Markwayne Mullin

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam President, I appreciate my colleague from Utah in his fine arguments. Obviously, you can tell he is a great attorney. What frustrates me is that I am literally down the hall. My colleague could have, at any time, picked up the phone and called me. The Senator could have simply talked to me. He could have even called me back today when I called him on the phone, and we could have discussed this. At any given time, we could have had this discussion not here on the floor, but we could have actually taken the time and walked through this. I do understand his concerns, but his argument is that, since the statute of limitations has been looked at, we should not deal with any Indian issues--which I live in and always have lived in Indian Country, which I know my colleague from Utah has not and may not always understand the complexity which we live with consistently. But, under the Senator's argument, the court should never look at anything inside the treaty because it has been done; it is over with. So why should we even look at it? Yet the court always looks into it, and that is why we have the court. We also have the separation of powers. We are the legislative branch, and the Senator is quoting the judicial branch. In this case, the only people who can solve this issue is Congress. The court can't. This is unique. Only Congress can do this--no one else. And there is a dispute because my colleague is from Utah. He is not from Illinois, and he doesn't understand the title issues that there is a dispute on, which is why Congress has looked at this over and over and over again. That is why we have had hearings in the House and in the Senate in the committees that have jurisdiction over this. And both committees have spoken and said, yes, this is something that needs to move forward and that Congress does need to act on. I would have loved to have had this debate not in public but in private, and we could have discussed this. But the Senator didn't give me that opportunity; so now, we are here. So, if Congress isn't going to solve this issue, that means we just throw our hands up and leave the Tribes in limbo? I think we have walked away from the Tribes enough, and I take it personal because, when the Tribes do need assistance, where else are they supposed to go? They can't go back and litigate this in the courts until Congress acts, which is why this legislation is in front of us. And then the Congress--once we act, it can be referred to the court, and then the court can decide if the statute of limitations has already run out on it or not or if they have the right to go back and look at it. Just recently, there was what is called the McGirt decision that went back in and completely changed what was going on in Indian Country inside Oklahoma and uprooted something that was settled a long time ago, we thought, especially considering that the ruling came out and said that they believed the reservation lines still exist inside Oklahoma, under the McGirt decision. Now, the statute of limitations had run out on that before because, actually, Congress had acted and ended it in 1906 by giving title to the landowners, who in this case would be Indian Country, which would be my relatives, and we still own the land that was given to us at that time before we achieved statehood in 1906, because Congress said, before we can actually become a State, we have got to settle this issue with the Tribes. So we did it. Yet the court still picked up that decision and went back and looked at it and made changes. So, under my colleague's argument, that can't happen because it is done. And I will say this again: I would have loved to have had this conversation in private, but the Senator didn't give me that opportunity. So here we are. I would ask the Presiding Officer: If we don't work this out and Congress is the only entity that can handle this, then where is the Tribe supposed to go? I yield the floor.

Mr. MULLIN. Madam President, for 8 years, beginning with my time in the House, I have worked on the Miami-Illinois Land Claim Settlement Act, which is now S. 2796. I want to thank Chief Lankford of the Miami Tribe for his assistance to move this bill forward and to help lay out a solid, factual background before the Indian Affairs Committee, which is why it uniquely came out of the committee. This is a unique piece of legislation. The Miami Tribe is not seeking a settlement for their treaty claim or an appropriation from Congress. This is zero cost to Congress. The Miami Tribe--or ``My-am-uh'' Tribe-- is not seeking a settlement. The Tribe is simply asking Congress to do what only Congress can: to extinguish the Tribe's treaty title claim to the land in Illinois. First, this bill will remove a cloud on the title for non-Indian landowners in eastern and central Illinois, benefiting the Tribe and non-Tribal members alike. Second, the bill will allow the Tribe the opportunity to plead their case before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. This is a straightforward bill, cosponsored by both of my colleagues from Illinois, Senator Durbin and Senator Duckworth. The Miami Tribe has waited long enough to get this done, and it is time to act. Madam President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 489, S. 2796; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. I object.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam President, it is interesting to me that my colleague from Massachusetts is lecturing us on energy prices when the last time I checked, Massachusetts has the highest cost of energy to heat their homes in the Nation; when he starts calling fracking a dinosaur technology, when the last time I checked, Boston had one of the collective largest group of individuals still heating their homes off heating oil and propane. Infrastructure is what creates an opportunity to bring down energy costs, which is why Oklahoma, on the other hand, which embraces fracking and embraces pipelines, has the lowest energy cost on average around the country. So if we really want to talk about bringing down cost for consumers, let's look at a model that works instead of having someone lecture us from a State that their model doesn't work. We can build infrastructure. We would love to build pipelines in Massachusetts, but they block them. The infrastructure would be awesome. I know there is a tremendous amount of companies that would love to supply natural gas to Massachusetts. In fact, there is a pipeline right now ready to go that has been blocked. So let's have some serious conversations, not just lay blame and call CEOs bad names and give false opinions that they are just wanting to export. This says nothing about exporting. This is talking about becoming energy independent so we don't have to import oil, so we don't have to import refined products. This is about becoming energy dependent so we can bring down energy cost. As I said earlier, the current policy that we are operating under with the Biden-Harris administration has brought energy costs up by 37 percent, which is directly affecting every single American's pocketbook today, right now as we speak. That is why every single American out there is paying $1,085 more per month in their household bills and grocery bills than they were 4 years ago, which, if you think about that, that is over $13,000 a year directly reflecting our current energy policy. This does exactly what it is supposed to do: help bring down the energy cost and inflation will follow. It is not hard math; it is common sense. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, one quick response to this: My colleague is correct about the LNG, or liquefied natural gas. What my colleague said in his remarks was ``natural gas.'' Natural gas is much different than shipping liquefied natural gas. Liquefied natural gas is a small percentage of what is exported and as far as what we call natural gas. Once it is liquefied, what actually is by far the biggest is the pipeline that this administration approved, which President Trump put a hold on, going into Germany for the second time. So my original statement is true: Russia is the largest exporter of natural gas. Once again, this wasn't to do anything, as my colleague said, talking about China. The export ban which the administration put on the exporting of LNG out of Louisiana by canceling the permits, that has affected Europe. They are allies of ours. If this administration wanted to do something about China, they could do it today. They could do it this hour. They could do it right now by an executive order. Last I checked, they still had the authority to do so. So as I go back to my colleague from Oregon's change to my current bill, the modification does nothing. The current administration, currently, already has that authority. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MULLIN. While I understand my colleague from Oregon, where he stands on this issue, there are just some factual things that need to be checked on that. One, he said that we are the No. 1 exporter of gas. That is just not true. Russia is the No. 1 exporter of gas. When they say production has increased, that is actually not accurate either. Could we have been the largest liquefied natural gas exporter? Yes. That was until the permits for the pipelines to go to export terminals in Louisiana were canceled, which put a lot of our allies in Europe in a situation to where now they had to go buy gas from a bad actor that is right now invading Ukraine called Russia. Our allies do not want to be dependent, obviously, on Russia. They would love to have our gas. And as far as being the No. 1 seller to China with crude and refined products, it is not true again. At current rate, Iran is the No. 1 seller to China, and they are the ones that are buying it because of the Biden-Harris administration being extremely weak on the sanctions that we put on Iran under the Trump administration--which now Iran is actively funding the Houthis and Hamas and terrorist organizations all around the world. What we are saying is: Let our allies count on us. We have more reserves underneath our feet, and we can produce it cleaner and more efficient than OPEC, than Russia, than Iran. Our allies want to do business with us, and our economy desperately needs it. We are in a recession, and no one is denying that. Why should we depend on allowing OPEC to set the world price for crude? Why are we allowing them to set the price and become rich off of our backs when we ourselves could easily do that in a much cleaner and more efficient way? Why are we still importing petroleum products from Russia? Why are we still importing oil, which is a dirty crude, from Saudi Arabia, when we can still produce it--a sweet crude--that comes out of Oklahoma, that comes out of North Dakota, that comes out of Pennsylvania, that comes out of Texas, that is a much easier product to refine and burns cleaner. And there is no denying that. Because the world's demand for fossil fuels is increasing not decreasing--so why are we doing it at the cost of the American taxpayer? Why are we hurting our economy along the way? As far as the change that my colleague from Oregon wants to do, it is not necessary. The change isn't there. This is just to try to kill the bill because the legislation that my colleague is trying to do--we already know that the President, currently, already has the authority to restrict oil and gas exports because he did exactly that earlier this year, which is why I brought up Louisiana. All this does is deflect blame away from the Biden-Harris administration, which has been very soft on sanctions with bad actors-- as I mentioned, Iran. The majority of which are bought, as I mentioned before, by China. And as I mentioned before, this does nothing but enable Iran, when they sell their product, to sponsor the largest groups around the world operating in terror organizations. The bill my colleague from Oregon is raising today would do nothing to address the massive amounts of Russian oil flowing into China, and what Republicans are trying to do here today is bolster American energy production by preventing this administration and future administrations from banning fracking. As I said, as the current Vice President openly said in 2019, she was 100 percent for banning fracking across the United States. So with that, I have to object to my colleague from Oregon's legislation and changes to my current bill.

Mr. MULLIN. Reserve the right to object.

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, thank you and thank you to the Senator from Alabama for doing this. I think it is very important that we understand what is happening in our economy right now with the energy issue and the energy crisis we find ourselves in. And so the bill that I bring forward today is Protecting American Energy Production Act. It is real simple. It allows us to be energy independent. The backbone of our economy is energy, and if you have high energy costs, which we have had a 37-percent increase in energy under this current administration, you obviously are going to have inflation increase because energy is the backbone of our economy. You cannot make a product, nor can you deliver the product, without factoring in the cost of energy. With a 37-percent energy increase over the last 4 years, we have to bring back that resilience. We have to bring back that energy independence. And the way we do that is we understand real numbers. For instance, in 2019, fracking, which our current Vice President has been on record saying that she wants to ban fracking, in 2019, fracking accounted for 63 percent of our total crude oil production and 75 percent of our natural gas supply. Underneath the current administration, we have seen a significant decline in fracking wells. At the same time, we haven't seen demand decrease, we have actually seen demand increase, which by the amount that has actually been taken away from oil or from American producers, now we have seen an increase in imports. Not all of them are friends of ours. As I said, the bill is very simple, Protecting American Energy Production Act. So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1121 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, today, I take to the floor for the first time. I really am not one to speak a whole lot on the floor. My time in the House was very limited as to how many times I spoke on the House floor. Then, being in the Senate, this is my first time to speak, but it comes on an occasion that I feel is, I guess, the right time to speak. A gentleman whom I took great pride in knowing, whom I referred to quite often as a grandfather, Senator Jim Inhofe, passed away, unfortunately, this morning. And I was asked right off the bat, ``Would you be willing to do some interviews?'' on it. And then, obviously, we were asked to speak on the floor. And I didn't even know what to say. How do you describe Senator Jim Inhofe, right? How do you describe his family--Miss Kay, who, from the first time I ever met her, she made me feel as comfortable as if I was her own child, just someone who took time to pet on me and love on me when I was trying to learn just to be in politics because politics was new. Senator Inhofe would often take me by the hand--literally, by the hand--and say: Hey, listen to me, son. And over time he became quite a mentor--I mean, quite a mentor of mine. And I get asked all the time: How do you plan on filling the shoes of Senator Inhofe? And I say: How do you fill the shoes of a gentleman whose middle name was ``Mountain''? How fitting is that, right? Senator James Mountain Inhofe, because he was a mountain of a man. He blazed his own trail. He was full of grit and tenacity. You always knew where he stood. I never doubted what his thoughts were. He would tell me right off the bat. When it was time for a decision to be made, he would get the delegation together. He would come in, and he wasn't someone that demanded you to go with him. He just let you know where he was at and why he was right. And you found a lot of respect in that. At the same time, if he didn't agree with you, he let you know he didn't agree with you. But you can respect a guy that you always know where he stands. So it saddens me deeply to know that, today, this Earth is less one gentleman that I think we all learned from. Everybody in this Chamber who knew James or Senator Inhofe knew a guy as a friend. You knew he was someone that you could trust. I remember one time--it was in 2016--my wife and I, we were making a decision if we were going to continue to stay in public office. Quite frankly, I was done. I had my fill. I came from the private sector. And just politics, in itself, to me, was not something that I enjoyed. I was ready to just throw in the towel. And Senator Inhofe called me. He says: Hey, come into my office, which, coming over from my little Senate office in Longworth, I went into this Taj Mahal office of Senator Inhofe's, and I just was in shock. And he said: Do me a favor. He says: Don't leave yet. And I looked at him. He said: Just give it time. He said: I understand it is bad right now. I understand it is rough. He said: But take it from a guy who came out of the private sector--from me--who at that time had been in office almost 55 years. He said: Take it from me, a guy that came out of the private sector, how frustrating it can be. But it can also be the most rewarding thing you will ever do. It can be more satisfying than anything you have ever built if you will just stay put because, I promise you, it will get better. And I can't say it has actually gotten better, but I can say that he was right, because it is gratifying. What he did is he allowed me to change my focus from understanding that all the outside distractions that can take place, all the nasty things that can happen on social media, the things that can be written about you that are out of your control, things that people automatically assume about you because you are in public office--that can all easily go away if you will stay focused on what you were elected to do, which is to serve the great State of Oklahoma and just focus on constituent service, focus on building things for the State, focus on staying passionate about what your passion is, and you can create such a legacy for yourself. I don't think Senator Inhofe ever set out to build a legacy that his name is built upon. He always wanted to serve, from being mayor of the city of Tulsa, to being a Congressman for three terms, to serving in the Senate for almost 30 years. All he did every day was work hard for Oklahoma, and I am grateful to get to know him. His family, the whole time he served--I have just got to brag about his family because, the whole time he served--which was a big thing for me too--it was, how do you balance the political life and the family life? Because if you knew Jim, Jim was--or Senator Inhofe--always going home. Miss Kay was his priority. If she was ill, wasn't feeling good, he was headed that way. And every time I talked to him on the plane, when we sat beside each other, when we would land, the first person he would call would be Miss Kay. And he would want to know how she is doing and want to make sure that this project is being complete. And sometimes he would even talk to me about some of the projects going on to his house. It was always a priority. And for me, who had six kids at home--and at the time when I got in office, my oldest was 7 years old--that was a concern of mine of how you can balance it. And he says: Markwayne, I have been doing this--like I said, at that time, when we first had that conversation, he had been in office for over 50 years. He says: I have done it, and I think I have raised some pretty good kids. His kids loved him. His wife loved him. His grandkids loved him. And not to talk about the way that he necessarily left the world, but I think he left it the way he would want to, a guy that was always moving. He was always on the run. He always had a project. He never sat still. To be able to be here one day, go through a little trouble for a maybe a few days, and leave this Earth and people loving you and you had a great reputation--I don't know how any of us would rather be remembered. And so, while I take the podium for the first time, I just want to say again, it is an honor to walk in that trail that he blazed because, as I said, I am not ever going to fill his shoes. But he built a trail, as people want to refer to it, as a mountain man. What did the mountain man do, right? The mountain man went up, and he blazed trails--new trails. He was in territory that no one else knew about. He blazed a trail that I could build a highway on, and I have full intentions of doing that. So to Miss Kay, to his kids, and to his grandkids and to all his family, thank you for giving so much of your time to allow Senator Inhofe to serve. Thank you for giving him to me and allowing me to call him--even though he sometimes got mad at me because he thought I was talking about his age. I wasn't. I meant it in an affectionate way. Thank you for allowing me to call him my grandfather, because I lost both my grandfathers. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to know him and to know your family. May God bless you. I think it is pretty evident when I say this: We are all going to miss him.

Mr. MULLIN

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

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I hereby remove myself as cosponsor of H.R. 8167.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the career of Dave Kishler, a Senior Industry Relations Strategist at Netsmart. The company provides health information technology solutions to tens of thousands of public and private nonprofit mental health, human services and senior service organizations throughout the United States serving millions of Americans with mental illnesses, substance use disorders and other disabilities. Dave announced his retirement from Netsmart at the end of 2021 after a rich and extremely productive 30-year career with the company. Among many other duties, Dave was responsible for Netsmart's relationships with patient advocacy organizations and trade associations representing Community Mental Health Centers, providers of rehabilitation services for persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (I/DD) and home care providers serving seniors. But I got to know Dave during our work together on legislative amendments to 42 CFR Part 2--a outdated federal privacy law that inhibited the sharing of clinical information for persons with major substance use disorders. When one of the committees I serve on--the House Energy & Commerce Committee--held public hearings to examine the real-world impact of the law, Dave assisted my office and committee staff in truly understanding how ``Part 2'' obstructed the exchange of clinical data that made care coordination for people with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) nearly impossible. Because of his diligent efforts and the patient stories he brought to our attention, the Congress ultimately passed legislative amendments in the CARES Act that facilitated the exchange of vital information among hospitals, residential treatment centers and community-based providers. Once implemented, I am convinced that these statutory changes will save lives. By reflecting on Dave's career, we recognize both his enormous personal contributions as well as the tremendous value of public- private partnerships in improving the lives of our most vulnerable citizens. I thank Dave, and congratulate him on this significant milestone.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing here from the Democrats is just a distraction. They are just trying to distract the American people from what is really happening. What is it the American people are upset about? What is it that they are concerned about? How about what they are paying. We can talk about the groceries, and we can talk about what they are paying at the gas pump, so let's talk about that real quick. If we are really serious about doing something that is important to the American people, then let's start with H.R. 6235 to address the high energy prices our country is seeing right now. Gas prices are at a 7-year high. On November 23, the Biden administration announced the Department of Justice will sell 50 million barrels out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an attempt to bring down gas prices. What a joke. We consume roughly 20 billion barrels a day in the United States, and to say we are going to release 50 billion out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to bring down gas prices? That is nothing but another game, like this bill that we are talking about today debating. It is nothing but smoke and mirrors just trying to distract the American people to say: Hey, look, we are fighting; we are trying to do something. H.R. 6235 would require the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to increase oil and gas production on Federal lands in conjunction with drawing down the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If any President attempts to tap into the SPR for political reasons, the Strategic Production Response Act would require a plan to increase U.S. energy production at the same time. The SPR was established by Congress to respond to an emergency, not to manipulate gasoline prices. The administration's anti-fossil fuel agenda is contributing to the record-high energy prices which is driving up inflation and household bills. It is projected to cost some families up to 54 percent more to heat their homes this winter. If President Biden and the Democrats want to be serious about bringing down costs to the families, they would stop the attack on American petroleum. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and take up this bill.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of my bill, H.R. 1762, the Protecting Indian Tribes from Scams Act. The bill will help protect our Tribes and Tribal members from predatorial scams. Tribal communities have long been targets of fraud. Scammers often target vulnerable communities who receive trust or settlement payments, like many Tribes do. FTC data says that Tribe members are more likely to be the victims of scams and are less likely to report scams than any other group. H.R. 1762 will direct the FTC to study the types of scams that target Tribes and find the best ways to combat them. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for working with me on these issues, as well as many other issues important to Indian County. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5541, the Tribal Power Act. As the only Native American that serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee and one who has lived in Indian Country my entire life, this bill is extremely important to Tribes. It can strategically help us receive capital that we need to become energy efficient and enhance our energy infrastructure. I have long been a supporter of the economic benefits American energy brings to our communities. As sovereign nations, Tribes should have the ability to choose and deploy this kind of energy and the best kind of energy that works for them. I am proud to be a colead in this very important issue. Now, with the remainder of my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a second and recognize our good leader and a friend that we are going to lose here in Chairman Walden. Our committee is better because of your leadership. Anybody who can put up with my attitude and my great personality and still stay calm and effectively lead our committee, I just want to tell you that shows a good leader. It shows somebody I would love to follow and someone I have enjoyed being able to follow. Since my time in Congress, you have been a friend and a mentor, one that I can always count on to give the right advice--not necessarily something I always wanted to hear, but the right advice. And, as I said before, that is the character of a good leader. So, for your 22 years of service, and as someone who only got to serve with you for 8 of those years, it has been a great honor, and you will be missed.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I was not present the week of Sept 28.- Oct. 2, 2020 on account of supporting my son's continuing recovery. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 207; YEA on Roll Call No. 208; YEA on Roll Call No. 209; NAY on Roll Call No. 210; YEA on Roll Call No. 211; NAY on Roll Call No. 212; NAY on Roll Call No. 213; NAY on Roll Call No. 214; NAY on Roll Call No. 215; and NAY on Roll Call No. 216.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I was not present the week of Sept. 28 to Oct. 2, 2020 on account of supporting my son's continuing recovery. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 217 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 218.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I was not present the week of September 21-25, 2020 on account of supporting my son's continuing recovery. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 196; YEA on Roll Call No. 197; NAY on Roll Call No. 198; NAY on Roll Call No. 199; NAY on Roll Call No. 200; YEA on Roll Call No. 201; NAY on Roll Call No. 202; NAY on Roll Call No. 203; YEA on Roll Call No. 204; YEA on Roll Call No. 205; and NAY on Roll Call No. 206.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I was not present the week of July 27-31, 2020 on account of supporting my son's continuing recovery. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 167; NAY on Roll Call No. 168; NAY on Roll Call No. 169; YEA on Roll Call No. 170; NAY on Roll Call No. 171; NAY on Roll Call No. 172; NAY on Roll Call No. 173; NAY on Roll Call No. 174; NAY on Roll Call No. 175; YEA on Roll Call No. 176; YEA on Roll Call No. 177; and NAY on Roll Call No. 178.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I was not present the week of July 20-24, 2020 on account of supporting my son's continuing recovery. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 139; NAY on Roll Call No. 140; NAY on Roll Call No. 141; NAY on Roll Call No. 142; YEA on Roll Call No. 143; NAY on Roll Call No. 144; NAY on Roll Call No. 145; NAY on Roll Call No. 146; NAY on Roll Call No. 147; NAY on Roll Call No. 148; NAY on Roll Call No. 149; NAY on Roll Call No. 150; YEA on Roll Call No. 151; NAY on Roll Call No. 152; NAY on Roll Call No. 153; NAY on Roll Call No. 154; NAY on Roll Call No. 155; NAY on Roll Call No. 156; NAY on Roll Call No. 157; NAY on Roll Call No. 158; YEA on Roll Call No. 159; NAY on Roll Call No. 160; YEA on Roll Call No. 161; YEA on Roll Call No. 162; NAY on Roll Call No. 163; YEA on Roll Call No. 164; YEA on Roll Call No. 165; and NAY on Roll Call No. 166.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I was not present the week of June 22-26, 2020 on account of supporting my son's continuing recovery. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 116; NAY on Roll Call No. 117; YEA on Roll Call No. 118; NAY on Roll Call No. 119; NAY on Roll Call No. 120; YEA on Roll Call No. 121; and NAY on Roll Call No. 122.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the CARES Act. We are in the middle of an unprecedented public health crisis and the American people need help. Over the past two weeks, I have had countless calls with constituents, and they have all said the same thing: they're hurting. Our small businesses, our farmers and ranchers, our teachers, our Tribal governments, our health care workers, and first responders on the front lines--we are all hurting right now. While this bill won't fix all their problems, it brings them some much-needed relief and confidence that the federal government is taking action to combat this crisis. In Oklahoma, we call it the Oklahoma Standard. Neighbors helping neighbors through hard times. Together, as a country, we will help our neighbors and get through this together. I support this bill and look forward to continuing to work with the Administration

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I was not present on March 14, 2020 on account of family reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 102.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I was not present the week of March 9-13, 2020 on account of supporting my son's continuing recovery. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 91; YEA on Roll Call No. 92; YEA on Roll Call No. 93; NAY on Roll Call No. 94; NAY on Roll Call No. 95; NAY on Roll Call No. 96; YEA on Roll Call No. 97; YEA on Roll Call No. 98; NAY on Roll Call No. 99; YEA on Roll Call No. 100; and NAY on Roll Call No. 101

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I was not present March 5, 2020 on account of family reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 87; YEA on Roll Call No. 88; YEA on Roll Call No. 89; and NAY on Roll Call No. 90.