[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 11 (Friday, January 18, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S301-S305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 S. 181

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator 
Carper, I am introducing the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring 
Act. This bill would ensure that we have accurate, detailed information 
about the extent of mercury pollution in the United States.
  The issue of mercury emissions is growing in importance around the 
world. In 2013, the United States was the first country to join and 
sign the Minamata Convention on Mercury, a global agreement to reduce 
mercury pollution. The Minamata Convention has since been signed by 
more than 125 countries, demonstrating the widespread concern that 
mercury poses a global threat to human health. At present, however, 
scientists must rely on limited information to understand the critical 
linkages between mercury emissions and environmental response and human 
health. Successful design, implementation, and assessment of solutions 
to the mercury pollution problem require a comprehensive long-term 
solution. It requires much more information. A system for collecting 
such information, such as we have for acid rain and other pollution, 
does not currently exist for mercury, a much more toxic pollutant.
  Mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant ecological and public 
health concern, especially for children and pregnant women. It is 
estimated that approximately 200,000 children born in our country each 
year have been exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high 
enough to impair their neurological development. Mercury exposure has 
gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined, and over the last 
decade coal-fired power plants in the United States have reduced their 
mercury emissions by nearly 90 percent, but emission levels remain far 
too high, given how potent a neurotoxin mercury is.
  A comprehensive national mercury monitoring network is needed to 
protect human health, safeguard our fisheries, and track the effect of 
emissions

[[Page S302]]

reductions. This tracking is important in light of increasing mercury 
emissions from other countries, including a substantial amount of 
mercury emissions from China. Mercury can be transported around the 
globe, meaning emissions and releases can affect human health and 
environment even in remote locations.
  This network is particularly important after the Environmental 
Protection Agency's recent proposal on the Mercury and Air Toxics 
Standards. Last month, the EPA released a proposal that determined it 
is no longer ``appropriate and necessary'' to regulate mercury and 
toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired plants. I just do not 
understand why EPA would send that signal. While the EPA has not 
proposed to change the current emission standards on mercury and the 
toxic air pollutants in this regulation, the EPA's action has put the 
standards in legal jeopardy and could block future efforts to 
strengthen this standard that is so important to protecting human 
health and our environment.
  By accurately quantifying regional and national changes in 
atmospheric deposition, ecosystem contamination, and bioaccumulation of 
mercury in fish and wildlife in response to changes in mercury 
emissions, a monitoring network would help policymakers, the EPA, 
scientists, physicians, and the public to better understand the 
sources, consequences, and trends in mercury pollution in the United 
States. We must have more comprehensive information and data. 
Otherwise, we risk making misguided policy decisions.
  Specifically, our legislation would direct the EPA, in conjunction 
with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the 
National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, and other appropriate Federal Agencies to establish a 
national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor mercury 
levels in the air and watersheds, water and soil chemistry, and in 
marine, freshwater, and terrestrial organisms across the Nation.
  Second, it would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise 
on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols, 
and operations of this monitoring program.
  Third, our bill would establish a centralized database for existing 
and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely 
accessed on the internet and is comprised of data that are compatible 
with similar international efforts.
  The bill would also require a report to Congress every 2 years on the 
program, including trends, and an assessment of the reduction in 
mercury rates that need to be achieved in order to prevent adverse 
human and ecological effects, and that report would be required every 4 
years.
  Finally, the bill authorizes $95 million over 3 years to carry out 
the Act.
  I am pleased to report that this legislation--this bipartisan bill--
has earned the endorsement of the American Lung Association, the 
Biodiversity Research Institute, the Environmental Health Strategy 
Center, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Natural Resources 
Defense Council. A comprehensive, robust national monitoring network 
for mercury would provide the data needed to help make the decisions to 
protect the people--particularly, pregnant women and babies and 
children--and the environment of Maine and the entire United States.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am here today to talk about the 
ongoing partial government shutdown, the crisis along the southern 
border, and how we can resolve this in a responsible way.
  We are now on day 28 of the government shutdown, and I am more 
discouraged now than I have been during this entire impasse. We are 
better than this. We are stuck. Eight hundred thousand workers have 
missed a paycheck, and there is no end in sight. NASA workers in 
Cleveland, TSA employees at our airports across Ohio, Coast Guard 
officers on Lake Erie--they have all contacted me, as have others. But 
the harm being done to these families and these workers isn't the only 
thing that is happening with the shutdown.
  I have been through five of these shutdowns since I worked in the 
White House for the first President Bush. I remember in 1990 when we 
had a weekend shutdown, and everybody thought that was dramatic. Here 
we are with the longest shutdown in our history. I don't like 
government shutdowns. I don't think they are good for taxpayers. Every 
shutdown, we always end up paying more as taxpayers. I don't think 
anybody likes them--at least not anybody outside the beltway. Some in 
both parties seem to like to use shutdowns, but they are not good for 
families who are affected, and they are not good for the economy. They 
cost the taxpayers more.
  On the economy, we now have a report from the Council of Economic 
Advisers, who tell us this week that the shutdown is going to reduce 
quarterly economic growth by 0.13 percent for every week it lasts. In 
other words, every week the shutdown continues, the economy is hurt 
more. We have a great economy right now. Thanks to the tax cuts and the 
regulatory relief and other things this Congress has done, we have 
record levels of employment. More people are employed than ever in our 
history. We have historically low unemployment. We are bringing people 
out of the shadows, back into work, off the sidelines.
  There is a lot of positive out there, but this is taking us the wrong 
way. It is partly the impact on Federal employees, because their 
purchasing power is less. We are told that of the $312 billion for 
fiscal year 2019 that hasn't been appropriated by this Congress--and 
that is what the shutdown is; about 25 percent of government is not 
being funded. That is hundreds of millions of dollars each workday that 
are not going out to Federal employees. So part of the economic impact 
is that people have less spending power, and part of it is that 
contractors and a lot of small businesses are not getting paid, so it 
has an impact on the economy in that way. Again, what happens in the 
end is that everybody gets paid back, but in the meantime, services are 
disrupted. It is a very inefficient way to run government, and 
taxpayers end up spending more, not less.
  I am not big on shutdowns, having lived through five of them, but I 
have to say I have never been more frustrated than with this shutdown. 
I am frustrated for a very simple reason: The solution is right before 
us. The reason we are in this shutdown is that both sides are unwilling 
to sit down and talk. That makes this shutdown particularly stupid.
  The issue before us is what to do with regard to border security 
where, in fact, there is a lot of agreement. Border security is one 
where we don't have these fundamental disagreements, as we might on, 
let's say, tax cuts or healthcare policy. This is about whether we 
should be securing our southern border. I think my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, when pressed, will say: Yes, of course we should.
  If you look at the specifics, we are not that far apart. That is what 
is most frustrating to me about this one--that we can bring people 
together and achieve a result here. I am going to talk about what that 
might mean.
  I have been working with some colleagues, including the Presiding 
Officer, on trying to figure out a way forward. We haven't been 
successful yet. There are plenty of folks who want to get to yes in 
this Chamber, and we have to figure out a way to provide a forum to do 
that, to make it happen.
  I am not here today on the floor to assign blame, to point fingers. 
There are plenty of people doing that. That is easy to do because there 
is lots of blame to go all around. I am here to talk about how to find 
that common ground.
  Of course, we have to do more to secure our southern border. I 
consider it a crisis. Some of my colleagues say it is not a crisis. 
Some say it is a crisis. Forget the words. We have a problem on the 
southern border.

[[Page S303]]

  Here is some of the data. During September and October of last year, 
Customs and Border Protection agents apprehended more than 100,000 
people trying to enter the country illegally. This has nearly doubled 
the number from the same months in 2017. In the most recent data we 
have--October and November, just a couple of months ago--there is 
double the number of people apprehended between the ports of entry as 
we had the year before.
  The big increase is families and kids. This is a very tough issue. 
According to the Department of Homeland Security, there has been a 50-
percent increase in the number of families coming across the border 
illegally and a 25-percent increase in the number of unaccompanied 
children.
  Along with that, there has been a 2,000-percent increase in asylum 
claims over the last 5 years--a 2,000 percent increase in asylum claims 
over the last 5 years.
  The largest growth is coming, as we know, from three Central American 
countries: Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. While 9 out of 10 of 
these claims are ultimately rejected by the immigration courts, the 
applicants have long since been released into the interior of the 
United States. That is a problem. We should all be working on that.
  How do we address this problem? There are some constructive ideas on 
both sides of the aisle on how to deal with that, but it is a real 
problem. In fiscal year 2018, Customs and Border Protection referred 
nearly 50,000 accompanied minors--almost all of whom came across the 
southern border to seek asylum--to the Department of Health and Human 
Services for care.
  I have done a lot of work on this issue in the Permanent Subcommittee 
on Investigations of the Homeland Security Committee and found out 
about some of the care these kids have gotten and some of the trauma 
these kids have gone through. HHS is currently housing more than 11,000 
of these children. Many have experienced violence--as I say, serious 
trauma--on their journey to the United States and need significant 
help.
  Furthermore, the Drug Enforcement Administration has reported that 
the southwest border ``remains the primary entry point for heroin into 
the United States.'' There is no disagreement about that. I am told 
that 90 percent of the heroin that we are experiencing in our 
communities here comes across the southern border.
  Fentanyl comes primarily from China. We made some progress there 
because it comes primarily through the post office from China. We just 
passed legislation to deal with that. Fentanyl is the most powerful 
drug out there--50 times more powerful than heroin on average--causes 
most of the overdoses in my State of Ohio and around the country.
  Guess what. More and more of that fentanyl is coming across the 
southern border. Last year, seizures of fentanyl--a synthetic heroin 
that is causing all these deaths and overdoses--increased by 135 
percent last year compared to 2017.
  Part of what is happening is that it comes from China to Mexico and 
from Mexico into the United States, we are told by law enforcement. 
Then, over the last year, we have seen the scientists in Mexico--evil 
scientists in Mexico--cook up in these ``super labs'' crystal meth--
methamphetamines, crystal meth, pure crystal meth--that is coming into 
our communities.
  In the last couple of weeks, I have been at three meetings where I 
bring together the people on the drug abuse task forces of different 
parts of our State, and I have talked a lot about the opioid crisis, 
where I spent a lot of time and effort. What they tell me is that we 
are making progress on opioids, finally--thank God--for the first time 
in 7 years.
  Guess what the new scourge is--crystal meth. It is more pure than 
ever, more powerful than ever.
  So that is coming from where? It is coming from Mexico. It is a 135-
percent increase, as we talked about, from fentanyl. We have also seen 
a 38-percent increase in methamphetamine trafficking across the 
southern border just from 2017 to 2018.
  This drug issue is a big deal as well, and we need to do more. By the 
way, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with that. They 
would like to see more funding immediately for better screening at 
ports of entry, as an example. Most of these drugs come in through cars 
and trucks that cross our border.
  While we have been paying attention to this China issue with 
fentanyl, what is happening in our southern border continues with very 
little interdiction on our part.
  I met with the Customs and Border Protection Commissioner last month 
in my office. I asked him: How many of these drugs are you 
intercepting?
  He had to acknowledge: We don't know, of course, but very few.
  They need better equipment. They need better technology. They need 
more people.
  I don't think these numbers are sustainable--the number of families, 
the number of children coming in, the number of asylum claims, the 
number of drugs coming across our border--for our Border Patrol, for 
our judicial system, for our education and health systems, and for our 
communities.
  Because of all these problems, we need a broad solution at the 
border. Experts tell us that our solutions should include more physical 
barriers, which the President talks about a lot, but, also, more Border 
Patrol agents, more technology, more surveillance, more drones, more 
cameras, more screening at our ports of entry, and more technology 
there to stop this illegal flow of drugs.

  There was a time when all this wasn't all that controversial. In 
2006, Congress enacted on a bipartisan basis legislation called the 
Secure Fence Act. You have probably heard about it. It authorized 700 
miles of additional fencing or physical barriers along the border. 
Then-Senator Barack Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act. Then-Senator 
Hillary Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act. Senator Chuck Schumer 
voted for this bill. It passed by 80 to 19, an overwhelming bipartisan 
approval.
  As recently as 2013, all of the Senate Democrats and two Independents 
voted for a broader immigration reform plan that called for no fewer 
than 700 miles of border fencing. That measure ultimately failed in the 
House. Let me repeat that. Every single Democrat in the Senate voted 
for that bill. Who was the lead sponsor? Senator Chuck Schumer, the 
minority leader.
  So asking for additional barriers and fencing along the border as 
part of a broader strategy to make it more secure shouldn't be that 
controversial. Is it the only answer? No, it is not.
  Having said all of that, when you remove the partisan politics and 
political symbolism, I continue to believe that we are not that far 
apart. If you look at the January 6 letter the Trump administration 
sent to the Congress, saying, ``Please fund these priorities,'' you 
will see that the response to what is happening along our border that 
they are proposing is not that far from where we are in the Congress.
  Yes, it asks for more barriers. I would think from hearing, frankly, 
from both sides--from the administration and from the Democrats in 
Congress--that it would be a wall across 2,000 miles of the border. It 
is not. That is not the proposal. The proposal is--and I am reading 
from it--234 miles of new barriers and fencing--not 2,000 miles but 234 
miles of additional barriers of some kind.
  As you know, the President has now made clear that he is prepared to 
construct these barriers not as a cement wall but as a fence, what he 
calls a steel barrier. The White House also made clear in their 
submission that these barriers would be constructed in a manner 
consistent with the existing language in the Senate committee-passed 
bipartisan Homeland Security appropriations bill. That means the 
definition of the border barrier that Republicans and Democrats have 
long voted for would be the definition used for the construction of 
these new barriers.
  It is $5.7 billion in funding for the construction of additional 
physical barriers along the southern border, consistent with what the 
experts say we ought to use--both in terms of the type of barrier and 
where the barrier ought to be.
  Again, based on the 2006 law, more than 500 miles of fencing have 
already been built in California, in Arizona, and in New Mexico. Based 
on the data--the actual data--they are making a difference. If you talk 
to folks in

[[Page S304]]

those communities and you talk to Customs and Border Protection, they 
like having those barriers. At a minimum, it slows people down, and it 
keeps vehicles from going across some of that desert landscape. This is 
part of a broader strategy that is primarily used now in California, 
Arizona, and New Mexico.
  The 2006 law resulted in 105 miles of fencing in California, 211 
miles in Arizona, and 107 miles in the sector that spans both Arizona 
and California. This also includes 166 miles of fencing in a sector 
that spans New Mexico and Texas, though most of this is in New Mexico. 
In Texas, in total, there is less than 100 miles of fencing. This is 
where the priority is now for the Border Patrol, in Texas. Why? Because 
Texas has 1,200 miles of the 2,000-mile border. Yet they only have 100 
miles of barriers.
  The new fencing that the administration has requested, as we 
understand it, is particularly necessary in the most populated parts of 
the Rio Grande Valley on the Texas-Mexico border. By the way, that is 
where 40 percent of the crossings occur. You would think it makes sense 
to have more barriers there.
  Again, it is not all about barriers. It has to be an all-of-the-above 
strategy. The $5.7 billion in barriers, which is about $4 billion more 
than the bipartisan Senate Homeland Security appropriations bill, is 
what they are proposing. It is about $4 billion more--$4.1 billion, I 
think, to be exact--than what is in the bill that has already been 
agreed to on a bipartisan basis.
  In December, Democrats proposed $1.3 billion for the same purpose, 
which is actually a reduction in the amount they initially proposed in 
November, the month before, of $1.6 billion.
  Folks, there is a way to find common ground here, especially if you 
include, with this 234 miles of additional barriers to be determined by 
the experts as to what kind of barrier and where it goes, other 
immigration policies that many on the other side of the aisle strongly 
support--and some of us do too--like dealing with DACA. This has been 
talked about, and it has become a political football. Let's resolve it.
  These are young people who came here as children through no fault of 
their own. Their families brought them here as kids. They were minors. 
They are not responsible for breaking immigration laws.
  Now they are young people. Some of them are working, some of them are 
in school, and some of them are in the military. They are looking for 
some certainty.
  I think the Congress can provide that. As part of an overall package 
here, it makes sense to include something on DACA. A lot of Democrats 
who talked about this over the years strongly agree with that.
  The President has also asked, in addition to looking at DACA, that in 
the context of overall immigration reform, we would look at this issue 
of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS. This is something that many 
Democrats feel very strongly about. TPS allows the government to 
provide protection for individuals who come from particularly trouble-
stricken countries. There are now 10 countries on that list. The 
Secretary of Homeland Security has the ability to provide harbor for 
those individuals from those 10 countries. Sometimes it is because of a 
natural disaster. Sometimes it is because of a war. Sometimes it is 
because of violence in those countries. They simply have to present 
themselves at ports of entry and begin the application process and go 
through a legal process to apply. Some of these temporary visas that 
these individuals under TPS currently have are expiring.
  Again, there are a lot of Senators, particularly on the other side of 
the aisle, who feel strongly about this. Senator Kaine has been a 
champion for these individuals. There are tens of thousands of them in 
his State of Virginia. Senators would like to see immediate relief 
there. I think that could be part of a mix here.
  The President has also requested $675 million to help stop drug 
smuggling at our ports of entry; $211 million to hire another 750 
Border Patrol agents; $800 million for humanitarian needs to fund 
enhanced medical support, transportation, and temporary facilities for 
those who are detained at our border. The Homeland Security 
appropriations bill already includes funding for all of those purposes, 
but the President has requested additional funds to help deal with this 
influx we talked about--more families, more unaccompanied children, in 
particular. He has also requested $563 million for 75 additional 
immigration judges and support staff so that we can help reduce the 
case backlog of nearly 800,000 pending immigration cases.
  Again, a lot of Democrats and Republicans, including me, have talked 
about the need for this. This backlog is part of our problem because 
people are typically in the communities, and many of them don't show up 
for their court cases. Part of the problem is the backlog, the amount 
of time it takes--months. That can be reduced.
  Finally, the President has requested an additional $631 million for 
counternarcotics and weapons technology. Again, this is one I feel 
strongly about. I know a lot of my colleagues do. Senator Schumer has 
talked eloquently in the past about needing better screening at ports 
of entry to try to stop some of these drugs from coming in. I believe 
these are reasonable requests.
  Where there is disagreement, let's have a debate over it, and let's 
come to a compromise. But we have to have a real adult conversation for 
that to occur.
  The irony for me, for those of us who support a stronger presence on 
the southern border, is that this shutdown is hurting our efforts to 
secure the border and to make our immigration system work better.
  First, U.S. Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection 
officers are continuing to work without pay. We want to increase the 
morale of those brave officers along the border. It is hard to increase 
morale when they are working without pay.
  More than 40,000 immigration hearings have been canceled. Think about 
that. There are 40,000 immigration hearings that have already been 
canceled, contributing to this backlog that already totals 800,000 
cases.
  E-verify, the government system used to verify the immigration status 
of workers to determine whether they are illegal, to allow employers to 
reject people who are not legally in this country--that e-verify system 
is incredibly important because, ultimately, those jobs are the magnet. 
Right? That is what is pulling people across the border more than 
anything else. Now that system is shut down because the government is 
shut down--that part of government--meaning employers across the United 
States are unable to effectively know who is legal or not. That doesn't 
help us with regard to the border.
  For all of these reasons, we need to come together and negotiate a 
solution. We are not that far apart.
  Last week, out of frustration that no progress was being made, my 
colleague Jerry Moran of Kansas and I introduced legislation that would 
establish a $25 billion border trust fund over the next 5 years to 
enhance border security across the board--all the things we have talked 
about.
  The legislation would also codify protections for the DACA population 
we talked about. Again, it is very important to so many in this 
Chamber, particularly on the other side of the aisle.
  In my view, this is a fair and reasonable solution for all sides, and 
I believe we could get the necessary votes if it were brought to the 
floor.
  Others have better ideas, I am sure. Let's hear them. Let's have a 
negotiation on all of these issues, but let's get to a resolution.
  It has been reported in the media that I have been working with 
Senator Graham, Senator Collins, Senator Alexander, Senator Murkowski, 
Senator Gardner, along with Senator Coons, Senator Kaine, Senator 
Cardin, Senator Manchin, and others. This has been in the press. I am 
not reporting anything to you today that is not already known. It has 
been said that we are trying to figure out a way forward, and we are.
  Democrats have insisted that there can't be a negotiation until the 
government shutdown has ended. So a bunch of us have said: Well, what 
if we do this? One, let's get a commitment from Democrats that they 
will seriously negotiate based on the President's request. I think it 
is a reasonable request.
  Having received that commitment, then let's have a short-term 
cessation here of the shutdown--maybe for a few

[[Page S305]]

weeks, maybe for a couple of weeks--to give us the space and the time 
to be able to work out an agreement.
  There are a substantial number of Members from our side and the other 
side who have agreed to sign a letter along those lines. I am hopeful 
that can provide at least one opportunity to move forward. It is the 
only one I see right now.
  If there is a better idea, I am eager to hear it, and I know my 
colleagues are too. More importantly, I know the people I represent 
are, both those who are directly impacted and those who are watching 
and saying: Why can't Washington get its act together? This makes no 
sense.
  Yes, we should provide additional security for our southern border. 
Why can't we agree to that?
  We are not that far apart.
  Why can't we end the government shutdown in the process and allow the 
normal operations to go back into place so that families, government 
workers are not put in this position where, working paycheck to 
paycheck, they now don't have a paycheck and where taxpayers can get 
the services they have paid for and not end up paying more money after 
the fact, which is what typically happens in these shutdowns.
  By the way, I do hope we can stop using government shutdowns 
altogether. I don't like them, as I said, and last week, I introduced 
legislation, along with eight of my Republican colleagues, that is 
called the End Government Shutdowns Act. It is pretty straightforward. 
I have introduced it every single Congress since I was elected in 2010.
  What it says is, if you get to the end of the process and the 
appropriations bill is not funded by Congress--and our fiscal yearend 
is September 30, so we have been living since then on these continuing 
resolutions. But if you end up with not getting an appropriations bill 
done or if you get to the end of a continuing resolution and there is 
no resolution--you have this impasse--instead of having the government 
shut down, what you do is just continue the spending from the previous 
year. Then, after 120 days, you reduce it by 1 percent, and then, after 
another 90 days, you reduce it by another 1 percent.
  Why? To give Congress the incentive to get their act together and to 
actually fund the government appropriately, to pass these 
appropriations bills, which should provide not just funding but reforms 
to government programs. That is the idea. We should every year be 
looking at all of the government and saying: What is working? What is 
not working? What are we going to fund more? What are we going to fund 
less? What are we going to eliminate? What are we going to create? 
Something new and good for our country and our constituents. So that is 
what we want to incentivize by the End Government Shutdowns Act.
  I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle can support this and 
that, looking forward, we will not have government shutdowns. We 
wouldn't be in this mess today if that legislation were law.
  The bottom line is, we have the opportunity before us to reach a fair 
agreement. Both sides are going to have to move some. The President is 
going to have to negotiate, and he says that he will.
  The Speaker of the House is going to have to move some. According to 
news reports, Speaker Pelosi flat-out told the press she would not 
support $1 dollar for any new barriers, even if the government were 
reopened and everything that she asked for was granted. That is not 
serious. That is not the way to have a successful negotiation, 
especially when Democrats, as I laid out earlier, have long supported 
more barriers and fencing along the southern border.
  So let's act in good faith. Let's move forward to a responsible 
resolution. That means, yes, we reopen government, but we also secure 
the southern border. We are not that far apart. We just need to have 
the will to get it done.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________