 Good evening. First, I want to say thank you to all of the advocates who are here tonight who have worked so hard over the last year in particular, but I know even longer than that on behalf of immigrants to our nation and the last year on behalf of the women and children coming from the Northern Triangle countries of Central America. About two months ago now, I brought in a delegation of seven members of Congress to visit with many of the advocates we met at St. Mary's Law School at the University Center actually, and also to visit the facilities at Carnes and Dilly. And I wanted them first to come here to San Antonio because this has been the epicenter for advocacy. This has been the backbone of support for those women and children and the epicenter of the push to get them released from the detention centers. So I want to answer the questions. I may take them out of order, but first, I continue to support closing down the detention centers and not housing the women and children in those arrangements. I've said both to the President, to Jay Johnson, who is the head of Homeland Security and to the Justice Department. In fact, Lloyd and I joined in a letter with, I think, about 135 of our colleagues expressing that to President Obama and the administration that we believe there should be alternative arrangements. And those can include other things besides an ankle monitor. The point is, and we know from the numbers, that the overwhelming majority of these folks are coming back for their court hearings when they're supposed to. And that's what's important, right, that there be a process here so that they can make their claim for asylum. And so I fully support that. In terms of campaign contributions, I'm not aware if I have received, I don't think I've received any from the private prison companies. I have to be honest, I wasn't too familiar with GO or CCA before all of this, basically before the last year. You think about it, I know over the years the function of imprisoning folks has been turned over to private contractors, but most of that had been for folks who are criminals within the United States, as opposed to the detention of immigrants. And so it's not something in the legislature, for example, that I dealt a lot with, or even in my time in Congress so far, until this came up. And so I think I've only used about two minutes. Now I want to speak for a minute, four minutes. I still have four minutes, all right. I won't use all of them, but I think I've answered the questions now, those four questions. So I want to say this. We are right now facing a moral test as a country. We're going to have to decide what kind of nation this is going to be in the coming years. There are tonight a few hundred of us gathered here in San Antonio, Texas. And in the other part of the country in New Hampshire, there are 1500 people who showed up tonight for a presidential candidate who is leading the charge to end birthright citizenship in violation of the United States Constitution. And we've got to stand up against that, because that's not what our country stands for. When the migrants arrived from Central America last summer, as Jonathan said, many of us understood right away their purpose. These were not hardened criminals who were coming here to commit crimes or had committed crimes. They're not even folks who were trying to get around Border Patrol. They were going up and presenting themselves as folks seeking asylum in the United States. Now, I agree with Jonathan that the laws, as we understand them, would give a strong chance for many of those folks to stay on as assailees in the United States. But I think you'll also agree that that's not how most of the nation perceived this situation. Part of that was because of a lot of the politicians who were stoking fear, who were claiming that this was a kind of invasion in our country. Even a week and a half ago, at a debate with many of the presidential candidates, the governor of Louisiana said that immigration without assimilation is an invasion. You think about that for a second. Who gets to decide whether somebody has assimilated in the United States? Who's going to make that determination? That's where we are now. And another part of the reason that it wasn't perceived as an assailee or refugee situation is because the Red Cross and other organizations, and I'm sure some of the ones here, were having problems going in there and volunteering their time and donating clothing and furniture and offering housing. And that affected the way the news coverage and how this was perceived by Americans. And so I had a few amendments to an important bill that didn't, my amendments didn't get on, but I want you to know that I made an effort to change the way that we handle these situations. Because I think that we should have sent the Red Cross down there and not the National Guard. And then finally, as we think about this, two things. First, we want to close the detention centers for the sake of the women and children who were still there today. But just as important, looking down the road, we want to make sure that for God's sake, if we have another wave of immigrants who comes here, another group of asylum seekers who comes here a year from now or 20 years from now, that the United States government handles it differently next time and doesn't put them in jail like facilities. And then with one minute left, my last point. You know, when we think about our asylum and our refugee laws, we still think about offering asylum to people who were fleeing communist dictators from the 1950s and 60s and 70s. I think that's what most Americans still think of when they think of an asylum. We have to update that for the 21st century. These people are facing violence and desperation and the kind of violence that's been perpetuated on them, perpetrated on them from gangs is just as harmful as any that is perpetuated by a dictator across the world. So thank you for caring. Thank you for your passion and every single thing that you're doing on behalf of these people. Thank you very much.