Paul Mitchell

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). I join all of our delegation rising to recognize the life and legacy of the chairman, John Dingell, the longest serving member in the history of this Congress--over nearly six decades in Congress. He touched tens of thousands of Americans. Frankly, he impacted this Nation in so many ways. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was talking about the bills that he authored and led. I was listening to that list. The Endangered Species Act, I was still in high school, and I am not a young man anymore. The legacy he left this Nation is massive and will be for a long time. I first met the Congressman years ago when I represented the Governor of Michigan. He came to Washington to talk with Members about workforce development education. I was a bright-eyed 22-year old, eager, ready to go. I am sure the Congressman was wondering what I was doing there talking to him and representing the Governor. He agreed to meet with me because the Governor had called him and said I was the guy to talk to him about that. So here was the chairman meeting with a 22-year-old about workforce development--the kindest man. He listened; we talked about it. I represented a Republican Governor. And there is no question that John Dingell was a Democrat, but partisanship wasn't a priority for John Dingell. He always focused on getting things done effectively for people. It was people over politics, something sometimes we should take to heart around here. We have talked about that. His question was always: What is good for our people in our State? The other question he often had, as was referenced, was: What is good for our auto industry? Lord help you if you are going to take a shot at our auto industry. We are the auto capital, and he defended that fiercely. A memory I have of meeting with the chairman, one that stands out for me, was about 20 years later, believe it or not. I came in for a meeting with his lead staffer on Education and Workforce Development. He came out of his office. He was going off to vote, I believe. He looked over. He said: I should know you. I explained why I was there, what I was there to talk about. He said: I can't sign that letter to the White House. I know what you are talking about, but I can do one better. I can call the White House and tell them they need to pay attention to this. Don't mess up the people of my State. He made that call. He was a man of his word. When I joined Congress, I had the opportunity to talk a little more with John Dingell. Earlier on, he said to me: Just call me John now. Unlike many in D.C., he cared to hear what others thought, listened to others speak, not just himself. You know, he always asked me: How is your family? How are they dealing with you being in Congress? He will be remembered as one of the greatest modern-day legislators. He addressed the tough problems of America and got things done. He wouldn't just talk about it--and Lord knows sometimes around here they do. He found compromises and solutions. He tackled them. He would wrangle them. He would find a way to bring it to a compromise and solve the problem. He worked across the aisle. I don't believe his dedicated service to this country will ever be met again. He left an enormous mark on this institution, our country, and the world that we will all remember. So I say God bless this great Nation with John Dingell, and may God bless you, John David Dingell, Jr.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Elba Township Deputy Fire Chief George Scimger's 45 years of service to Lapeer County. Born and raised in North Branch, Michigan, Mr. Scimger has served and protected our community for decades, working his way from a firefighter, to captain, to assistant chief, and now deputy chief. In addition to his duties as a firefighter, firefighting instructor, and hazmat instructor, Mr. Scimger has contributed to many organizations serving as chairman for both the Lapeer County Fire Association and the Michigan State Firemen's Association. George has been honored many times for his commitment to the community. The Lapeer County Fire Association awarded him the award for Firefighter of the Year and Outstanding Officer two times. Also, his home township, Elba Township, awarded him the Chief's Award two times. He has been a dedicated husband, father, and grandfather to his wife of 53 years, Carol, their three children, and four grandchildren. I join George's family, friends, and the Lapeer County community in thanking him for the years of service and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I urge the Senate to move forward, and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill would improve safety and transparency for our Nation's railroads. Our constituents expect no less, by the way. It requires notification of proper congressional committees and Members of Congress of the initiation of certain safety assessments for passenger railroads and rail transit agencies. Further, upon completion of those safety assessments, the bill requires the Federal Railroad Administration's findings and recommendations be submitted to the proper committees and all affected Members of Congress. Rail safety is critical to our Nation. When the FRA begins an in- depth safety assessment of a railroad, it means the agency has identified a significant and serious safety problem. Our constituents expect us to be advised of that, and, in fact, to keep them informed. It is important that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and affected Members be notified timely both that the investigation is underway and what the agency found as a result of it. Doing so can only help improve the safety of our passenger and commuter railroads, as well as keep our constituents informed. The bill passed the committee and the House last year unanimously. I certainly hope we can get the Senate to give it considerable concern. I thank my colleague, Mr. Sires, for his hard work on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I join my colleague in support of H.R. 866, which provides that federally managed buildings or federally owned buildings open to the public nursing rooms that are available. The bill would apply to buildings that are already open to the public and which have nursing rooms for employees yet somehow do not manage to provide those to the general public, and they should. The requirements would not apply if the existing space cannot feasibly be opened. As the gentlewoman notes, it does not create additional cost. The legislation passed the House last Congress by voice vote and, if enacted, will help visiting mothers to our facilities in both the capital here and throughout the Nation. Madam Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I urge the Senate to finally take up this legislation. To move it forward, I join my colleague in saying that it is about time that we open up the nursing rooms in Federal facilities to the general public in support of the care of newborns and young children. Madam Speaker, I have no remaining speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as my colleague has noted, earthquakes strike without warning and result in potentially catastrophic casualties and massive damage to buildings and infrastructure. As was seen in Japan 8 years ago, earthquakes in the coastal regions such as the Pacific Northwest can be followed by devastating tsunamis with huge loss of life. They can't be prevented, but they impact life, property, and our economy. What we can do is warn our citizens of that threat. H.R. 876, the Pacific Northwest Earthquake Preparedness Act of 2019, directs FEMA to plan the development of an earthquake early warning system, not unlike that in Japan, for the Cascadia subduction zone. The bill directs the President to establish an earthquake and tsunami task force to develop a comprehensive strategy and recommendations on how to prepare and plan for seismic events. Good planning and preparedness can save lives and property, and this legislation will help us to prepare for, mitigate against, and respond to disasters along the Cascadia subduction zone. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. One of the questions I posed for my colleagues: Why is it okay to begin running reelection campaigns now for an election to go 2 years from now? Why is it okay for the Presidential campaigns to start on the backs of these workers and the southern border? Someone answer that question for me, because that is what is happening. That is what is happening all over the country. That is what is happening on TV. This is now the cause for which people are going to run campaigns. And, frankly, as a result, yeah, we have government by blackmail, but the blackmail is going on by the other side of the aisle that insists they will only talk about certain components of this, but not all of it, because they have now decided it is not politically expedient as they are getting ready to run for office--some getting ready, apparently, to run for President--and they want to use this as leverage. We can solve this problem in 1 day. I encourage my colleagues to do so. Get the Speaker of the House, the minority leader, majority leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the Senate, and the President in a room, close the door, and don't come out until you have an answer that they all agree to. How hard is it to understand that concept?

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, we have three crises in our country right now: We have a humanitarian crisis at the southern border. We could talk about the dynamics of that, but let's be honest about it--we truly do. We need to secure our Nation's borders, and we need to reopen our government and pay our Federal workers, something I have been committed to since I joined Congress. So far, we have wasted more than 338 hours working on dead-end bills that will not pass the Senate, the President won't sign, because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, or their leadership, won't get in a room and negotiate with the President, with Mitch McConnell, with the majority leader, with the minority leader--all in the same room--and negotiate on the package that the President has put forward. I spoke on that package last week. I held up this letter, which was a January 6 letter from the President, from the administration, to the chair of the Appropriations Committee and all the members. The other side of the aisle was astonished. They didn't know what this letter was. That is a little bit demoralizing, if you think about it, why the letter wasn't shared with all Members on the other side of the aisle. You see, compromise means you don't get 100 percent of what you want, but you move the ball forward. You move the ball down the road, and you keep making progress. Those same people who are calling it a border wall or a barrier or whatever you want to call it--I do stress to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, call it about anything you want, short of a moat. If you make progress, we move forward. These same people who are now calling it immoral voted for border security, border barriers, when there was a different President. Now that it has President Trump's name on it, suddenly it has become evil. Since January 3, President Trump has made two detailed proposals to Congress on how to solve this problem--it shows that the President is prepared to negotiate on it--a package of things that include border security, technology at the border, strengthening our points of entry, humanitarian aid, additional immigration judges, and, let me stress this, providing assistance for people to apply for asylum from their home countries rather than take that dangerous and treacherous journey to the Mexican border. Doctors Without Borders says that 31 percent of the women who make that journey are sexually assaulted. The President wants to address that. Neither of those proposals have even gotten a moment of discussion from the other side of the aisle. Anyone who spent 35 years in business, or even a few years in business, as I have, would know that compromise means you deal with the entirety of the problem. You negotiate the problem, and you get an answer that moves it forward rather than say: Some things are out of bounds; we are not going to talk about that. The part I like now, lately, is: We will talk about it later; we promise we will. There is a song about that. It is called, ``Tomorrow, Tomorrow.'' Sorry. Now is the time to deal with it. Now is the time. And I agree: Having people not paid--my dad was an autoworker. He was laid off multiple times. Missing two paychecks is brutal. There is an answer to that. It is called negotiate. It is important that Members of the House and Senate and the leadership take seriously the President's proposals, go to a room, close the door, and negotiate rather than say, as has been said by the current Speaker: zero dollars for the wall, maybe a dollar. I don't care if you call it a wall. I don't care if you call it a steel slat. I don't care if you call it a barrier. But we need security at the southern border. Why is it we can't have that now? Further, we have to end this and pay our Federal workers. We must end this crisis and pay the workers. There is a route there. Rather than spend 338 hours on the floor--in this whole posturing, this whole profiling--sit in a room and spend 10 percent of that time, 33 hours, in one room. My guess is you would come to an answer on the problem. Why are we not doing that? Why are we not doing that? Our Democrats on the other side of the aisle obstruct people being paid. Last week, we proposed an amendment that would have, in fact, retroactively opened the government to pay Federal employees. Six Democrats joined us in that--only six--and it was defeated. Again, if you want to pay the employees, pay them; don't use them as hostages, as you have. A couple summaries I wish to make: First, these are not the same bills that you claim were bipartisan bills that passed appropriations. As my colleague has noted, significant items have been pulled out of that--life protections. I will go through a list. So they are not the same bills. Let's be honest on the floor and at least call them what they are. They are Democratic versions of the previous bills that they put through.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Biggs for sharing his experience and background. I really appreciate him taking the time this evening to talk about the importance of school choice. As he notes, education should be measured by skills gained, not by standardized tests, not by grades, but what young people can do as they move through an educational process, begin postsecondary education, and start careers. Because long-term, ultimately, the assessment is not what a standardized test said; it is what you can get done in a day and what you can achieve. Part of that is an exposure to STEM--science, technology--vocational skills, trades. The reality is we don't do enough in the education system to give those choices to young people. In many cases, where they live limits their access to those options. I have an example of neighbors of mine. Their son wishes to take a vocational program that is offered in the school on the other side of the county line. Now, ironically, by the way, it is closer if he goes there, but because of the funding limitations in the school systems, he can't. Again, we don't want to limit young people's choices. We want to give them options. In order to make education options more available, students, parents, and school choice advocates must work together to get out the information of why it is so important, what difference it makes. Let me give you a couple more examples. Natalie Fenchel testified before the Michigan Civil Rights Commission in July of 2018 talking about school choice. She says: There are a lot of misconceptions about charter schools. Fenchel said: I really got a lot of benefits from going to a charter school and continue to go throughout my college career. Especially with my nursing school, I feel so well prepared. She lives in Traverse City, by the way, northern Michigan. Traverse City is pretty rural, and charter schools really provided a second option for me. Grand Traverse Academy provided so many benefits that would be unable to be achieved for rural students that otherwise it would be difficult. I'm just really grateful I went to a charter school. It's helped me pursue my nursing degree. Let me give you one more example I think will kind of tell the story of school choice and school options. Kendra, now at Howard University, says: Things could have turned out differently if I didn't have the opportunity to pursue a different educational path when I was younger. Thankfully, my parents were given the option to exercise school choice, which is, unfortunately, not the norm for every student. Kendra is right. It should be the norm for every parent and every student. We can't wait, nor should we, for government policy to fix it. There should be no Federal policy. I am not here advocating a Federal policy for school choice. Rather, I am advocating that we make those options available through sharing information, highlighting models, encouraging States and communities to make sure they are meeting the needs of young people across America because, as Congressman Biggs notes, the future of America is those young people. Parents, not Washington bureaucrats--I suggest, not bureaucrats in States--know what is best for their children. School systems, educational options, and funding options for that education need to be determined by the parents, working with their children as they get older. School choice enables communities and local educators to focus upon preparing young people for the future, again, rather than preparing them for standardized tests, grades, or to push them into a model. We need to stop with the whole idea of putting a round peg in a square hole and saying that is the best we can do, because America can do better for our young people. Ultimately, our number one priority ought to be and needs to be getting children, getting kids an effective education that will enable them to pursue their lives going forward, whatever career path they choose, so they are prepared to be successful in this world today. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for joining us tonight in talking about school choice, as he sees it. You see, parents have a choice to give their kids a chance, in many cases a chance that their ZIP code or their learning limitations otherwise would limit them from. Let me give you an example. In K-12 education, I was regularly placed outside the classroom at a desk to work independently on projects. Why? Well, because I asked too many questions. That isn't exactly a learning model we would endorse these days. My senior year of high school, I was asked to attend one class each semester by the assistant principal, debate and public speaking because, again, I asked too many questions, and it was easier for everybody if I just took exams and wrote reports rather than go to class because it was simpler for the teacher. See, school choice is not about public versus private schools. It is not about the school system. That is a false dichotomy. It is about creating an environment in which the students' needs are met. They are met to gain skills, not to meet standards, not to get grades, but to have the skills necessary to be successful in their life. Let me give you one quick example before I turn it over to my colleagues. Aley Minton from Port Huron, part of my district, has a story I want to tell. She was skeptical about educational choice until dire circumstances drove her to enroll both her sons in a cyber school, not unlike my daughter. The St. Clair County family's old brick-and-mortar school left them in a difficult place by not adapting to the special needs for their children. She says: ``Our family chose to utilize school choice because our youngest son is epileptic and our oldest son is dyslexic.'' She knows how one son was struggling academically while the timing and intensity of his seizures interfered with him regularly going to school and maintaining full school hours. Her other son with dyslexia was having a difficult time keeping up with school work. Now in their sixth year at Michigan Connections Academy, the Minton boys are making great strides in their freedom to learn how best for them. She says: ``When we first started virtual learning, our oldest son was on a second-grade level in the fifth grade. He is now on grade level, being successful''. Their needs are being met, and, guess what, they are happy going to school. Let me take a moment and ask another of my colleagues to join us, Congressman Andy Biggs from Arizona's Fifth District. He knows firsthand, given his experience with the State, the success with school choice models as Arizona continues to be a national leader in providing options for parents and their children and for educators. I yield to Congressman Andy Biggs from the Fifth District of Arizona.

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I represent Michigan's 10th Congressional District--northern Macomb County and the Thumb. For us in Michigan, it is simple. I am from here. I am co-chair of the Congressional School Choice Caucus with Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina. Today, a number of Members are gathered here on the floor to celebrate all types of school choice--from traditional public schools, to public charter schools, public magnet schools, online learning, private schools, homeschooling, and more. Every year, National School Choice Week offers an opportunity to parents, educators, and students from around the country to come together and share the many successes of education choice in this country. Yesterday, I introduced a resolution in the House recognizing the importance of school choice the week of January 20 through January 26. I spent 35 years in business focused on career and technical education and workforce education. I know the importance of a preparatory education, of a K-12 education to success in the future. I am the oldest of seven children. My family struggled. Dad built trucks on the line when he wasn't laid off, and mom worked at the Salvation Army. I was the first of my extended family to ever set foot on a college campus, never mind actually graduate. I saw, firsthand, the importance of that education and the skills I could acquire if I put my mind to it. My mom convinced me I could be anything, and, to her credit, I became CEO of a fair-size company devoted to workforce education, to helping people gain the skills necessary for a career, or to retrain if they lost their jobs. My company ran some of the largest welfare-to-work programs in the country back when welfare-to-work meant going to work. I personally benefitted from that alternative education when I went to college. As a father of six, I also know that no two kids are alike. Yes, I am the father of six. You would think I would have learned after being the oldest of seven, but I didn't. We have a blended family. My oldest is in her 30s, and my youngest is 8 years old. We adopted him from Russia 6 years ago. I know that one size of education does not fit for all children. One of my children, my daughter, who is 17 now, attends a virtual academy because those who have teenagers know that getting your child up as a teenager early in the morning to go to school is like running a zoo. It doesn't go well. So she goes to virtual school, controls her schedule, controls what classes she does that day, controls her time, and learns to manage time like we all have to learn as we get older. My youngest son has special needs that traditional schools have not handled well. He has learning disabilities. He has dyslexia and ADHD. It has been suggested I suffer from that as well some days. So we had to find an alternative for him. Luckily, my wife was able to stay home and homeschool him, but not everyone has that choice. Today, we are here to celebrate the range of choices of education, innovation education, and to encourage that. I would like to start by recognizing one of my colleagues to talk about education. I would like to start by recognizing and yielding time to Representative Tim Walberg from Michigan's Seventh District. I am proud to introduce him. He is a good friend of mine from Michigan, who also recognizes the importance of alternative education, of education options in our home State, and I now yield to Mr. Walberg.

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, you may wonder why I am down here. It is because agriculture is huge in Michigan's 10th Congressional District. Earlier this week, I spoke with most of the agriculture leaders in my district about these bills. I would be supporting these bills under other conditions. It supports farm safety net programs as have been described. It provides support for rural development, including rural infrastructure and broadband access, which is sorely needed in the 10th Congressional District of Michigan. It provides food and drug safety inspections for the FDA and USDA, and nutrition assistance programs that my colleague discussed. However, I cannot support these bills because it is being brought up in bad faith. Let's be honest. It is a charade. It is not a serious attempt to fund agriculture or any other programs in my district or throughout this country. This vote is dead on arrival. It is a messaging point by the Democrat majority. It is an attempt to delay and distract from the real problem. The real problem is securing our borders, a comprehensive package to secure our borders that the President, the administration, has provided to the Democrat majority. We have spent hours on the floor here talking about various bills to fund the majority. Yet, somehow, rather than negotiate, the Democrat majority will go to the White House and say nothing for the wall; nothing for border security to put a barrier up. We will simply talk about, nope, we are not going to do that. We want to put the squeeze on the American people. They are squeezing the people in multiple ways. People won't get their paychecks tomorrow. I am sorry. Really, guys? Come on. We have farmers that are struggling, waiting to get loans so that they can plant. We are not securing our border. We had a humanitarian crisis. Thirty percent of the women that are arriving at the border--Doctors Without Borders data, not anybody else's--have been sexually assaulted on the way to the border. This proposal includes money to provide for applying for asylum in their home countries. Why are we not doing this? Why are we not addressing a comprehensive border security package and passing all of these appropriations bills and moving on to other priorities? We may disagree about those.

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, we may disagree about what some of those priorities are, but why are we spending 2 weeks rather than spend 2 hours negotiating an outcome and getting done with this problem? Let's grow up. Let's be adults and solve the problems instead of bickering.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address the House on National Law Enforcement Day. I am not sure we are all aware of the demands and risks that the men and women in uniform face every day when they go out to work. They respond to the call always, every day, in bad weather, in disasters, at huge risk. They often don't know what to expect, but they respond. They respond to domestic violence. They respond in issues of drug trafficking. They respond when there are bullets flying, and they do it without hesitation. I want to honor all of them, and their families, that go every day, put on a uniform and protect all of us. And, in particular, I want to say thank you to my oldest son who, as a six year old, decided he wanted to be a police officer, and continues to serve every day protecting his family and our community. And I want to thank all the law enforcement officers that, every day, get up to keep us safe.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman has to recognize the irony, how, despite 2 years of claiming that he wants open rules, the Democrat rule package talking about regular order, and here we have a closed rule for advancing these bills. The gentleman talks about the most closed Congress was the 115th Congress. I will wait and see if the gentleman's side in leading Congress' score is better than the 115th Congress was. It would be interesting to keep that scorecard. In the past, I have supported bills like these, especially appropriations bills for agriculture, transportation, housing, and urban development. On the whole, the agriculture bill has priorities that are critical to my district, including the farm safety net, rural broadband, food safety, and more. However, I can't support these bills because they are offered in bad faith. It is a charade. Let's be honest. It is simply a charade. It is not a serious attempt to fund agriculture or any other priorities in my district or in this country. It is, in fact, distract and delay in order to put pressure on, to squeeze the American people to get what you want. It is madness, I will agree with you. It is madnes where we are going right now because 17,000 people with criminal convictions were stopped at the United States southern border last year. That doesn't count the ones we didn't catch because they came in in other ways. Yet, somehow, we want to ignore that rather than worry about our border security. Without borders, without secure borders, we are not a country. The President, the administration offered a package. My colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. McGovern, I want him to see this letter. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, you have it. It talks about the priorities of the administration. It talks about funding, yes, for a wall or barrier for 234 miles. Only 234 miles, not the 2,000 miles suddenly people are talking about, which is a top 10 priority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in order to funnel people crossing the border to entry points. It talks about additional immigration judges. It provides funding for additional border patrol. It provides funding for infrastructure at the borders--many things the other side of the aisle was talking about. So why is it, that rather than going to the White House, closing the door, and not coming out until you come up with an answer, there is a press conference being held in the Rayburn Reception Room where once more we talk about, well, we are not doing anything. If you want to reopen the government, go to the White House, close the door, and don't come back here until we have a deal. A deal requires all parties. These bills will not be taken up in the Senate. The President said he will veto them. Negotiation, I spent 35 years in private business, and negotiation means you never get everything you want, but you walk away where all parties say: We could have gotten a little more. But you solve the problem rather than put people at risk. We are putting people at risk in this country. People won't get paid Friday. You are right. We are also putting the American people at risk by not securing our border. We have kicked that can down the road my entire time I have been here, 2 years now, and long before that. One final point: We know that Democrats previously have supported funding for border walls, border security, and a border fence. Call it what you want.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, so why is it now we can't simply agree that we need to do more to secure our border along the lines of this, including 234 miles of wall, only because the President's name is on it? Come on, let's solve the problem. Let's be adults here.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th birthday of Helen Barbara Livingston, who lives in Macomb County. A person experiences a great deal in 100 years of life. In 1919, when she was born, Prohibition went into effect, the pop-up toaster was invented, unemployment was 1.4 percent--if you can believe that--and the Grand Canyon became a national park. Helen experienced the Great Depression. She has seen over 40 percent of the history of this Nation. She has experienced 18 U.S. Presidents, from Woodrow Wilson, when she was born in 1919, to President Trump. Suffice it to say, she has seen a great deal of change in national and local politics in her life. She was born in Niagara, New York, and came to Michigan at age 6 when her dad got a job, amazingly enough, in the auto industry at a Dodge plant in Hamtramck, Michigan--the reason so many people move to Michigan to build cars and trucks for America. Helen attended Hamtramck High School and was an incredible athlete. She was captain of the field hockey team and played tennis, where she never lost a match in 4 years. During Helen's senior year in high school, Eleanor Roosevelt visited her school to promote women in sports, and Helen presented her with a bouquet of roses. A short time later, she received a handwritten letter from the First Lady. She met her husband working at Parke-Davis labs, and for their first date, they drove 5 hours to Hartwick Pines. Now, there is an effort. That was the start of a 59-year marriage. After being a stay-at-home mom for 12 years, when her kids were a little older, Helen started working at Macomb County Youth Home for juvenile delinquents. She worked there until she retired. Helen has been an avid golfer. She has two holes-in-one, most recently, when she was 80 years old. There are many golfers, including many golfers in this Chamber, who are envious of that achievement. Even as she got older, Helen continued to seek out fun. A few years ago, she was in a grocery store and ended up starring in a national Mike's Hard Lemonade commercial. To be honest, she didn't realize what Mike's Hard Lemonade was. I join her family, friends, and the entire community in celebrating an incredible 100 years of life and wish her many more.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 149) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make certain corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 4174.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution would correct the enrollment of H.R. 4174, the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, sponsored by Speaker Ryan. This important resolution has bipartisan support. I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, we all took an oath. I know we remember that oath--for me, it was pretty meaningful; it was my first oath of office--to keep our citizens safe, to protect them, protect them at our borders, protect them in the case of disasters. In fact, in the past, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have supported a border wall, border protection. But now, since the name ``President Trump'' is on it, it is evil; it is bad. How politically convenient. I remind you of the oath we took to protect the citizens in this Nation whom, apparently, we are so ready to toss aside when it is politically expedient. You talk about a deal that was made. The Senate may have made whatever deal they wished to make. I am unaware that we work for the United States Senate, Mr. Speaker. I represent the people of the 10th Congressional District, and I will tell you what they say. They want our borders secure. They want us to take care of people in disasters. There are heartaches for the folks in Florida, George, and California who were devastated by disasters. They ask why we can't fund disaster relief for those people. Please, let's not talk about a deal that was made in the other House, because we are not responsible to them. We are responsible to the people who elected us. One last point: We are at this point of struggling over keeping the government open--and let's be honest about it, it is part of the government. The other side of the aisle talks about shutting down the government. It is about 20 percent, 25 percent of the government. We are at this point because the Senate won't make a deal that doesn't protect the fairly tenuous position that the future Speaker has on the other side of the aisle, and she doesn't want to make a deal. I spent 35 years in private business. Compromise is the way it works. A compromise was offered and summarily rejected within minutes in the Senate by Mr. Schumer and then by Ms. Pelosi. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, pass the resolution, and send it back to the Senate and tell them to do their job.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 2, the farm bill. Our ag community has faced far too much uncertainty and challenges this past year, and I am glad to see we are finally able to reach a consensus that sets our country forward on a better path to help farmers, ranchers, and rural communities throughout America-- communities like mine. The bill addresses the urgent needs of rural communities and agricultural communities, including those in Michigan's 10th Congressional District. First, the bill authorizes a huge investment in rural broadband, $350 million a year. As hard as it may be for people to believe, access to stable, high-speed Internet is not commonplace in rural America. It hinders economic development. It hinders the economic opportunity. It hinders them in many ways. This bill also raises the minimum standards for rural broadband and targets grants and financial support to communities that are most in need of assistance. The farm bill also assists our dairy producers, especially the small dairy producers like in my community who have faced real challenges with dairy prices, by expanding affordable coverage for all producers of all sizes. It maintains the sugar program urgently needed in my district to protect American farmers from anticompetitive foreign programs that dump sugar at artificially low prices. Lastly, the conference report makes important changes to protect the financial integrity of the SNAP program and to make it more effective for recipients. We need to be concerned that we cannot keep people on SNAP forever who can work. We have to help people return to the labor market and support themselves, despite what my colleague may believe. I am pleased we were able to come to a consensus, finally, with the Senate, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying bill.