexican Foreign Minister and other officials today. Actually, I am encouraged by the response of the Mexican Government, and I can only hope that they come up with some sort of agreement so that these tariffs do not go into effect.

Stronger action by Mexico would be a step in the right direction, but it doesn't come close to solving the underlying problem. I feel like a broken record at times, constantly reminding my colleagues here of the challenges we are facing in Texas because of this crisis.

More than 100,000 people illegally crossed our southern border between March and April--100,000. That is not a combined figure. It is about 100,000 each month. The Department of Homeland Security has not released statistics for the month of May, but I am not expecting any good news.

As a matter of fact, if nothing changes, the pull factors--the reasons why people would leave their homes in Central America, cross Mexico, and make this dangerous trip into the United States--are doing nothing but getting worse, encouraging more and more people to take that dangerous trip.

Unlike in previous years, the vast majority of those crossing aren't from Mexico, as I said. So far this fiscal year, 74 percent of the Border Patrol's apprehensions across the southern border were people coming from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

And if you talk to the McAllen Sector Border Patrol chief, he will tell you that last year alone people from 140 different countries--140 different countries--came across our southern border with Mexico and into the United States. That is because they realize, if you can fly or get any way you can--take a boat, swim, get to Central America--you can make your way up from Central America into the United States. The individuals illegally entering our country are overwhelmingly either families or unaccompanied children, which means we don't have the facilities, the resources, or legal authorities. We need to expeditiously process them and care for them properly.

What is more, 70 percent of unaccompanied children and family unit apprehensions are occurring in just two sectors--El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley--making the State of Texas and its border communities the hardest hit.

We are ground zero for this crisis. As I said, this is equated to an all-out humanitarian crisis along the border. Our law enforcement officials, city leaders, nongovernmental organizations--everyone who wants to treat these migrants compassionately and appropriately is being completely overwhelmed by the massive waves of people who are entering our country.

We need to get to work on both short-term and long-term solutions.

First, we need to get additional funding to the departments and agencies that are trying to manage this crisis and care for the migrants in their custody. Without action here in Congress, funding could dry up by the end of this month, creating an even more dire situation. That should be our most immediate focus--getting funding to the agencies responsible for managing this crisis. I know the appropriators are working on this, and I hope we can come up with a solution soon because time is not on our side. But that is not a fix; that is a patch.

Any sort of lasting change cannot be solved by a funding bill or by tariffs. It has to be solved by something only Congress can do--passing legislation that addresses the root of the problem.

From what I know, there is only one bill that would address this humanitarian crisis at the border, a bill that

already has Republican and Democratic support. That is a bill I introduced called the HUMANE Act.

I have learned a lot when it comes to legislating on immigration issues. A lot of folks are more interested in talking about it than they are interested in finding a solution. But that wasn't the case when I picked up the phone and called my friend Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Laredo, TX. Obviously, I am a Republican. Henry is a Democrat in the House. But he understands this situation better than most, and he has been my consistent ally in working on a number of ways to bring commonsense reform to these issues.

We don't always agree on everything, but we do agree on some things, and where we do agree, we work together to try to provide effective solutions. As I mentioned, we introduced the HUMANE Act last month, which will make targeted, long-overdue reforms to our immigration system. Importantly, it includes provisions that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on. First, it closes a major loophole that is often exploited by families and the human smugglers who move them across the border illegally. This is the Flores settlement agreement. This is a lawsuit and a settlement.

Flawed court rulings have looked at the Flores settlement and have turned this once well-intentioned agreement into a major pull factor for migrants hoping to game the system. They know we can't detain children and family units for more than 20 days, and they are using it against us to game the system, to win, to successfully place people into the United States because we simply don't have the authorities to detain them until they can present their claims to an immigration judge.

Rather than single adults arriving at the border alone, we know that the smugglers are sending children, sometimes unaccompanied, sometimes posing as a family unit when they are not even biologically related--so much that the Department of Homeland Security has now been giving DNA testing to determine whether an adult is falsely claiming a child to be their biological offspring so that they can make their way into the country, exploiting the gaps and loopholes that I have talked about.

Children are literally being kidnapped to serve as free tickets into the United States. Tragically, they are often abused, physically or sexually, along the way, and many arrive at our border in critical health.

I have shared the concern expressed by Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle when we see children die in some of our facilities along the border, but that is not because they got sick there in the first place. They got ill on the way, coming from Central America, across Mexico, into the United States, suffering from exposure, being exposed to all sorts of infectious diseases. By the time they get into U.S. custody, some of them simply don't survive. That is a terrible human tragedy. But the problem is not trying to create more medical facilities at the border; it should be to try to stop people from making this dangerous trek in the first place.

The HUMANE Act would stop that practice by clarifying that the Flores agreement applies only to unaccompanied children, which was the original agreement, not family units as it was subsequently interpreted by another court. It would provide more time for processing and immigration proceedings to take place before families could be released from custody.

Under the current practice, because the numbers are overwhelming the capacity of the immigration courts to hear these cases--and there is simply not enough time to get to these cases when you have to release them in 20 days--they are given a notice to appear for a future court date. Guess what. The vast majority of them simply don't show up for that court hearing, and they remain in the United States perhaps for the rest of their lives unless, perhaps, they get picked up for an unrelated crime.

Our legislation would require that all accompanied children be processed exactly the same, regardless of their country of origin.

Under current law, children from Mexico or Canada can be promptly returned home. But the process for other countries moves much more slowly and represents another vulnerability in our legal authorities. I believe we should make every effort to safely return all children to their home countries as soon as possible, regardless of what country they are from.

This bill includes other provisions to protect children who have been brought to our border, such as biometric screening to ensure that they are literally the biological offspring of the people who claim to be their parents rather than a human trafficker.

It would also place prohibitions on certain individuals who would serve as guardians. For example, no child should be released into the custody of a sex offender or human trafficker. We don't have that confidence now.

The HUMANE Act would enable families to stay together. There has been a lot of discussion about separation of children from their families. We want them to stay together. I think we all agree that should be the standard, but we also need to streamline the processing of those in custody.

Consistent with the recommendations by the bipartisan Department of Homeland Security Advisory Committee, the bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to establish at least four regional processing centers along the southern border to house and process these families. They would literally serve as a one-stop shop, with Department of Homeland Security personnel, folks from Custom and Border Protection, ICE--Immigration and Customs Enforcement--the immigration service, and FEMA all working together to assist migrants and working to process their claims on a timely and respectful basis. Asylum officers would also be required to be onsite to adjudicate claims as soon as they could and expedite the entire process, which we hope would begin to ease the burden of our current debilitating immigration court backlog.

I believe that if we actually did this, people with legitimate claims would find their claims recognized earlier, and people with illegitimate claims would be returned to their country of origin, which is the way our laws should be enforced.

It is important to recognize that we should not only enforce our immigration laws; as long as they are on the books, we ought to use the time-honored principle of deterrence. In other words, if people realize they are paying good money to try to make their way into the United States in the hands of a human smuggler but because of the way we have corrected and reformed our laws, it is no longer possible to exploit the vulnerabilities of the system, fewer and fewer of them will actually start that trek--that dangerous trek from their home in Central America.

So deterrence is something we need to use on our side, and right now there is no deterrence because the smugglers know this is a money- making machine for them. They care nothing about the people involved. They are commodity agnostic. They will just as soon traffic someone for sex as they will move a migrant from Central America for economic reasons or move drugs from across the border into the United States. We need to deter all sorts of criminal activity like that.

In addition to these changes, the legislation also includes other provisions that I think are just commonsense improvements, like additional Customs and Border Protection personnel and training for CBP and ICE employees who work with children.

There is one last point on what is happening at the border and its impact on the economy and trade. In Laredo, TX alone--I think it just surpassed Los Angeles as the largest port of entry into the United States--there are between 14,000 and 16,000 trucks a day that traverse the U.S.-Mexico border between Nuevo Laredo and Laredo. A lot of that is a part of the manufacturing process, which happens on both sides of the border. But when these trucks can't make their way across the border on a timely basis, then that means the parts or the manufacturing processes fall apart--and the border economies.

I would argue the larger economy in the United States is threatened when just-in-time inventory control no longer works. If you are living in Detroit, MI, and you are expecting that the delivery of a part coming from Mexico will make its way to Michigan

in time to build a car, you can't do it. Eventually, this is going to damage our economy and kill jobs.

So I would like to reiterate, in conclusion, that the HUMANE Act is bipartisan; it is bicameral; and it would provide real relief for folks in Texas and other border states who are struggling to manage the crisis. Most importantly, it would be a much more humane way to treat these children and families who are flooding across our southern border.

I know most of our congressional Democratic friends have adopted the posture of reflexively standing against the President on anything and everything he asks for rather than standing for policies that would actually become the law and make the situation better.

I think this is a much better solution than tariffs on Mexican goods brought into the United States.

The President's team is negotiating the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the USMCA, and I am hopeful we can get that passed here in the Congress once it is sent over from the administration. But I worry that not only are these tariffs that are potentially being placed on goods brought in the United States going to hurt our booming economy and jobs here, they also are going to jeopardize the passage of the USMCA--the successor to NAFTA, which I think we should all acknowledge is a big, positive development for the administration. Why would we jeopardize the passage of the USMCA? Why would we hurt our economy while trying to punish Mexico for not doing more--which they should do to stop the illegal passage of people across their country when there is a reasonable and responsible alternative.

I urge all of my colleagues to take a serious look at the HUMANE Act so we can finally do our part, which only we in Congress can do to stem the flow of Central American migrants who are flooding our borders and to prevent criminals and human smugglers from infiltrating our country as they are doing now.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Thomas Peter Feddo, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Investment Security, Nazak Nikakhtar, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary for Industry and Security, and Ian Paul Steff, of Indiana, to be Assistant Secretary and Director General of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service, both of the Department of Commerce, Michelle Bowman, of Kansas, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Paul Shmotolokha, of Washington, to be First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and Allison Herren Lee, of Colorado, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Robert Wallace, of Wyoming, to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Peter Joseph Phipps, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, Charles R. Eskridge Ill, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, William Shaw Stickman IV, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and Jennifer Philpott Wilson, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at a time to be determined, to conduct a hearing on the nomination of James Byrne, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 45, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, this week, the Senate will consider another batch of well-qualified nominees. These are men and women who have chosen to serve the American people in a variety of ways throughout the Federal Government, and we owe it to them to get them off the Senate calendar and on the job.

Among the nominees we are considering this week is Susan Combs, who, as the Presiding Officer knows, is a fellow Texan who has been nominated to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget at the Department of the Interior. Susan has led an impressive career in both the public and private sectors and has served our State as a member of the Texas House of Representatives, then as the first female agriculture commissioner, and, later, as the Texas comptroller of public accounts.

In each job, she gained the respect of virtually everyone she worked with. So, for those who know Susan, her nomination has come as no surprise. What is surprising, though, is how long it has taken her to reach this point and be confirmed. She was nominated in July of 2017. Within 1 month, she testified before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and she received unanimous support. Suffice it to say, her nomination was not controversial. So why has it taken 2 years for her to get a vote on the Senate floor?

Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle have pulled every trick in the book to slow down the nominations process, not because they have objected to a particular nominee or because a nominee has been unqualified, but because it has been part of a broader effort to stymie the President and this administration and bring the work of this body to a crawl.

With each day that has passed since the President has been inaugurated, the growing backlog of nominations has allowed hundreds of important positions throughout the Federal Government to have remained vacant. That is not fair to the people who have been nominated; that is not fair to the administration; and it is particularly not fair to the American people, whom these individuals are to serve.

A couple of months ago, we passed a modest rules change that broke the logjam, at least to some extent, and allowed us to finally begin to make some much needed progress. In the, roughly, 3 months prior to the rules change, we were able to confirm only 23 nominees. In the, roughly, 2 months since, we have more than doubled that number. We have begun to fill dozens of positions, including those of Federal judges, ambassadorships, and sub-Cabinet officials at various Departments and Agencies. Two weeks ago, we confirmed the 41st circuit court judge since President Trump took office, and we are making progress on filling more judicial vacancies.

As we approach the 2-year anniversary of Susan Combs' nomination having been sent to the Senate, I am glad we can finally vote on her confirmation and continue our work to confirm well-qualified nominees.

Mr. President, on another matter, we continue to hear cries from the left about Medicare for All--the one-size-fits-all healthcare plan they continue to embrace.

It is ironic, in having been in this Chamber during the battle over the Affordable Care Act and when President Obama famously said ``If you like your policy, you can keep it,'' that now, apparently, the Democrats have abandoned that promise. Instead, their promise is, if you like your employer-provided health insurance policy, you can't keep it.

The fact is that this plan would drain the vital program that our seniors have relied on for more than a half a century and would force all Americans to participate in a watered-down version, which, clearly, would not be financially sustainable. More than 180 million Americans would be kicked off of their private insurance plans and be forced onto a government-run plan. This strikes me as a solution in search of a problem.

Don't get me wrong. Our healthcare system isn't perfect, and there are things we need to do to make it better, but they don't want to pay higher taxes and be put on the same healthcare plan as every other American. They want to be able to choose their coverage at prices that work best for them and their families, and, yes, we need to improve our healthcare system so it focuses on patients and allows all individuals and families to choose what works best for them. Fortunately, Senate Republicans have been working hard to create legislation that would do exactly that.

Earlier this year, I cosponsored the Protect Act, which is being led by our colleague from North Carolina, Senator Tillis. This bill would make sure that no one would be denied coverage or would be forced to pay a higher premium because of one's having a preexisting condition. With the future of ObamaCare hanging in the balance, we need to provide peace of mind for the millions of Americans who have preexisting conditions and who worry about the uncertainty of their healthcare.

This legislation would also prohibit discrimination against patients based on their health status. That includes denying coverage, limiting what treatments are covered, or increasing premiums because of one's having a preexisting condition. This is an important step we can and should take to affirm that all Americans deserve access to affordable care at affordable prices. In addition, by codifying the association health plans, we can help self-employed individuals and small business employees who don't receive employer-provided coverage.

Association health plans were initially established by the Department of Labor. They allow businesses in the same region or industry to come together and purchase insurance. These plans have proven to be a great solution for small businesses across the country that represent a host of small businesses and sole proprietors because they are afforded the opportunity of getting, essentially, the same quality of coverage provided by large employers but at the same lower prices that people pay who are in these large employer-provided plans.

Historically, the problem has been in the individual market, which is where most of these individuals would find themselves, in that the pool of risks is not sufficiently broad. Because of perverse incentives, they would actually end up paying much higher premiums than other people who would be similarly situated who would have employer-provided plans.

Association health plans address that directly by providing a larger pool of insured individuals, which would help to bring down the premiums and help to bring down the deductibles over what they are currently under the Affordable Care Act. Several chambers in Texas are using these association health plans for their members, and I would like to be able to provide more flexibility for AHPs so that more Americans may take advantage of this employer-provided insurance.

In codifying this Labor Department rule and making insurance more affordable and accessible, we must also look at healthcare costs beyond the premiums people pay for their health insurance. That is why we need to take a look at out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs. When it comes to drugs that have just come on the market after lengthy research and development, you would expect the prices to be higher. That is the price we pay for the innovation and lifesaving new drugs. Companies patent their drugs to ensure that the money spent during the research and development phases can be recovered once the drugs hit pharmacy shelves.

These patents--a form of individual property protection--are important in order to encourage innovation. Unfortunately, on occasion, we see companies that abuse this system and try to get new patents on existing drugs in order to prolong their exclusivity and, of course, to maintain the high profits they get on a patented drug. This type of behavior is not what Congress intended. We cannot allow bad actors to game the system in order to turn higher profits and prevent more Americans from getting access to these drugs at lower prices, which is what the system is designed to do once they go off patent.

Recently, I introduced the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act, which encourages competition within the pharmaceutical industry by stopping these sorts of corrupt practices. The bill would define product hopping and patent thickets--two practices used by some manufacturers--as anticompetitive behavior. Certainly, this doesn't prevent manufacturers from making improvements in their products. It doesn't limit patent rights, and it doesn't hamper innovation. Yet it does stop those who knowingly abuse the patent system by allowing the Federal Trade Commission to bring antitrust suits against the bad actors.

In addition to these bills, I recently introduced a bill to protect the integrity of the Medicare part D system. This is the prescription drug system that Congress created years ago, which actually provides seniors with access to prescription drugs at a modest cost. Currently, part D's sponsors may voluntarily report fraud data to the CMS, but they are not required to report the specific number of instances of fraud, waste, and abuse they identify or the actions they take to correct these problems. This bill would implement recommendations made by the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General to require plan sponsors to report fraud and improve oversight of this important program.

These are the types of reforms we need. We don't need Medicare for All, which will force 180 million people off of their private health insurance and bankrupt the Medicare system that we pledged to be there to provide access to healthcare for our seniors once they

qualify. These are the types of reforms we need instead. Overhauling our entire healthcare system to put everyone on the same subpar plan would not help anyone.

The way I see it is we have two options. One option is Medicare for All, which forces everyone onto the same plan. The government tells you what clinic to go to, what doctor to see, what brand of prescription you can get access to. You lose the power to make decisions about your own healthcare, and you simply have to take what you get on somebody else's timeframe. That is Medicare for All. It would simultaneously ruin Medicare by forcing all 330 million Americans onto the same plan, which will bring down the quality of care for our seniors, who have paid over the years into the plan, and which will bankrupt our country in the process.

I think there is a better choice, a better option. Rather than the government's telling you what you have to do, let's make smart, targeted reforms that allow patients to determine the coverage and care they want at more affordable prices. I believe we can implement these reforms in a way that will bring down costs without reducing choice.

We can continue to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, which is something we all agree should be done. We can lower the costs of prescriptions and out-of-pocket costs and stop the bad actors who game the system. We can provide the States with more flexibility to allow for more coverage options so that families can pick the plans that are right for them. Yes, we can also encourage innovation so our country will remain at the forefront of medical solutions and innovation.

Those are two words you don't ordinarily see--``government-run'' plan and ``innovation''--in the same sentence. As a matter of fact, they are polar opposites.

Finally, we need to preserve Medicare for our seniors who have paid into this over their lifetime.

I appreciate my colleagues who are hard at work to make these kinds of reforms a reality. And I have heard from my constituents loud and clear. When it comes to healthcare, they want more choices, more affordability, not the one-size-fits-all that Medicare for All would provide.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 4, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 4, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 4, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 4, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 4, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 4, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 4, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed roundtable.

Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety

The Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 4, 2019, at 11:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Intellectual Property

The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 4, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, during the last week, I spent some time traveling through Texas, meeting with constituents, and talking about some of the legislation we have been working on here in Washington and, perhaps most importantly, spent a little time listening to what was on their minds.

One of the things we talked about was the fact that in 2017, more than 70,000 Americans died of drug overdoses. That is according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The opioid epidemic, which contributed mightily to that number, has affected every State, every city, and every community. My constituents, like all of our constituents, are in search of real solutions to try to support those leading the fight on the ground.

I had the chance to spend a little bit of time in Tyler, TX, which is in East Texas, which we affectionately call ``behind the Pine Curtain.'' I learned from some of the folks in Tyler about how substance abuse has affected that area and what we can do better to serve the people who are impacted. I heard from pharmacists, healthcare providers, law enforcements officers, community leaders, and other experts about their efforts. We talked about the need for a holistic approach that focused on reducing supply and also reducing demand, helping those with substance abuse problems, and preventing drug abuse from occurring and spreading into the future.

We talked about some of the legislation we have passed here in Congress to try to help equip them with the tools they would need in order to fight this fight--a bill we call the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. This legislation provides critical tools to those communities in the fight against substance abuse. It reauthorizes programs to reduce demand for narcotics and provides tools for pharmacists, prescribers, and law enforcement so that

they can work together more seamlessly to combat opioid addiction. It also provides support for those recovering from substance abuse disorders by providing expanded treatment options and recovery services. It takes unprecedented steps to combat the opioid crisis, and it received overwhelming bipartisan support in both Chambers.

Now, I don't blame people who may listen to this and say: Well, I never heard about that before. That is what happens when we pass overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation here in Congress. If there is not a big fight about it, if it is not on the cable news, if it is not on social media, then it happens without people paying much notice. Yet it is important work that happens every day here in Washington, DC-- Republicans and Democrats working together, trying to solve problems, trying to equip those on the frontlines with the tools they need in order to fight that fight.

Folks in East Texas told me about how the new grants under the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act may help to strengthen their efforts and help ease the pain of the opioid epidemic.

Then I took a trip over to Lufkin High School in Lufkin, TX, which is also in East Texas, to meet with students, educators, and administrators to talk about the GEAR UP program. This is a competitive grant program that helps historically underrepresented students to achieve college and career readiness through academic, social, and planning support.

For example, if you come from a family in which no one has previously gone to college, well, you may not really know what it is you need to do, starting even in the seventh grade, to begin to prepare--what courses you need to take, what prerequisites are going to be required for you to be considered by the college of your choice. If you decide to take a career path that doesn't involve a 4-year college--through one of our community colleges--and get a certificate so you can qualify for a good-paying job, let's say, as a certified welder, you need to prepare early.

The folks in East Texas told me how these grants under the GEAR UP program help one to do exactly that. The GEAR UP program recognizes that college and career readiness begin early. That is why it is so important that the cohort that is first helped by these GEAR UP grants is of those in the seventh grade--pretty early. I don't remember having a plan in the seventh grade, to be sure. If I had had a plan, I am not sure exactly what it would have been. I came from a family in which going to college was expected. As a matter of fact, I never entertained any other idea. Yet we have to recognize that many young students don't have that sort of example in their own households and that they need some additional help in order to pursue their educations and prepare for good, well-paying jobs.

The good thing about the GEAR UP program is that it doesn't use a blanket approach to support students because we know what works well in one State and in one region of the country may not work as well in another. Instead, the GEAR UP program gives local leaders the flexibility to cater to their students' needs.

The best part about GEAR UP is that it is actually a government program that works. GEAR UP students graduate from high school at a higher rate than their peers, regardless of ethnicity or income, and they attend college at a higher rate.

In Lufkin, 3,000 students have benefited from more than $10 million in Federal GEAR UP grants over the last two decades, and last week, I had the opportunity to hear what it meant to them personally. Statewide, Texas students have benefited from $885 million in GEAR UP grants over the last 20 years, and we have seen incredible results.

I believe there are additional steps we can take to ensure that local leaders have the flexibility they need in order to tailor their programs appropriately, so earlier this year, I introduced the GEAR UP for Success Act, which will provide more flexibility to school districts on how they may use those funds so that local jurisdictions can better tailor these programs to their students' specific needs. It would reduce the local cost share significantly--by half--that is required to receive a GEAR UP grant, which means more students will benefit from these funds and these programs.

I appreciate the folks in Tyler, in Lufkin, and in the many other cities I visited in Texas last week for taking the time to share with me their thoughts and ideas so that we can bring more Texas common sense to Washington, DC.

Border Security

Mr. President, on another matter, we know that Central American migrants continue to make their way to our southern border in record numbers and that law enforcement, city officials, and nongovernmental organizations are struggling to manage this influx of humanity. We are seeing people arrive en masse, and it is not uncommon to see multiple groups, each with hundreds of people, arrive in a single day.

My State has 1,200 miles of a common border with Mexico, and I believe that border security is one of the Federal Government's most important responsibilities. These are people who are showing up at our border and literally turning themselves in to the Border Patrol because they know that by exploiting gaps in our asylum laws, they are virtually guaranteed entry into the United States. As well, the human smugglers who get rich by smuggling this human cargo from Central America, across Mexico, and into the United States are making untold millions of dollars in this very profitable business.

Last week, one of the large groups who came to El Paso broke a record. The Border Patrol encountered a group of more than 1,000 illegal immigrants--more than double the previous record of 421 that was set last month. Only 39 of the people who were traveling in that group were single adults. The rest were either families or children who were traveling alone, and that was no mistake. The smugglers know that if they send unaccompanied children or families, they can exploit those vulnerabilities in our immigration and asylum laws and successfully place those individuals in the United States, only to be told to show up at later dates for court hearings that are maybe months or even years into the future. Surprise, surprise--most do not show up, and they successfully make their way into the United States without complying with our immigration laws. We simply don't have the facilities, the funding, or the resources to detain and properly care for many of these individuals, let alone these children and families.

Regardless of where each individual Member of Congress stands on immigration generally, I hope everyone in this Chamber can agree that there is a problem and that it must be addressed urgently.

In the short term, I hope appropriators can come to an agreement soon to provide desperately needed funding to those who are working to manage this humanitarian crisis in Texas and in other border States. Without the Federal Government's assistance, funding to support these migrants may soon dry up, and conditions in these facilities will rapidly deteriorate.

Additional funding is a much needed bandaid to help manage this crisis right now, but we need to continue working on longer term solutions so that we can stop the flow of migrants without hurting our country economically or doing it in a way that is inconsistent with our values and our laws.

Our country relies, for example, on a strong trading relationship with Mexico. Goods and services that were traded between our countries in 2018 totaled more than $670 billion. Much of the trade we have is between Texas and Mexico. Mexico is by far and away my State's top trading partner. In 2018, Texas exported nearly $110 billion in goods to Mexico. That is roughly four times the number of exports to our No. 2 trading partner--Canada. We also imported more than $107 billion from our southern neighbor. That includes everything from motor vehicle parts, to computer equipment, to tractors, to avocados. It is not uncommon to see certain products, like automobiles, cross the border multiple times throughout the production process before they eventually make their way to consumers. It is a fact of life that businesses and jobs in our communities in Texas and literally around the country rely on a strong trading relationship between the United States and Mexico-- something I have always supported and for which I will continue to advocate.

I appreciate President Trump's unwavering commitment to securing our southern border and enforcing our immigration laws, and I will continue to support his efforts to stop the flow of illegal immigration, to improve physical security, to close dangerous loopholes in the law, and to provide our frontline officers and agents the tools and resources they need to carry out their sworn mission.

It is important to remember that with any actions that we take to secure our southern border, we must also keep in mind the important role that Mexico plays in the economy of the United States. My State enjoys a strong relationship economically with Mexico because of that 1,200-mile common border and because of the sort of trading and commercial relationships I described a moment ago. Any decisions that would disrupt that relationship need to be closely examined and debated and be subject to a cost-benefit analysis.

I believe there are solutions that can secure our border, that can fix this mass influx of humanity that is coming across as a result of the exploitation of our asylum laws, and that can also deliver a secure economy not just for Texas but for the entire United States. In Laredo, TX, 14,000 to 16,000 trucks a day cross the international border between Laredo, TX, and Nuevo Laredo, and that is an important part of the Texas and local economies. They understand the importance of that cross-border trade, and they are interested in working with us to try to make sure we deal with what is broken when it comes to our asylum laws.

My friend and colleague Henry Cuellar, who is a Democrat from Laredo and represents that part of the State, has joined with me in a bipartisan, bicameral bill to fix what the Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security say needs fixing in our asylum laws because there is basically now a superhighway leading from Central America, through Mexico, into the United States, and we are seeing more and more people being drawn to the opportunities they have when they enter the United States and exploit those broken laws.

My plea to all of our colleagues here on a bipartisan basis is this: We need to get serious about fixing these problems. I think the American people look at us and wonder why it is we have let partisan politics overcome our willingness to do the things we said we would do when we ran for office to benefit the American people. This is one of those issues that require a congressional solution. Nobody else can fix it. We need to get serious about finding solutions and getting this fixed as soon as we possibly can.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.