Paul Mitchell

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my colleague.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4031. H.R. 4031 is a critical bill to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, an initiative near and dear to my heart and the Great Lakes Caucus. The Great Lakes, as was noted, is the largest system of fresh surface water in the world. The GLRI, as it is known, has been a catalyst for unprecedented partnership between Federal, State, and local agencies for years to improve the ecosystem, to improve water quality, and to support the economy of the entire Great Lakes region and the Nation. H.R. 4031 has broad and bipartisan support with nearly 50 cosponsors, and I am proud to be one of those cosponsors. I thank our Members for continued support for the restoration of our Great Lakes. This issue is very important to my district and many other Members' districts in our Congress here. The Great Lakes have an incredible impact on our region's way of life that cannot be overstated. At one point in time when I was younger, we actually had a license plate that called Michigan the Water Wonderland because of the importance of the Great Lakes on our State. States all along the Great Lakes rely on them as a freshwater resource, a driver of our local and national economy, and a world- renowned recreation destination. It impacts from Minnesota all the way to New York. In my home State of Michigan, we have the most Great Lakes shoreline of any State, with more than 3,000 miles of our State shaped by four of the five Great Lakes. My district is nearly surrounded by the Great Lakes system. The projects that the GLRI makes possible have a proven track record of success and impact in our communities. Take the Marysville shoreline in Michigan's 10th District, my home district, as an example. The GLRI provided the funds to remove a failing seawall and replace it with a natural, sloping shore. Additionally, further south of my district, the restoration of wetlands in the Harsens Island area provided habitat for waterfowl and fish that had been destroyed over the years. These projects resulted in the creation of jobs in the region, habitat restoration for wildlife, and a pathway for people to walk along the river or the lake, to view and enjoy it. This is one of the countless examples that highlights the importance of the GLRI for Great Lakes communities like mine and throughout the region. GLRI investments have delivered great outcomes, but there is more work to be done to protect our Great Lakes, including stopping the spread of invasive species, like Asian carp; protecting our drinking water, a critical and urgent need; and restoring habitat loss. I have advocated for GLRI since I arrived here and recently spoke with the President about the importance of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. It is crucial that Congress continues to authorize this program that protects and restores the Great Lakes. It, like many other estuaries we have talked about today, is a national treasure that our country relies on for drinking water, commerce, and more. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4031 offers a chance to continue this support. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to think of what Mr. Wittman and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle stated; that this Chesapeake Bay, it is a tremendous resource to our Nation, recreational opportunities, the shipping opportunities in it, never mind the wonderful seafood. I urge support of this bipartisan piece of legislation by all Members, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1620, the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act. H.R. 1620 represents good governance to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program and passed out of the committee with strong bipartisan support. The Chesapeake Bay watershed is one of the largest estuaries in the United States, covering 64,000 square miles; is home to more than 18 million people; hosts two major ports as major international gateways for trade; and produces about 500 million pounds of seafood each year, some of which I enjoyed just the other day. I want to thank Members for their continued support for the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, including Mr. Wittman of Virginia, Mr. Riggleman of Virginia, and Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. I know this issue is very important to their districts, their constituencies, and to the entire region and, frankly, the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, due to an unavoidable and unforeseen scheduling conflict, I am not recorded on Roll Call 33 and Roll Call 34. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 33 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 34. Personal Explanation

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Robert Franklin Erpelding, a loving father, husband, and grandfather of Michigan. Bob moved to Detroit as a child and enlisted in the Navy in 1951 during the Korean War. He served as a radarman on the USS Watts, a Navy destroyer. Following his service in the armed forces, he worked for over 30 years on computers at the Burroughs Corporation. After his long and admirable career, he began his next phase of life as a vintner, model plane designer, and craft brew enthusiast. Bob was an upstanding man who led by example and encouraged his friends and family to appreciate the little things in life. He will be missed dearly by his wife, Marguerite, his two children Laura Cox and Robert Erpelding, as well as his grandchildren and great- granddaughters.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Brady for being such a leader on this. I saw the impact of NAFTA on my State of Michigan, on my community, and my family. Jobs disappeared at an astounding rate, including my dad's job working an assembly line at an auto plant. I saw the unfair treatment of farmers trying to export their products. I live in a district with a major border crossing to Canada, the Blue Water Bridge. So I also saw the importance of trade with our neighbors. But trade must be fair, balanced, and not disadvantage hardworking American families. NAFTA failed miserably at that. USMCA is a massive improvement over NAFTA in more ways than time allows me to detail. America needs the USMCA. We need it now. So let's finish this drawn- out process, pass the bill, and urge the Senate to proceed with speed.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, today, the House of Representatives votes on two Articles of Impeachment for President Trump. Members, and all Americans, must recognize that impeachment was intended to be a safety valve, rarely used, only when a President acts in such an immoral and blatantly unlawful manner as to threaten the very basis of our Republic. As we cast votes on these articles, the future tone of this House and politics in this Nation must be carefully considered. The issue is not whether we agree with or like the President's rhetoric, political tactics, use of Twitter, policy choices, or his political rallies. One of our Founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned of the risks of impeachment becoming a solely partisan act in the Federalist Papers. This impeachment inquiry and these articles clearly do not heed that warning. These proceedings are weaponizing impeachment, making it another election tool. I have carefully examined the evidence presented throughout the inquiry and, contrary to some, considered our history, our founding documents, and our future. It is clear, President Trump's actions, as described in these articles, do not constitute treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. You simply don't like him. I will be voting ``no'' on these articles and will hope, someday, we return to serving the needs of the American people.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives most certainly faces a vote to impeach the President before the end of this year. I urge my colleagues to carefully and deliberately contemplate this next step in their votes. The Constitution provides great latitude to this body in impeaching a President. It is up to us, all 435 of us in this Chamber, to determine what constitutes a ``high crime and misdemeanor,'' and those determinations clearly vary greatly among us. As we cast those votes, we must consider our place in history and the implications of those votes in the future of this Republic. Alexander Hamilton warned of the risks of impeachment becoming a partisan act. In Federalist No. 65, he wrote of his fear that, during impeachment, `` . . . there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' I fear the proceedings have not heeded this warning. Impeachment was never designed to be a supplemental election process but, rather, a safety valve to be used in the rarest of occasions when an elected official acts in such an immoral and blatantly unlawful manner as to threaten the very basis of our Republic. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to remember this as they assess the interviews, depositions, and hearings that are unfolding today and their impending vote on impeachment. Impeachment must not become weaponized. It cannot simply be another election tool. The question before this body is not whether a Member is comfortable with the rhetoric of the President, his political tactics, his use of Twitter, his policy choices, or his political rallies. The question is: Have high crimes and misdemeanors been committed? And if so, they must be prepared to demonstrate that specifically. I urge the Speaker of the House to ensure that each Member, should they desire, be afforded time, 5 minutes per Member, during debate on impeachment to explain his or her view and impending vote. It is critical the American people, who will be watching closely, be afforded an opportunity to see and hear those views. Impeachment must not be based upon polling data, election advantages, or social media commentary. It must be based upon clear and compelling facts. To do anything else threatens our Republic. I intend to approach this matter in just that way. I will uphold my oath and vote as the circumstances require. But this judgment also must not be preordained based on political party or political maneuvering by anyone serving in this Chamber.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, America is an amazing place, and we too often, as Americans, take that for granted. Opportunities exist in this country that simply aren't available in much of the world. And my life is an example of the extraordinary possibilities in the United States of America. I ask you, where else can a kid, born in poverty, beginning life in a subsidized housing project, become a national legislator? Yet, here I stand as a Member of Congress. In how many countries can the oldest of seven children with parents that are an hourly auto worker and an office worker for the Salvation Army, become the first in their extended family to graduate from college, build a career, become the CEO of a major workforce development company and, after retiring, be elected to Congress? America is a truly unique and special place that we must love and respect with all our heart and soul. My mother raised me to believe that those with talents and resources were expected by God to make a difference in the world. I tried to do that in my career throughout my life. My mission for 35 years was to assist people in identifying and securing career opportunities. My professional career allowed me to support my family, while assisting adults of all ages and backgrounds to develop the skills to support their families and build careers. I assisted individuals ranging from laid-off steel workers and auto workers, to long-term public assistant recipients, develop the skills they needed to build a career and support their families. I worked with individuals requiring literacy education, English as a second language, and adults that had worked their same job their entire lives, and suddenly found their jobs and industries had evaporated, and their lives turned upside down. I worked, in some way or another, with tens of thousands of people searching for assistance in securing a job and a career path. I believed then, and I continue to believe, that most Americans find value and opportunity in working. Sometimes they just need a hand and assistance to overcome adversity. I brought that passion and commitment to Washington. My mission was to make a difference in the world. I literally approached being a Member of Congress like my career, full tilt, leaving no stone unturned to have a meaningful impact and to make a difference. It is an honor to stand on this floor, debate issues, and represent the people of Michigan's 10th District. I am proud to be among the 12,500 or so that have had the privilege to serve in Congress. But I have also begun to ask myself about making a difference in my family. My children of all ages, the youngest just 9, have accepted their dad traveling the country, working a demanding schedule, frequently interrupted by text messages, emails, and phone calls. My spouse, Sherry, has been so supportive and more patient than probably warranted. A career in Washington was never my objective. My mission has always been to simply address significant challenges this Nation faces: Trade, healthcare, immigration, and infrastructure, to name just a few. However, it appears to me that rhetoric overwhelms policy, and politics consumes much of the oxygen in this city. The time has come to make a difference for my family, to focus my time and energy upon them, their needs, their goals. George Washington is quoted as saying: ``I would rather be on my farm than emperor of the world.'' As a result, I have decided I will not seek to represent Michigan's 10th Congressional District next term. After serving out the remainder of the 116th Congress, I will return to my family and to our small farm.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ed Lomasney for his 60 years of dedicated service to the Burtchville, Michigan, fire department. Mr. Lomasney became a firefighter following in the footsteps of his father, who helped found the Burtchville Fire Department. Over the last 60 years, Ed has served as a volunteer firefighter and has been instrumental in growing the firehouse through his time, resources, and mentorship. In addition to volunteering with the fire department, Ed worked and retired from DTE Energy. He is a devoted husband to his wife, Mary Nell, and loving father to their three children. For six decades, Ed has been a mainstay of the department, and he will be missed by all. Although Ed may be retiring from the fire department, we all know he will remain involved in the community to make an impact on all of Burtchville. Madam Speaker, I join the Burtchville community in thanking him for his dedication and his 60 years of service and wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Thornberry for yielding me time. It has been a pleasure to be on two committees that have historically been bipartisan, the House Armed Services and Transportation and Infrastructure. As was indicated, historically this has been a bipartisan bill. Last year it passed out of committee with one ``no'' vote. The Senate achieved it. It passed the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously, and it passed the Senate 86-8. Yet, here we stand because, Mr. Chairman, bipartisanship is not simply counting percentages of amendments that were brought to the floor and passed. There are significant issues that we are not dealing with in this bill. While we give people an additional pay raise, a significant raise to military, we cut funding that impacts modernization, readiness and training, and cuts military funding $1.2 billion. Further, the bill neglects to address something that has had bipartisan support for a long period of time which is nuclear readiness, our nuclear triad. Here we take a hatchet to it as well. I stress that we must make a bipartisan effort to bring a bill to this floor that supports our military consistently and not have partisan politics take over our military. I support that, I reject this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, it is nice to know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle now recognize it as a crisis. The President asked 58 days ago for a supplemental appropriation to deal with this issue. It was ignored. We have tried 18 times to bring up a bill on the floor to deal with supplemental appropriations for humanitarian aid at the border, and it was ignored. My friends on the other side of the aisle said they want to improve the bill. They want to ignore the fact that the Senate took up the House bill and overwhelmingly rejected it on a bipartisan basis. Then they passed a bipartisan bill 84-8, which doesn't happen over there very often. We have gone through a list of those who voted in favor, including Senator Schumer and Senator Durbin, yet somehow the House wants to ignore it. At least the majority in the House want to ignore it. How they want to improve the bill, you may ask? Well, let's start by simply reducing or eliminating border security, that appears to be optional to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They want to take a hatchet to ICE. These are law enforcement personnel. My son is a police officer. He puts on a vest every day. If you told me we were going to withhold payroll or overtime when they are doing the job, I would be offended, I would be disgusted, and I am, at this moment in time. Let me ask how many over there would put on a vest, go out and do the job, and then hear, we may or may not pay you? Do I see any hands raised? I doubt it. Law enforcement is struggling to do a job, an extraordinarily tough job, and we want to make it harder. So let me suggest, as the UC request was made, that we take up the bill that was passed by the Senate and we pass it. And I ask for your attention over there, sir, unless, of course, you decided that policy is being made by a fragment of your conference, unless you decided that you are going to turn over the gavel to a fragment of your conference to make decisions for you, which may well appear to be the case. But let's be honest to the American people and tell them that a fragment, a small portion, of your conference is now functioning as a Speaker of the House.

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I thank the budget action team chair for this fine work and for yielding time. We should be debating right now in Congress a budget. We should be debating ideas from the Democrats, ideas from the Republicans, the RSC budget. We should be doing that to develop a road map for the current year and for future years for appropriations, what our priorities are. You will note that we are talking about it, but it is pretty quiet down here today. Why? Because, unfortunately, the leadership of the Democratic Party has been unable to produce a budget. They can't agree, even among themselves, what a budget should be. I spent 35 years in private business. Budgets are pretty basic. Without them, I don't know how you operate. Apparently, we are going to try, and that is unfortunate. My focus tonight is on the Federal budgeting and appropriations process and what we need to do to fix it. We can fix individual items in our budget, but long term, we need to fix the process, or we are, in fact, as noted earlier by Mr. Cloud, doomed for some pretty dire outcomes. The Federal budget and appropriations restraints under current law are totally ineffective. They simply do not work. And you know what? We can fix this. Virtually all Federal spending right now is mandatory. Two-thirds of what we spend every year is called mandatory spending. It is on autopilot. Let me give you some examples of what that means. $2,523 billion is mandatory. Our interest payments in 2018 will be $325 billion. I want you to stop and think about what a massive number that is. The Federal debt crossed $22 trillion last year. It now exceeds the entire annual production of the United States and equates to more than $67,000 for every American in this country. Over the next 10 years, interest alone on the Federal debt will be the third largest Federal expenditure. Now, at home, if that was what you were dealing with, you would be calling a debt counselor. If your interest payment alone was the third highest expenditure you had--never mind principal, just the interest-- you are in serious trouble. Here, we call it government. This process robs the American people of their voice, their representation. Long term, it will rob them of the basic opportunity for services if we don't get this under control. The RSC ``Preserving American Freedom'' budget proposal and what I propose address that issue. First and foremost, we must address what is called mandatory spending. Mandatory spending has taken on this huge component. As I said, it is two-thirds of Federal expenditures. We need to move everything except Social Security, Medicare, and TRICARE to discretionary spending and require everybody in this room and this building to vote, to put their priorities forward, rather than have it be on autopilot. The second thing we need to do is not have it simply be whatever we spent last year. How much more are we going to spend? We need to require zero-based budgeting of all agencies every few years--maybe 3 years because they are so big, frankly--where they have to justify down to the penny what they are spending money on. Because you know what a budget cut is in Washington? A budget cut in Washington is you get less money than the increase you asked for and they tell you they took a budget cut. I spent 35 years in private business. A budget cut means you actually spend less than what you spent last year. You spend less money, less real cash, not that you didn't get as much as you asked for. Frankly, that is like my teenagers and allowance. Well, you cut my budget. No, I didn't give you as much as you asked for. Second, the next thing we need to do is we need to use a 51-vote requirement for budgets, 51 votes to pass a budget, a simple majority. We need to say 51 votes to make any change in discretionary outlays. That way, in fact, we can manage our budget appropriations and not have the system manage us, not have the Senate decide no, we need 60 votes, and we just go along our merry way, putting out money hand over fist. Additionally, we need to change a few rules about how we manage ourselves. We need to require there be no recess until budget appropriations are completed. Everyone stays here. Frankly, I think we just lock the doors and stay here till we get it done because, far too often, we will just do a continuing resolution. You would be disgusted at the number of continuing resolutions that happen for a week, 3 days. All these continuing resolutions, all we do is spend the same money. So, sorry, no recess until we get it done. Additionally, we need to withhold the pay for all Members of Congress until we get the job done, until there are budget and appropriations resolutions done for the year. When we hit the time that we should be funded already for the year, if it is not done, everyone on the payroll here that is a Member of Congress doesn't get paid, because I know how to get folks' attention after 35 years in private business. There is one way to put it: Follow the money. Other ways are not appropriate on the floor of the House, but you have the idea. We have to address this issue. The only way to address this is to get our appropriations under control. One of the things I proposed, in conjunction with another Member, is the Protecting Our Children's Future Act, which talks about these changes that must be made in how we do budgeting and appropriations in a process. Otherwise, we just do the same thing over and over again here in Congress, and that, Madam Speaker, is the perfect definition of insanity. I appreciate the time to talk about something I think is so urgent because, without this fundamental change, we are tilting at windmills. We need to make this change sooner than later.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding member of our community and our military on his retirement. For more than 35 years, Brigadier General John ``Odie'' Slocum served our country, most recently as the commander of the 127th Wing at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan's 10th District, a post he held from November 2014 until his retirement this past weekend. General Slocum's career of more than 35 years and 4,100 flight hours began in 1984 when he received his Air Force commission through East Carolina University's ROTC program. After receiving his wings, Odie served his 8 years of Active Duty as an F-4 Phantom and F-16 pilot and then served as an instructor at bases in both Georgia and Arizona. In 1992 he joined the Arizona Air National Guard where he served in a variety of Operations Group and headquarters-staff positions, many related to F-16 flight training, before taking over as Arizona Air National Guard's 162nd Fighter Wing's chief of safety and squadron commander. During his tenure in Arizona, he created a new Air National Guard maintenance training curriculum, worked to increase mental health and suicide prevention resources in the Air National Guard, initiated a DOD-wide midair collision avoidance program, and more. Because of these actions, in 2013, Odie was inducted into the Air Force Safety Hall of Fame. After 1 year as the Inspector General of the Air National Guard based at Joint Base Andrews, in 2014 Slocum was promoted to brigadier general and assumed command of the 127th Wing and Selfridge Air National Guard Base, in my home district. It is home to 1,700 airmen operating both the A-10 Warthog and KC-135 Stratotanker, as well as host to more than 45 tenant organizations from all branches of the military and numerous DHS organizations. Nearly 4,500 Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian personnel call Selfridge Air National Guard Base home. Selfridge is unique, with diverse needs due to its many missions, and General Slocum has been an exceptional leader of Selfridge and our community. Under Slocum's leadership, the 127th Wing earned the Spaatz Trophy, presented to the top flying wing in the Air National Guard; earned an Air Force Meritorious Unit Award; and celebrated milestone anniversaries of the base, 100 years, and the 127th Wing's two flying units, the 107th Fighter Squadron, 100 years, and the 171st Air Refueling Squadron. Further, last year, the 127th Wing was named Macomb County Economic Development Partner of the Year, and Slocum was inducted into the Macomb County Hall of Fame. I have had the honor to work with General Slocum since before I joined Congress, and I have greatly appreciated our professional relationship, as well as the personal friendship that has grown the last 5 years. In our nearly weekly phone calls, Odie has worked with me to ensure I know what is going on at the base, I am aware of the base's needs, and we work together to address the needs of the men and women who serve in Selfridge. It is extremely clear Odie cares deeply about Selfridge, the men and women he commands, Michigan, and our Nation. We are all extremely grateful for his decades of dedication to our Nation. While I will miss having him commanding Selfridge, I know General Slocum will continue to remain heavily involved in our community to make our place a great place to live. On behalf of our community and our Nation, I wish to extend him all the best in retirement, and I thank him for his many years of exemplary service.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, Friday is the 100th day of Democrat control of the House; 100 days of disarray. In the first 3 months, 97 bills have passed the House. In the first quarter of last session, 132 bills had passed. There are 97 bills that have passed the House, which is far more than have cleared committees; that number is only 68. So much for regular order; so much for hearings; so much for amendments. They have passed far fewer bipartisan bills, it is no surprise, yet they continue to take up and pass resolutions that are literally useless. We have spent 20 percent of our time on nonmeaningful, nonbinding resolutions. Instead of working on the items we promised the American people, like fixing our infrastructure, healthcare, and workforce issues, let me recap some of the things that have been accomplished here: The House failed to speak out strongly against anti-Semitism. Democrats have failed to produce a budget and said they won't. They can't even agree on budget caps. They have ignored the humanitarian crisis at the border that continues to grow. And they refuse to bring to the floor the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which has 198 supporters.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, while most Americans--maybe not everybody on the other side of the aisle--would not deny we have a crisis at the border, some of my colleagues actually recognize the crisis, including the humanitarian crisis. Last year, I voted for a bill that would have fully funded the wall and averted the government shutdown, to no avail. My choice this term would have been to pass the six noncontroversial bills and then pass a continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security so we could continue to work and negotiate on a resolution that would not have put us at this point. Yes, the President declared a national emergency. Speaker Pelosi then proceeded to the resolution condemning President Trump's emergency declaration, which was a messaging bill by the Democrats. Voting for it would have been playing politics, which many in this Chamber chose to do. Voting today without the votes to override is yet another messaging bill, yet another game of politics which I will not support. I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle: It is a constitutional question, and determination of constitutional authority is something left to the courts to decide, something the Supreme Court should decide, and not a partisan whack job in the House of Representatives. If Congress wishes to narrow and define more clearly the National Emergencies Act, then we should do so, and, in fact, I am happy to participate in doing that. However, in the interim, we still have the issue of securing our border. It will not go away. The crisis is not going away. As my colleagues over here have indicated, it continues to be a growing problem. So why we don't spend time addressing that rather than one more messaging vote--which appears to be the trend right now in this House since January--befuddles me. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution to override the veto, and I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's get down to dealing with the problems of the American people.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, if this unanimous consent request cannot be entertained, I urge the Speaker and the majority leader to immediately schedule the Born-Alive bill.

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill, H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, as a co-chair of the Congressional Macedonian Caucus and representative of one of the largest populations of Macedonian-Americans in the country, I would like to include in the Record the following article from the BBC entitled ``Greece's invisible minority--the Macedonian Slavs''. I'm dedicated to maintaining and strengthening a positive and mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and Macedonia, and urge my colleagues to join me in building and enhancing the cultural, economic, strategic, and governmental ties between our two nations. [From the BBC News Stories, Feb. 24, 2019] ``Greece's Invisible Minority--the Macedonian Slavs'' By ratifying an agreement with the newly renamed Republic of North Macedonia, Greece has implicitly recognised the existence of a Macedonian language and ethnicity. And yet it has denied the existence of its own Macedonian minority for decades, says Maria Margaronis. Will something now change? Mr. Fokas, 92, stands straight as a spear in his tan leather brogues and cream blazer, barely leaning on the ebony and ivory cane brought from Romania by his grandfather a century ago. His mind and his memory are as sharp as his outfit. A retired lawyer, Mr. Fokas speaks impeccable formal Greek with a distinctive lilt: his mother tongue is Macedonian, a Slavic language related to Bulgarian and spoken in this part of the Balkans for centuries. At his son's modern house in a village in northern Greece, he takes me through the painful history of Greece's unrecognised Slavic-speaking minority. Mr. Fokas takes care to emphasise from the start that he is both an ethnic Macedonian and a Greek patriot. He has good reason to underline his loyalty: for almost a century, ethnic Macedonians in Greece have been objects of suspicion and, at times, persecution, even as their presence has been denied by almost everyone. Most are reluctant to speak to outsiders about their identity. To themselves and others, they're known simply as ``locals'' (dopyi), who speak a language called ``local'' (dopya). They are entirely absent from school history textbooks, have not featured in censuses since 1951 (when they were only patchily recorded, and referred to simply as ``Slavic-speakers''), and are barely mentioned in public. Most Greeks don't even know that they exist. That erasure was one reason for Greece's long-running dispute with the former Yugoslav republic now officially called the Republic of North Macedonia. The dispute was finally resolved last month by a vote in the Greek parliament ratifying (by a majority of just seven) an agreement made last June by the countries' two prime ministers. When the Greek Prime Minster, Alexis Tsipras, referred during the parliamentary debate to the existence of ``Slavomacedonians'' in Greece--at the time of World War Two--he was breaking a long-standing taboo. The use of the name ``Macedonia'' by the neighbouring nation state implicitly acknowledges that Macedonians are a people in their own right, and opens the door to hard questions about the history of Greece's own Macedonian minority. When Mr. Fokas was born, the northern Greek region of Macedonia had only recently been annexed by the Greek state. Until 1913 it was part of the Ottoman Empire, with Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia all wooing its Slavic-speaking inhabitants as a means to claiming the territory. It was partly in reaction to those competing forces that a distinctive Slav Macedonian identity emerged in the late 19th and early 20th Century. As Mr. Fokas's uncle used to say, the family was ``neither Serb, nor Greek, nor Bulgarian, but Macedonian Orthodox''. In the end, the Slav Macedonians found themselves divided between those three new states. In Greece, some were expelled; those who remained were pushed to assimilate. All villages and towns with non-Greek names were given new ones, chosen by a committee of scholars in the late 1920s, though almost a century later some ``locals'' still use the old ones. In 1936, when Mr. Fokas was nine years old, the Greek dictator Ioannis Metaxas (an admirer of Mussolini) banned the Macedonian language, and forced Macedonian-speakers to change their names to Greek ones. Mr. Fokas remembers policemen eavesdropping on mourners at funerals and listening at windows to catch anyone speaking or singing in the forbidden tongue. There were lawsuits, threats and beatings. Women--who often spoke no Greek--would cover their mouths with their headscarves to muffle their speech, but Mr. Fokas's mother was arrested and fined 250 drachmas, a big sum back then. ``Slavic-speakers suffered a lot from the Greeks under Metaxas,'' he says. ``Twenty people from this village, the heads of the big families, were exiled to the island of Chios. My father-in-law was one of them.'' They were tortured by being forced to drink castor oil, a powerful laxative. When Germany, Italy and Bulgaria invaded Greece in 1941, some Slavic-speakers welcomed the Bulgarians as potential liberators from Metaxas's repressive regime. But many soon joined the resistance, led by the Communist Party (which at that time supported the Macedonian minority) and continued fighting with the Communists in the civil war that followed the Axis occupation. (Bulgaria annexed the eastern part of Greek Macedonia from 1941 to 1944, committing many atrocities; many Greeks wrongly attribute these to Macedonians, whom they identify as Bulgarians.) When the Communists were finally defeated, severe reprisals followed for anyone associated with the resistance or the left. ``Macedonians paid more than anyone for the civil war,'' Mr. Fokas says. ``Eight people were court-martialled and executed from this village, eight from the next village, 23 from the one opposite. They killed a grandfather and his grandson, just 18 years old.'' Mr. Fokas was a student in Thessaloniki then--but he too was arrested and spent three years on the prison island of Makronisos, not because of anything he'd done but because his mother had helped her brother-in-law escape through the skylight of a cafe where he was being held. Most of the prisoners on Makronisos were Greek leftists, and were pressed to sign declarations of repentance for their alleged Communist past. Those who refused were made to crawl under barbed wire, or beaten with thick bamboo canes. ``Terrible things were done,'' Mr. Fokas says. ``But we mustn't talk about them. It's an insult to Greek civilisation. It harms Greece's good name.'' Tens of thousands of fighters with the Democratic Army, about half of them Slavic-speakers, went into exile in Eastern bloc countries during and after the civil war. About 20,000 children were taken across the border by the Communists, whether for their protection or as reserve troops for a future counter-attack. Many Slavic-speaking civilians also went north for safety. Entire villages were left empty, like the old settlement of Krystallopigi (Smrdes in Macedonian) near the Albanian border, where only the imposing church of St. George stands witness to a population that once numbered more than 1,500 souls. In 1982, more than 30 years after the conflict's end, Greece's socialist government issued a decree allowing civil war refugees to return--but only those who were ``of Greek ethnicity''. Ethnic Macedonians from Greece remained shut out of their country, their villages and their land; families separated by the war were never reunited. Mr. Fokas's father-in-law and brother-in-law both died in Skopje. But, he points out, that decree tacitly recognised that there were ethnic Macedonians in Greece, even though the state never officially recognised their existence: ``Those war refugees left children, grandchildren, fathers, mothers behind. What were they, if not Macedonians?'' It's impossible accurately to calculate the number of Slavic-speakers or descendants of ethnic Macedonians in Greece. Historian Leonidas Embiricos estimates that more than 100,000 still live in the Greek region of Macedonia, though only 10,000 to 20,000 would identify openly as members of a minority--and many others are proud Greek nationalists. The Macedonian language hasn't officially been banned in Greece for decades, but the fear still lingers. A middle-aged man I met in a village near the reed beds of Lake Prespa, where the agreement between Greece and the North Macedonian republic was first signed last June, explained that this fear is passed down through the generations. ``My parents didn't speak the language at home in case I picked it up and spoke it in public. To protect me. We don't even remember why we're afraid any more,'' he said. Slowly the language is dying. Years of repression pushed it indoors; assimilation is finishing the job. And yet speaking or singing in Macedonian can still be cause for harassment. Mr. Fokas' son is a musician; he plays the haunting Macedonian flute for us as his own small son looks on. He and a group of friends used to host an international music festival in the village square, with bands from as far away as Brazil, Mexico and Russia. ``After those bands had played we'd have a party and play Macedonian songs,'' he says. ``None of them were nationalist or separatist songs--we would never allow that. But in 2008, just as we were expecting the foreign musicians to arrive, the local authority suddenly banned us from holding the festival in the square, even though other people--the very ones who wanted us banned--still hold their own events there.'' At the last minute, the festival was moved to a field outside the village, among the reeds and marshes, without proper facilities--which, Mr. Fokas's son points out, only made Greece look bad. ``And do you know why the songs are banned in the square but not the fields outside?'' his father adds. ``Because around the square there are cafes, and local people could sit there and watch and listen secretly. But outside the village they were afraid to join in--they would have drawn attention to themselves by doing that.'' The ratification of Greece's agreement with the Republic of North Macedonia--and its implicit recognition of a Macedonian language and ethnicity--is a major political breakthrough which should help to alleviate such fears. But the process has also sparked new waves of anger and anxiety, with large, sometimes violent protests opposing the agreement, supported by parts of the Orthodox church. An election is due before the end of the year. Greece's right-wing opposition has been quick to capitalise on nationalist sentiments, accusing the Syriza government of treason and betrayal. For Greece's Slavic-speakers, who have long sought nothing more than the right to cultural expression, the time to emerge from the shadows may not quite yet have arrived. Mr. Fokas has been referred to by his first name to protect his identity.