Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on the Lee nomination.

Mr. President, over the years, I have spent a great deal of time on the Senate floor highlighting the evolving challenges along our southern border.

My home State of Texas shares a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico, so any major shift in terms of who or what is arriving at the border is felt quickly by my constituents and by my State. In recent months, I have heard from the Border Patrol, local officials, nongovernmental organizations, community leaders, businesses of every size, and just average citizens alike about how the situation today is far more challenging than it has ever been before.

In the past, the number of illegal border crossings have fluctuated by varying degrees, but now we have seen a complete shift not only in number but also in the ``who'' of those crossing. While we used to see single adults from Mexico, that is simply not the case anymore. There is no new net migration from Mexico, we are told. As Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost highlighted in a hearing last week, 68 percent of those apprehended are now families or unaccompanied children, and that is on purpose. The human smugglers have figured out what our laws are and how to exploit them in order to successfully place people in the United States by overwhelming our system. The 68 percent of families or unaccompanied children amounts to roughly 293,000 apprehensions so far this fiscal year--293,000. What is more, 70 percent of the unaccompanied children and families are occurring in just two Border Patrol sectors, the El Paso sector and the Rio Grande Valley sector, making the State of Texas and its border communities the hardest hit.

The vast majority of those crossing aren't from Mexico. They are coming from Mexico, but they are actually coming through Mexico. So far this fiscal year, 74 percent of the Border Patrol's apprehensions along the southern border are people from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador--what is called the Northern Triangle. This means that in 7 months, nearly 341,000 people from the Northern Triangle of Central America made the decision to leave their homes and to make a dangerous journey in the hands of a human smuggler to illegally enter the United States. Here is another shocking statistic, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan recently noted that Guatemala and Honduras have seen more than 1 percent of their total population migrate to the United States in the first 7 months of this fiscal year--more than 1 percent of their entire population.

While it is abundantly clear that the mass movement of people across our border is a problem that must be addressed, it is an understatement to say that Members of the Senate disagree on what a solution looks like. We spent a lot of time debating the semantics of the entire situation without making any real progress. I believe our strategy to alleviate this humanitarian crisis hinges on three important steps:

First, we need stronger physical security at the border. The experts have told us that means three things: barriers and, in-hard-to-control places, people--that is law enforcement--and technology. That is what our frontline officers and agents need to do their jobs, and that is what we should provide.

Secondly, we need to provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol with the authorities--that means the laws-- they need in order to effectively do their job. That includes closing the loopholes that are being exploited by the human smugglers and the illegal immigrants entering the country because they have figured out how to game the system. They know our laws better than most Americans do.

Both of these are what are called pull factors--what attract people to come to the United States illegally. They are gaps in our physical security and legal system that encourage Central American migrants to make the dangerous journey north because their chances of making their way into the interior of our country are pretty high.

There is a critical third step here. We also need to eliminate the push factors. That is what is driving people from Central America on that dangerous road north through Mexico into the United States. The reason so many of these families are leaving their home countries in the first place boils down to poverty and violence. We know these three countries in the Northern Triangle are plagued by crime, corruption, and a lack of economic opportunities. Sometimes it is difficult for Americans to grasp the deep-seated nature of these problems and why it is so tough to resolve them because it is such a far cry from what most have experienced here at home.

In October of 2018, the International Organization for Migration conducted a survey of a group of Salvadoran migrants who banded together as a caravan to make the journey north. It found that 52 percent of the people who were coming from El Salvador cited economic opportunity as their motive for leaving the region, 18 percent cited violence and insecurity, 2 percent said they wanted to unify their families, and 28 percent cited some combination of these factors. Now, this may not be the case for migrants from each country, but it paints a broad picture of how these challenges are affecting them.

We must help these countries address their problems, but we can't do it for them. Looking at South America and the successful efforts we have had to help countries rebuild themselves into successful economies with security for their people, there is one that stands out the most, and that is Colombia. What is different about Colombia from the rest of these countries is we had, one, a bipartisan plan that was applied over many years by both Republican and Democratic administrations. We also had a strong partner, a leader, President Uribe in Colombia, which is something we are missing in Central America. Then we had a plan, as the name Plan Colombia suggests, so we knew what we were doing, and we knew how to measure success. We don't have any of these things now as part of our effort to help the Central American countries help themselves.

Having said that, I think that is a challenge we need to rise to, to find a way of helping these countries create economic opportunities and security for their people so we can help relieve some of the strain on our own border.

This morning, my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, and I participated in a discussion by the Bush

Center and the Atlantic Council on how to promote economic growth in the Northern Triangle. I think it is very helpful for these think tanks to gather experts and come up with proposals we can consider and then vote on. Frankly, it is very hard for Congress--we don't have really the bandwidth to come up with proposals from the start, so it is helpful to have smart people from around the country, experts, who can help advise us.

We know this: One of the most fundamental problems standing in the way of prosperity for Central America is the security crisis. Because of endemic corruption and powerful criminal organizations, a genuine rule of law is missing in these countries and has been for generations. We have had some successes partnering with our closest neighbor in this crisis, Mexico, and I believe we can continue to build upon some of the programs we already have in place there. For example, the United States has partnered with Mexico in recent years through programs like the Merida Initiative to combat drug trafficking, transnational organized crime, and money laundering. There is a need for increased security cooperation and burden sharing to lessen the regional insecurity and damage caused by the growing influence of cartels, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations. We have directed funds toward strengthening communities and empowering the Mexican criminal justice system and judicial system to help combat the rampant culture of impunity that exists in Mexico, and I believe we have made some marginal gains, although there is a lot of work that needs to be done. We have also shared intelligence and cooperated in providing various forms of security.

The Bureau of International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement continues to work to develop programs to combat international narcotics and crime, especially in Central America, but U.S. funding for this program in Mexico has stagnated. Additional aid for this program would combat transnational criminal organizations, improve drug interdiction, and train Mexican law enforcement and judicial personnel.

Moving forward, we should begin to look at the effectiveness of these existing programs so we can take full advantage of the work they do and ensure they are modernized to confront the evolving epidemic. It is nearly impossible to determine how or if this money is benefiting the people hit hardest by this crime and corruption, and that needs to change. It is no news that the Trump administration has recently announced its decision to suspend aid to Central America. While I believe aid to these countries is important in providing any semblance of long-term stability, I also think it is important to fundamentally examine where this money is going, what we are trying to achieve, and how effective these programs are at achieving that goal. That seems pretty simple, pretty straightforward, but we actually don't have a plan, and we don't have any metrics to measure our progress.

We know the problem is getting worse because the number of people showing up on our border just continues to increase.

If we are going to ask the American taxpayer to foot the bill, we have a fiduciary duty to them to make sure the money is going to be well spent in pursuit of American interests. We can't do that right now.

Every dollar should be responsibly spent on initiatives to strengthen security cooperation, improve governance, enhance public security, and promote prosperity through pro-growth reforms.

If that is not the case, then we need to take a hard look at how we can improve our foreign aid program.

We need to provide the resources and training to help Central American countries stabilize their governments and their economies. But, again, we can't do this for them. We can't want an outcome more than they do. They need to want this. They need to provide the leadership to be a partner with us to help execute an agreed-upon common plan, and then we need to be able to show the American taxpayers that their money is being well spent because we are making measurable progress.

When the people begin to see the opportunity and safety in their home countries, making a long migration northward becomes less of a necessity.

I hope we can have these continued discussions here in Congress over the coming months. But even more than that, I hope we can focus on this as a problem that needs to be solved--one that is above politics and beyond politics and one that really threatens the security and safety of our own country because not only do we know that migrants come to the United States fleeing poverty and violence, but we also know these same criminal organizations transmit drugs into the United States. They move people for human trafficking and sex slavery, and this is a challenge for our country, as well as the entire region.

We can do this if we will simply focus on it and work together on this as a problem to be solved. But, again, we can't do this for these countries in Central America.

I think President Trump was correct to suspend the money we are spending there until we actually have a plan and a willing partner to work with to implement and execute this plan in a way that can demonstrate measurable progress.

We have a model in Colombia where this has worked in the past, but around the world where the United States is engaged in nation building, there are not a lot of models for success. There are a lot of examples of failure because of the complexity and difficulty of this, but this is something that should be getting our attention and something that should be a priority for all of us.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to ru1e XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the fullowing committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at time coinciding with votes, to conduct a business meeting.

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, May 14, 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, May 14, 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 Tuesday, May 14, 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, May 14, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Subcommittee on Aviation and Space

The Subcommittee on Aviation and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

The Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining of the Committee on Energy, and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration that I chair held a hearing on the humanitarian and security crisis along the southern border. One of the witnesses we heard from was Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost, who leads the dedicated law enforcement officers who safeguard our Nation's borders every day. She has been with the Border Patrol for 25 years, and she has witnessed firsthand the ebb and flow of border crossings during that entire quarter century.

Chief Provost announced the most recent data that shows how dire the situation along our southern border is. She described these numbers as off the charts, which I think is a gentle way of putting it.

Before I get to the numbers, let me provide some context. In October 2018, the start of the fiscal year, Customs and Border Protection encountered nearly 61,000 migrants at the border. That is higher than any month in the previous fiscal year. At the time, we were all alarmed by the increase, but last month's numbers completely eclipsed those levels. Chief Provost announced at our hearing yesterday that in the month of April, CBP encountered more than 109,000 illegal immigrants along the southern border. From October to April, we jumped from roughly 61,000 to 109,000 per month, a 78-percent increase over just the 6-month period.

In addition to that enormous monthly total, she told us about the record-breaking daily total last week. Border Patrol apprehended 5,200 people in a single day--the highest number on record. The problem is that we can't simply send these migrants home under the current state of the law. So the more individuals we apprehend, the more detention space we need. If we don't have the detention space, these individuals would simply just be released into the American population. We will never hear from most of them again, unless they commit some other crime.

But the fact of the matter is, we are overtaxing the capabilities of the Border Patrol, of Customs and Border Protection, of the local communities, and of the nongovernmental organizations that try to assist these migrants while they are in our country and in our custody. On certain days over the last month, CBP has had more than 14,000 people in custody, far greater than the capacity they are able to hold.

People may ask: Why do we have to detain people? Why can't we just let them go and tell them to show back up for a future court date?

We know from sad experience that the majority will not return for that court date, even if they have legitimate claims for asylum. We now know that there are more than 700,000--I think approaching 800,000-- backlog immigration cases waiting to be heard by an immigration judge. This, again, is overwhelming our capacity to deal with these on an individual basis.

Back to the numbers, earlier this week the Rio Grande Valley Sector announced that their stations and processing centers were holding more than 7,000 illegal immigrants, and that is just one Border Patrol sector. In a recent television interview, Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan accurately described these facilities as being similar to police stations. Suffice it to say that CBP does not have the facilities or resources to manage that many people in a police station- like environment.

If you think that sounds pretty grim, just wait because it gets worse. We aren't only overwhelmed by the number of individuals coming across the border but by the types of people who are arriving. I am talking about children and families who are mostly from Central America. We were told that, all told, Border Patrol encounters, in a given year, individuals from 140 different countries.

Since the criminal organizations that smuggle people into the United States are open for business, they are more than happy to take a Bangladeshi, a Yemeni, somebody from Iraq or from Afghanistan or, for that matter, from Iran and bring them across the border into the United States.

When our detention facilities were built, they were designed to hold single adults for a short duration, which used to account for the majority of people apprehended. That is simply not the case anymore. The human smugglers and criminal organizations that charge $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 a head to bring people into the United States have studied our laws and have learned how to exploit the loopholes and the gaps. That

is why the composition of these migrants has changed so much over the years from single adults to children and to families.

In April, 68 percent of those apprehended were either families or unaccompanied children. This has put the Border Patrol in a very awkward position. Chief Provost noticed that her agents were spending now about 40 percent of their time processing migrants and providing care and transportation. She had a picture--a chart--that she demonstrated with a Border Patrol agent nursing a baby with a bottle and another Border Patrol agent cradling an infant in his arms. In other words, instead of being on the frontlines against illegal drugs coming across our border--which contributed to the deaths of 70,000 Americans last year alone and where 90 percent of the heroin and synthetic opioids known as fentanyl come principally from Mexico-- instead of fighting that scourge and stopping that poison from coming into the United States, our Border Patrol has now been diverted to being, essentially, a childcare center handing out juice boxes and diapers. They aren't processing or stopping illegal immigrants or the human traffickers.

Trying to deal with these record high numbers, we know that the numbers of people coming across are far exceeding the resources available for the Border Patrol. With so many more people to process and more manpower needed, the Border Patrol has been taken off the line, leaving areas of the border vulnerable to exploitation by human smugglers and drug cartels.

Think about it. If you are a leader of a drug cartel trying to move heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, or other illegal drugs into the United States, why wouldn't you try to flood the Border Patrol with children and families so they would be taken off the line and distracted to take care of these individuals, as opposed to stopping those drugs? Of course, this is part of a larger plan.

Unfortunately, the Congress is doing little, if anything, about it. I don't think it takes an expert to see that things are bad, and I hope my colleagues can recognize that we need to act before they get worse. This is a problem that the President can't solve on his own and the Border Patrol can't solve on its own. This is about the legal authorities that the U.S. Government has to deal with this chaos and this humanitarian crisis at our own border. It takes a change in laws passed by Congress. So we must act on a bipartisan and bicameral basis to respond or this is going to get worse and worse.

Yesterday Chief Provost compared the current situation to holding a bucket under a faucet. It doesn't matter how many buckets you have if you never turn the water off. Well, that is what we need to do--stop the flow of people trying to enter our country illegally.

Last week, Congressman Henry Cuellar--my friend, a Democrat from Laredo, TX--and I introduced a bill called the HUMANE Act, which would at least slow that faucet to a drip and provide serious relief for the personnel who serve along the border. It focuses on the problems posed by high numbers of unaccompanied children and families, whom we do not have the capacity to adequately care for. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to keep families together through court proceedings-- something we all should agree to--and provides safeguards to prevent children from being placed in the custody of dangerous individuals--sex offenders, human traffickers, and the like.

It also requires the Department of Homeland Security to establish regional processing centers in high traffic areas and to improve the processing of humanitarian relief claims by requiring those to be processed at ports of entry.

Finally, it mandates the hiring of 600 new CBP personnel to alleviate the personnel strain and get more of these highly trained men and women back on the frontlines. I hope we will have the opportunity to review this legislation soon in the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Graham has told me he is willing to do that, and I hope our friends in the House will take it up soon.

America would never think of sending our men and women in the military to war without providing them the training, the equipment, and the support they need in order to fight and win our Nation's wars. Yet somehow we have sent the Border Patrol into a battle that is designed for failure. They simply don't have the numbers. They don't have the resources. We don't have the facilities in order to deal with this. We can't just try to staunch the flow while it gets worse and worse and worse and worse. Instead of putting another bucket under the faucet as it runs wide open, we need to turn that faucet off, and the only way we can do that is by Congress acting. It is on us, and we must act and act soon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize and congratulate the Texas blues rock band ZZ Top on their 50th anniversary. It is only fitting that this group kicks off their anniversary tour in their home State of Texas.

With plenty of gas in the tank, Dusty, Billy, Frank, and the rest of their crew will be traveling to more than 60 cities across 14 countries in their commemorative tour. An appropriate reminder of ZZ Top's history, this tour clearly shows they have been able to reach millions of fans across the globe for decades.

In 1969, two rival blues rock bands in Houston, TX--Billy's Moving Sidewalks and Frank and Dusty's American Blues--coalesced into one band, ZZ Top. Two years later, they dropped their first album, aptly titled, ``ZZ Top's First Album.''

Bandmates Billy Gibbons, Frank Beard, and Dusty Hill have been writing songs and creating a musical fusion between blues and southern rock since their formation and have never looked back. Though they draw inspiration from music greats like Jimi Hendrix, BB King, Cream, George Jones, and Texas blues guitarist Freddie King, all of their influences transform into one singularly unique sound.

In 1973, the band released its third album ``Tres Hombres,'' which catapulted them to the national spotlight with the hit song ``La Grange,'' still one of ZZ Top's signature songs.

ZZ Top's momentum and success built during its first decade culminated in the legendary 1976 tour entitled the World Wide Texas Tour, a production that included a longhorn, a buffalo, buzzards, rattlesnakes, and a Texas-shaped stage. If their tour wasn't proof enough that things are bigger in Texas, then maybe their record sales will convince you otherwise.

The band has sold over 50 million records worldwide, and their 1983 album ``Eliminator,'' sold more than 10 million copies and included rock hit ``Sharp Dressed Man.''

``The Little Ol' Band From Texas'' has played for millions of fans across the globe, Sweden to Australia, Japan to Germany. The band is among a select few to say they have toured the globe for half a century.

ZZ Top also lays undisputed claim to being the longest running major rock band with the original members intact. Their iconic beards, powerful rock anthems, dedication to music, and impressive artistic talent has sustained them as a perennial rock power, whose music will stand the test of time.

Over five decades of creating music, ZZ Top earned eight Top 40 hits on the Billboard Hot 100; six No. 1 mainstream rock hits; and ranked 44th on VH1's 2000 ``100 Greatest Hard Rock Artists.''

ZZ Top's accomplishments throughout the years culminated in their induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2004, where they are recognized as some of the greatest rock artists in the world.

I congratulate Billy, Frank, and Dusty on their 50th anniversary and wish them luck as they embark on their year of touring around the world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee held a very important hearing on how we can bring down prescription drug prices for American families without sacrificing the innovation that has made our country a world leader in new drug development. That is quite a challenging balance to strike.

As I travel my State, I have heard from my constituents about their increasing inability to get their hands on the medications they need at a price they can afford--not because no treatment exists, not because they don't have insurance, and not even because it is a pricey, brandnew drug. Patients can't afford their prescriptions because the prices are going up at an alarming rate, with little evidence or justification to back some of the price hikes.

I heard from one Texas pharmacist who was shocked by the dramatic price increase of drugs that had been available for years. She told me about one popular antibiotic that once cost $8 for 1,000 tabs. She said now it costs more than $1,200 for the same amount--$8 to $1,200. What is the justification for that? Well, we are left to wonder and speculate, and that is part of the reason for the investigation being undertaken now by the Finance Committee and other Senate committees.

These costs have been so overwhelming that some of my constituents will cross the border to go to Mexico to try to buy prescription drugs there. A man from Rockport, TX, told me one of his prescriptions cost about $1,000 each month in the United States. But if he drives a few hours to Mexico, he can get what he thinks is that same medication from what he thinks is the same manufacturer for about $160--$1,000 versus $160. Of course, what we don't know is whether it is a counterfeit, whether it is not only ineffective to deal with the condition that he is taking the medicine for but whether it might poison him. So this is a challenging issue with no easy answers.

I know one thing. I know my constituents are frustrated by these confusing price hikes. They don't understand the dramatic price differences from one retailer to another, and I have heard them loud and clear because I don't understand it either. We know that something needs to be done to rein in the high costs before medication becomes a luxury only for those who can afford it.

Since the beginning of this new Congress, the Senate Finance Committee has held a series of hearings to examine what is behind these rising costs. We have heard from all of the major players in the supply chain and asked some long overdue questions.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has begun looking into how to bring these prices down, specifically by stopping pharmaceutical companies who game the patent system. Patents play a very important role in our economy. They are recognized in the Constitution itself, and when somebody discovers something new and wonderful that helps improve all our lives, they are entitled to reap the benefits from that.

Companies, we know, pour extensive time and funding into the research and development of new medications. For example, yesterday, Dr. Jim Allison from MD Anderson Hospital was in to see me. He recently got the Nobel Prize for his research in immunology and new treatments for cancer. Over the course of our history, the treatments for cancer have been almost as tough as the cancer itself, whether it is surgery or radiation or chemotherapy. What he has discovered--thanks to the grants by NIH that have helped pay for the research--is a new way to use the body to turn on the cancer itself without the patient receiving additional drugs or radiation or surgery to deal with it. It is just amazing. So I do think we need to continue to encourage that sort of innovation and research. And when companies do pour extensive time and funding into that research and a patent allows them to recover that funding once the drug hits the market, that is a good thing.

We are increasingly seeing some companies abuse this system in order to retain exclusivity over a drug for much longer than the patent would ordinarily provide and preventing more affordable genetics or biosimilars from entering the market and competing. From what I have been told by some in the pharmaceutical industry, about 90 percent of the common prescriptions that we take are now generic, and they are pretty inexpensive, relatively speaking. I know that is the case for me, and I believe that is likely true. But for the 10 percent that are still branded, some of those drug prices go through the roof.

Then you have an aberration like insulin that has been available for decades, which, through some sort of mystery, an opaque way of pricing, still may cost somebody as much as $1,000 or $1,200 a month for their copay. That doesn't make any sense to me because if we are trying to protect innovation, that argument no longer applies to a drug long ago discovered and essential to the life of diabetics.

The chemical formula of the actual drug is not the only thing that can be patented, and that is part of the problem. Manufacturers can get additional patents for follow-on inventions or innovation, which is a new manufacturing method or a new formulation or a new application to a new and different disease. Some of that, I think, is certainly understandable and should be protected. I don't believe that each of these additional patents is inherently wrong, but the reckless abuse of the system and the way they can be structured sometimes is.

I will be introducing a bill soon that aims to curb major drug companies' anti-competitive use of patents to prevent generics or biosimilars from entering the market to promote greater competition and lower prices. This legislation would properly define two terms to describe how drug companies are abusing the system and provide the Federal Trade Commission with authority to take action.

The first term it would define is ``product hopping,'' which occurs when a company develops a reformulation of a product that is about to lose exclusivity and then pulls the original product off the market, preventing entry of a generic alternative. This may be just

by releasing a new formulation that is extended release over time. They can patent that and pull the original drug off the market, and then it prohibits generic competition from entering the market against that original formulation and, thus, maintain their exclusivity well beyond the intended period of time. The only purpose for doing this is not to deliver more effective drugs but to prevent that generic competition.

One example is the drug Namenda, which is used by patients with Alzheimer's. Near the end of the exclusivity period, the manufacturer switched from a twice-daily drug to a once-daily drug. That move prevented pharmacists from being able to switch patients to a lower cost generic, allowing the company to continue to profit as a result of their exclusive use of that patent.

Secondly, the bill would define ``patent thickets,'' which occur when an innovator seeks multiple overlapping patents or patents with identical claims near when they are about to lose their right to exclusivity. Companies take advantage of our country's robust innovation protection in order to hang onto their monopolies as long as possible. One example is the drug Humira, which is one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the world. It is commonly used to treat arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira, has 136 patents and 247 patent applications on their drug, which has been available for more than 15 years--136 patents with 247 patent applications. There has to be a reason for that.

This type of behavior makes it very difficult for biosimilar drugs to come to market. While the patent on the actual drug formula--the original one--may have expired, there are still in this case hundreds of other patents to sort through and, frequently, to litigate in terms of the validity of those additional patents. The artificial structuring of these multiple patents can delay the entry of generic or biosimilar competition for much longer than anybody ever would have intended-- certainly longer than Congress intended by giving patent protection.

By defining product hopping and patent thickets as anti-competitive behavior, we would allow the Federal Trade Commission to bring antitrust suits against the bad actors who deliberately game the system, and we would give them injunctive authority--not money damage authority, but injunctive authority to make the system fairer and operate as Congress intended.

The second bill I am going to introduce has to do with Medicare part D--one of the most successful and popular pharmaceutical programs around. Part D sponsors may voluntarily report fraud data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but they are not required to report the number of specific instances of potential fraud, waste, and abuse they identify or the actions they took to address these issues. My bill would implement recommendations for the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General to require plan sponsors to report that fraud and improve oversight of this important program.

I have learned a lot about prescription drugs during these hearings, a lot about the wonderful lifesaving innovation, the importance of preserving that period of exclusivity for people who invest in the research and develop these new lifesaving drugs, but I have also learned a little bit about some of the abuses, which I have talked about here today, and the need for us to continue to work together to find solutions to provide Texans and all Americans who are struggling to cover the cost of their prescriptions with some relief.

By eliminating some of these tactics used by pharmaceutical companies to delay and deter competition, we will increase the availability of generics and give patients greater freedom to choose a drug that works at a price they can afford. By creating more accountability under Medicare part D, we can prevent taxpayers from footing the bill for a broken system.

While we are still working to find a solution for the multitude of problems and challenges we face in dealing with the pharmaceutical drug industry, one thing is abundantly clear: A one-size-fits-all, government-run healthcare system is not going to work. Indeed, we need to make targeted, smart reforms that will bring down the cost of prescriptions and not the quality of the entire healthcare system. That is precisely what these two bills will do, and I hope we will be able to advance these pieces of legislation to promote more affordable medications.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the performance of the U.S. economy is something to behold. It doesn't matter if you measure it by the unemployment rate, by the quarterly growth rates, or by wages, virtually every sign points to a growing thriving economy.

Let me emphasize some of the outstanding job numbers that came out just last week. In April, there were 263,000 new jobs created-- 263,000--beating even the most optimistic estimates. The unemployment rate fell to 3.6 percent--the lowest unemployment rate in nearly half a century.

The first quarter saw a 3.2 percent growth, the best in 4 years. The truth is, the United States' economy has taken off like a rocket.

Today we find ourselves in what some economists refer to as a ``full employment'' economy, because there are more job openings than there are job seekers. That is a remarkable place to be, and I have no doubt that it is in significant part due to the pro-growth policies created by a Republican-led Congress and the Trump administration the last 2 years.

Less than 1\1/2\ years ago we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We tried to make this a bipartisan effort, but our Democratic friends wanted no part of it. This was the first major tax overhaul in a generation. This legislation removed many of the burdens from families, entrepreneurs, and job creators and let the free market take the wheel.

A lot of pundits and a lot of the naysayers--the professional cynics--said it wouldn't work, but I think the results speak for themselves. Workers

are bringing home more in their paychecks, and businesses are using their savings to invest in their employees.

One of the most common remarks I hear from employers when I am in Texas is that they can't find enough qualified workers for the job openings that exist. That is their biggest challenge because of this booming economy.

In the days and months following the signing of the tax bill, companies began announcing how they would use the money that they would save because of the legislation to invest in their employees and their business. We heard from big companies like AT&T, which is headquartered in Dallas, which provided $1,000 bonuses for more than 200,000 of its employees, including more than 32,000 who live in Texas. There was also Southwest Airlines, which gave all 550,000 of its employees a $1,000 bonus. Plus Southwest Airlines donated $5 million to charity, to boot.

We saw headlines in the major newspapers about how these and countless other big companies were using their savings, but the less read stories about local businesses in small town papers are just as important.

This week is National Small Business Week, an opportunity to celebrate small businesses that line Main Streets throughout America, but don't let the word ``small'' fool you. America's 30 million small businesses are an economic force unparalleled anywhere in the world. More than half of Americans either own or work for a small business-- more than half. Small businesses are responsible for about two out of every three jobs created.

One of the reasons my State is doing so well economically is because we welcome small businesses with open arms. It is an ideal home for entrepreneurs because we believe in keeping taxes low and regulations at a rational minimum. According to the Small Business Administration, there are more than 2.6 million small businesses throughout the State of Texas, accounting for 99.8 percent of all Texas businesses. They employ more than 45 percent of the State's workforce and account for a massive portion of our State's economy. These are exactly the kind of folks I had in mind when I voted to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, because I knew it would lower rates for small businesses and allow them to use the savings to invest in their employees and their business.

After the legislation passed, just to make sure, I traveled the State and held roundtables with small businesses to learn more about how they were using the savings. One of the small business owners I heard from was Josh Agrelin, whose company, Re-Bath, specializes in bathroom remodeling. A few years ago, back in 2014, I spent a day with the crews at Re-Bath of Austin as part of the NFIB's Small Business Challenge Campaign. I got to try my hand at tiling and remodeling a bathroom, and while I will not be opening my own contracting company any time soon, I had a great time learning about this Austin franchise and getting to know its employees.

When I saw Josh again at our roundtable last year, he told me he plans to use the savings from tax reform to grow the size of his workforce by adding two additional installation crews and purchasing new equipment.

For big businesses that might not sound like a lot, but for small businesses like Re-Bath, it makes a world of difference. It means they can offer more services and gain more business, grow the size of their business, and pay their employees even better. It was great to see how Joshua was looking forward to opportunities to grow his business and I am glad this legislation could help make that possible.

In Houston, I visited with Southland Hardware, a store that opened in 1935. This is an old-fashioned hardware store. You don't see many of those anymore. It has been a community staple, and it is appropriately dubbed ``the store that has `almost' everything.'' It is owned by Marty and Patricia O'Brien, and they were kind enough to host me and a couple of other businesses for a roundtable last spring.

Marty told me that because of the tax savings, they were able to provide bonuses and raises, hire another employee, and do some improvements on their property. For Marty, being able to invest more in his business, which was originally owned by his father-in-law and will one day be run by his children, is no small thing.

I also spent some time on the gulf coast, in Corpus Christi, speaking to Steve Raffaele, the president of American Bank. He told me the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would likely provide them with $12 million of additional capital savings. He said that for each dollar of capital saved, they are able to lend approximately $10 in their market communities along the Coastal Bend region of our State. He estimated that over 5 years that equates to $120 million of additional lending and investment. Given their average loan size, that means more than 500 small businesses could be positively impacted. That is a big deal for a community like Corpus Christi, but especially for one so severely impacted by Hurricane Harvey just about 1\1/2\ years ago.

Today small business optimism is at a record high. I hope that small businesses across the country feel empowered to take their businesses further because of these pro-growth policies. Small businesses are, as I said, the backbone of our economy and, of course, of each of our communities.

This Small Business Week we celebrate the entrepreneurs and the job creators who had the courage to take an idea and build it into an opportunity for themselves, for their families, for their employees, and for their communities. These men and women are proof that the American dream is alive and well, and we are grateful to each of them for the contributions they make to our communities and to our country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it is no secret that our economy has broken some pretty amazing records lately. Last week's job report surpassed all estimates and expectations, with a whopping 263,000 jobs created in April alone. The first quarter saw 3.2 percent growth, which is the best in 4 years.

I still recall, back during the previous administration, when we were told that 2 percent growth was the new normal and that we could never grow our economy the way we have seen in recent months. Obviously, 2 percent growth is not the new normal for the American economy. We all ought to be relieved and comforted by that fact.

The unemployment rate has dropped to 3.6 percent--the lowest level in nearly half a century. Everybody who is able-bodied and willing to work and willing to be trained for jobs that pay well I believe has an opportunity to do so these days. There is no doubt that this is an incredible time for our economy, and I am confident that the pro-growth policies that we have brought to the table during this administration and during a Republican majority in the House and the Senate will continue to bring real benefits to families across the country. But we have also broken another record, one that has a much more negative impact, and that is especially in my State of Texas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, during the last break in our schedule here in Congress in Washington, I spent 2 weeks traveling across my State-- as all of us, no doubt, did--and listening and talking to my constituents about what is on their minds, what they think we ought to be doing, and what our priorities should be.

In one city, I spoke with students and teachers about the need to improve college and career readiness for historically underrepresented populations and how a piece of legislation that we have introduced with colleagues called the GEAR UP for Success Act would better serve those students.

It was a little bit of a revelation for me, having come from a family where my parents expected me to go to college, and they themselves went to college, that if other children are growing up and don't have that experience--many times, their parents are not prepared to help counsel them on which courses they ought to begin to take as early as seventh grade in order to be prepared with the prerequisites to advance up the educational ladder and be ready for college, to get into the college of their choice. So that was an important piece of legislation. Certainly, working together with colleagues here, I hope we can reauthorize and fund those grants so that more of our young people can get the advantage that comes from that sort of counseling and tutoring and help.

I also spent a little time at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, TX, to talk about military readiness and the importance of the new strategic bomber--the B-21--mission that is coming to Texas and to the U.S. Air Force.

I also had a chance to talk to some of my educators and other advocates about the Jenna Quinn Law, which is designed to help give caregivers and teachers training so that they can actually recognize and report signs of child sexual abuse in the children for whom they are responsible.

It has been interesting to me because it actually follows on legislation that passed and has been successful in Texas to train teachers and caregivers on the signs of child sexual abuse so that they can help get those children the help they need, sometimes by asking questions they would never ask if they had not been trained to recognize those signs.

Jenna Quinn herself was an example--this bill is named for her--of somebody who was asked by her sister: Jenna, has somebody hurt you? And that opened up the story and, fortunately, a prosecution and began the path to healing from that trauma.

It is great to be able to talk about a number of topics as we all return home, and you can imagine, coming from Texas, with 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, one of the things we talked about is the humanitarian crisis along the southwestern border.

Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley Sector encountered several large groups of people trying to enter the United States last week. This is just in 1 week. On Thursday, agents near La Joya responded to a report of a large group of migrants and found more than 220 people in that one group, mostly families and unaccompanied children from Central America. The very next day, they came across two additional large groups, one with 145 people and another with nearly 300. On Sunday, they apprehended a group of 170. That brings the total to more than 800 people from just 4 groups in 1 week.

These numbers represent a surge in the volume of people we see coming across the border historically. In fact, now almost all of them come from someplace other than Mexico. There is actually no new net migration from Mexico. But we see people being recruited and paying for the services of human smugglers to come from Central America and actually many other countries around the world where people realize that if they can get access to Central America and they can pay the fees to the human smugglers, they can make their way into the United States.

That is why even President Obama said in 2014 that this is a humanitarian and security crisis. In fact, the statement that President Obama made in June of 2014 when he said that came on the heels of 2 months of record-high apprehensions of unaccompanied children. Between May and June of 2014, more than 135,000 people were apprehended at the southern border. Those numbers were absolutely mind-boggling to us at the time, but those figures pale in comparison to the level of apprehensions we are seeing today.

In February and March of this year--again, a 2-month period--more than 180,000 people were apprehended at the southwestern border. So in 2014 when President Obama called it a humanitarian and security crisis, it was 135,000. Today, in February and March, it was 180,000. That is more than a 33-percent increase from the humanitarian crisis President Obama referred to in 2014. So if it was a crisis then, it has now turned into a full system failure, and all lights are blinking red.

Detention centers are at over capacity. The already understaffed Border Patrol is struggling to meet their needs. Officers and agents are pulling double duty, as law enforcement officials have become caregivers for children. Customs agents are being pulled off their duty to process migrants. NGOs--the nongovernmental organizations--and community organizations that usually help the migrants process the system are unable to keep pace. Cities and counties across the border are bearing the brunt of this massive wave of humanity.

But if you think the situation is bad now, and it is, it will only continue to get worse because we typically see higher apprehension rates in April and May than we do in February and

March. These rapidly depleting resources are being overwhelmed, as I said, and cannot keep pace.

We need to address the root of the problem, and we need to do it soon. Only Congress can pass the legislation that is needed in order to come to grips with this crisis. It is time for us to pass legislation that will provide our frontline officers and agents with the resources they need in terms of staffing, authorities, and infrastructure.

It is also important for us to plug some of the holes that are being exploited by the human smugglers and others that allow them to successfully place migrants into the United States 97 percent of the time as long as they are an unaccompanied minor or come with a family.

Fortunately, I found a partner and ally from the House body who happens to be a Democrat by the name of Henry Cuellar, who is willing to work with me on this issue. He has been my ally on a number of efforts to bring commonsense reform, when it comes to border security or trade, to Texas. We don't always agree, but we can agree on a number of things, and those are the things on which we like to work together.

Earlier today, Henry Cuellar and I introduced the HUMANE Act, which will make important and long-overdue reforms to our immigration system, and it includes commonsense provisions that Republicans and Democrats can and should agree on.

First, it closes a major loophole that is often exploited by the human smugglers when they bring families into the United States across the border illegally. This is called generically the Flores Settlement Agreement. That name comes from a 1997 agreement that determined that the Department of Homeland Security can only detain unaccompanied children for 20 days before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services.

While this was unquestionably well-intentioned at the beginning, it has morphed into a much bigger problem because in 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals expanded the Flores holding, effectively applying the settlement not just to unaccompanied children but also to families and turning it into a pull factor for illegal immigrants hoping to game the system.

I am grateful for the support of my friend and ally Congressman Cuellar because we recognize that rather than single adults arriving at the border alone, many people are now bringing children with them so they can pose as a family. They realize they can bring a child-- anybody's child--and pose as a family unit so they can be released after 20 days. Children are literally being kidnapped to serve as a free ticket into the United States. Sadly, many are abused along the way, and many arrive at our border in very ill health. We simply cannot stand by and do nothing and let this continue to occur.

I know today I read in one of our newspapers that the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce said that because Customs agents are being redeployed to deal with children and families, handing out juice boxes and diapers, that there has been a huge slowdown in cross-border commerce and trade. Because of the unique nature of the supply chains that apply to manufacturing both in Mexico and the United States, they estimate that as much as $800 million a day is being lost because now our infrastructure and our staffing at our borders are being overwhelmed.

So the HUMANE Act would clarify that the Flores Settlement Agreement only applies to unaccompanied children and not to families, and it would provide greater time for processing and immigration proceedings to take place before the families are released from custody.

Secondly, this legislation would require that all unaccompanied children are processed the same, regardless of the country of their origin, because under current law, children from Mexico and Canada can be promptly returned home if they don't have a legitimate claim, but processes for other countries move much more slowly, if at all. Put simply, we should make every effort to safely return these children to their home countries as quickly as possible if they don't qualify for an immigration benefit, just as we do now for those from Mexico and Canada.

It would also require all children to undergo biometric and DNA screening to establish family relationships and ensure that they are, in fact, traveling with relatives rather than human smugglers.

To better protect children who are released to Health and Human Services, this bill would place prohibitions on certain individuals who could be serving as guardians. For example, no child should be released to the custody of a sex offender or a human trafficker.

Third, the HUMANE Act would enable family units to stay together-- something, I would think, that all of us should agree on--and streamline the process for those in custody.

Consistent with the recommendations from the bipartisan DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council, the bill would require DHS to establish at least four regional processing centers along the southern border to house and process families. This would literally serve as a one-stop shop, with DHS personnel from Customs and Border Protection, ICE, USCIS, and FEMA assisting migrants and working to process their claims.

Under this legislation, asylum officers and immigration judges would be forward-deployed to adjudicate claims and expedite the entire process, which we hope would begin to ease the burden on our current debilitating immigration court backlog.

In addition to those changes, the legislation also includes provisions to make commonsense improvements, like additional Customs and Border Patrol personnel, and training for our CBP and ICE employees who work with children.

While we know this will not fix all of the problems that exist in our immigration system, we believe it is an important start to change the calculation when it comes to people who say: I know I don't qualify for asylum, but I am going to try anyway, and I am going to pay a human smuggler $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, or $8,000 to try to get me from my home in Central America into the United States because right now, 97 percent of the time, it works.

This is also a huge bonanza to these cartels that are commodity agnostic. They trade in drugs. They traffic children, women, and, yes, they move migrants across the border for money. This will put a big dent in their profits, as we should want to do.

It will also send a message to those who do not have valid claims: Don't even try.

So it will have a deterrent value, which I think will begin to help us control the huge surge of humanity coming across now, which were, as I said, 76,000 in February and 103,000 in March. We are going to see those numbers continue to go up and up and up, further overwhelming our capacity to deal with this humanitarian crisis unless we do something, like this legislation that Congressman Cuellar and I have introduced.

I am grateful for the support and cooperation of my friend and colleague from the House. I am sure there are people in his party who will say he has done too much, just as there are people in my party who will say we haven't done enough. But around here, you have to start somewhere, and where you start is where you can find common cause and agreement and begin to build consensus to solve problems.

Hopefully, if we are successful in passing this legislation, this will not only address this humanitarian crisis, but it will maybe establish a downpayment of goodwill and demonstrate our ability to solve some of our other problems here in the Congress, particularly those that relate to our broken immigration system.

I hope we will soon have the opportunity to consider this text in the Judiciary Committee--I talked to Chairman Graham, who seemed willing to do that--and bring more members into the debate so we can provide relief for those struggling to manage the crisis.

Mr. President, during the last break in our schedule here in Congress in Washington, I spent 2 weeks traveling across my State-- as all of us, no doubt, did--and listening and talking to my constituents about what is on their minds, what they think we ought to be doing, and what our priorities should be.

In one city, I spoke with students and teachers about the need to improve college and career readiness for historically underrepresented populations and how a piece of legislation that we have introduced with colleagues called the GEAR UP for Success Act would better serve those students.

It was a little bit of a revelation for me, having come from a family where my parents expected me to go to college, and they themselves went to college, that if other children are growing up and don't have that experience--many times, their parents are not prepared to help counsel them on which courses they ought to begin to take as early as seventh grade in order to be prepared with the prerequisites to advance up the educational ladder and be ready for college, to get into the college of their choice. So that was an important piece of legislation. Certainly, working together with colleagues here, I hope we can reauthorize and fund those grants so that more of our young people can get the advantage that comes from that sort of counseling and tutoring and help.

I also spent a little time at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, TX, to talk about military readiness and the importance of the new strategic bomber--the B-21--mission that is coming to Texas and to the U.S. Air Force.

I also had a chance to talk to some of my educators and other advocates about the Jenna Quinn Law, which is designed to help give caregivers and teachers training so that they can actually recognize and report signs of child sexual abuse in the children for whom they are responsible.

It has been interesting to me because it actually follows on legislation that passed and has been successful in Texas to train teachers and caregivers on the signs of child sexual abuse so that they can help get those children the help they need, sometimes by asking questions they would never ask if they had not been trained to recognize those signs.

Jenna Quinn herself was an example--this bill is named for her--of somebody who was asked by her sister: Jenna, has somebody hurt you? And that opened up the story and, fortunately, a prosecution and began the path to healing from that trauma.

It is great to be able to talk about a number of topics as we all return home, and you can imagine, coming from Texas, with 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, one of the things we talked about is the humanitarian crisis along the southwestern border.

Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley Sector encountered several large groups of people trying to enter the United States last week. This is just in 1 week. On Thursday, agents near La Joya responded to a report of a large group of migrants and found more than 220 people in that one group, mostly families and unaccompanied children from Central America. The very next day, they came across two additional large groups, one with 145 people and another with nearly 300. On Sunday, they apprehended a group of 170. That brings the total to more than 800 people from just 4 groups in 1 week.

These numbers represent a surge in the volume of people we see coming across the border historically. In fact, now almost all of them come from someplace other than Mexico. There is actually no new net migration from Mexico. But we see people being recruited and paying for the services of human smugglers to come from Central America and actually many other countries around the world where people realize that if they can get access to Central America and they can pay the fees to the human smugglers, they can make their way into the United States.

That is why even President Obama said in 2014 that this is a humanitarian and security crisis. In fact, the statement that President Obama made in June of 2014 when he said that came on the heels of 2 months of record-high apprehensions of unaccompanied children. Between May and June of 2014, more than 135,000 people were apprehended at the southern border. Those numbers were absolutely mind-boggling to us at the time, but those figures pale in comparison to the level of apprehensions we are seeing today.

In February and March of this year--again, a 2-month period--more than 180,000 people were apprehended at the southwestern border. So in 2014 when President Obama called it a humanitarian and security crisis, it was 135,000. Today, in February and March, it was 180,000. That is more than a 33-percent increase from the humanitarian crisis President Obama referred to in 2014. So if it was a crisis then, it has now turned into a full system failure, and all lights are blinking red.

Detention centers are at over capacity. The already understaffed Border Patrol is struggling to meet their needs. Officers and agents are pulling double duty, as law enforcement officials have become caregivers for children. Customs agents are being pulled off their duty to process migrants. NGOs--the nongovernmental organizations--and community organizations that usually help the migrants process the system are unable to keep pace. Cities and counties across the border are bearing the brunt of this massive wave of humanity.

But if you think the situation is bad now, and it is, it will only continue to get worse because we typically see higher apprehension rates in April and May than we do in February and

March. These rapidly depleting resources are being overwhelmed, as I said, and cannot keep pace.

We need to address the root of the problem, and we need to do it soon. Only Congress can pass the legislation that is needed in order to come to grips with this crisis. It is time for us to pass legislation that will provide our frontline officers and agents with the resources they need in terms of staffing, authorities, and infrastructure.

It is also important for us to plug some of the holes that are being exploited by the human smugglers and others that allow them to successfully place migrants into the United States 97 percent of the time as long as they are an unaccompanied minor or come with a family.

Fortunately, I found a partner and ally from the House body who happens to be a Democrat by the name of Henry Cuellar, who is willing to work with me on this issue. He has been my ally on a number of efforts to bring commonsense reform, when it comes to border security or trade, to Texas. We don't always agree, but we can agree on a number of things, and those are the things on which we like to work together.

Earlier today, Henry Cuellar and I introduced the HUMANE Act, which will make important and long-overdue reforms to our immigration system, and it includes commonsense provisions that Republicans and Democrats can and should agree on.

First, it closes a major loophole that is often exploited by the human smugglers when they bring families into the United States across the border illegally. This is called generically the Flores Settlement Agreement. That name comes from a 1997 agreement that determined that the Department of Homeland Security can only detain unaccompanied children for 20 days before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services.

While this was unquestionably well-intentioned at the beginning, it has morphed into a much bigger problem because in 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals expanded the Flores holding, effectively applying the settlement not just to unaccompanied children but also to families and turning it into a pull factor for illegal immigrants hoping to game the system.

I am grateful for the support of my friend and ally Congressman Cuellar because we recognize that rather than single adults arriving at the border alone, many people are now bringing children with them so they can pose as a family. They realize they can bring a child-- anybody's child--and pose as a family unit so they can be released after 20 days. Children are literally being kidnapped to serve as a free ticket into the United States. Sadly, many are abused along the way, and many arrive at our border in very ill health. We simply cannot stand by and do nothing and let this continue to occur.

I know today I read in one of our newspapers that the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce said that because Customs agents are being redeployed to deal with children and families, handing out juice boxes and diapers, that there has been a huge slowdown in cross-border commerce and trade. Because of the unique nature of the supply chains that apply to manufacturing both in Mexico and the United States, they estimate that as much as $800 million a day is being lost because now our infrastructure and our staffing at our borders are being overwhelmed.

So the HUMANE Act would clarify that the Flores Settlement Agreement only applies to unaccompanied children and not to families, and it would provide greater time for processing and immigration proceedings to take place before the families are released from custody.

Secondly, this legislation would require that all unaccompanied children are processed the same, regardless of the country of their origin, because under current law, children from Mexico and Canada can be promptly returned home if they don't have a legitimate claim, but processes for other countries move much more slowly, if at all. Put simply, we should make every effort to safely return these children to their home countries as quickly as possible if they don't qualify for an immigration benefit, just as we do now for those from Mexico and Canada.

It would also require all children to undergo biometric and DNA screening to establish family relationships and ensure that they are, in fact, traveling with relatives rather than human smugglers.

To better protect children who are released to Health and Human Services, this bill would place prohibitions on certain individuals who could be serving as guardians. For example, no child should be released to the custody of a sex offender or a human trafficker.

Third, the HUMANE Act would enable family units to stay together-- something, I would think, that all of us should agree on--and streamline the process for those in custody.

Consistent with the recommendations from the bipartisan DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council, the bill would require DHS to establish at least four regional processing centers along the southern border to house and process families. This would literally serve as a one-stop shop, with DHS personnel from Customs and Border Protection, ICE, USCIS, and FEMA assisting migrants and working to process their claims.

Under this legislation, asylum officers and immigration judges would be forward-deployed to adjudicate claims and expedite the entire process, which we hope would begin to ease the burden on our current debilitating immigration court backlog.

In addition to those changes, the legislation also includes provisions to make commonsense improvements, like additional Customs and Border Patrol personnel, and training for our CBP and ICE employees who work with children.

While we know this will not fix all of the problems that exist in our immigration system, we believe it is an important start to change the calculation when it comes to people who say: I know I don't qualify for asylum, but I am going to try anyway, and I am going to pay a human smuggler $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, or $8,000 to try to get me from my home in Central America into the United States because right now, 97 percent of the time, it works.

This is also a huge bonanza to these cartels that are commodity agnostic. They trade in drugs. They traffic children, women, and, yes, they move migrants across the border for money. This will put a big dent in their profits, as we should want to do.

It will also send a message to those who do not have valid claims: Don't even try.

So it will have a deterrent value, which I think will begin to help us control the huge surge of humanity coming across now, which were, as I said, 76,000 in February and 103,000 in March. We are going to see those numbers continue to go up and up and up, further overwhelming our capacity to deal with this humanitarian crisis unless we do something, like this legislation that Congressman Cuellar and I have introduced.

I am grateful for the support and cooperation of my friend and colleague from the House. I am sure there are people in his party who will say he has done too much, just as there are people in my party who will say we haven't done enough. But around here, you have to start somewhere, and where you start is where you can find common cause and agreement and begin to build consensus to solve problems.

Hopefully, if we are successful in passing this legislation, this will not only address this humanitarian crisis, but it will maybe establish a downpayment of goodwill and demonstrate our ability to solve some of our other problems here in the Congress, particularly those that relate to our broken immigration system.

I hope we will soon have the opportunity to consider this text in the Judiciary Committee--I talked to Chairman Graham, who seemed willing to do that--and bring more members into the debate so we can provide relief for those struggling to manage the crisis.