Markwayne Mullin

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I was not present the week of February 25- 28, 2020 on account of supporting my son's continuing recovery. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 71; YEA on Roll Call No. 72; YEA on Roll Call No. 73; NAY on Roll Call No. 74; NAY on Roll Call No. 75; YEA on Roll Call No. 76; YEA on Roll Call No. 77; and NAY on Roll Call No. 78.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I was not present the week of February 10 through 13, 2020 on account of supporting my son's continuing recovery. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 55; YEA on Roll Call No. 56; NAY on Roll Call No. 57; NAY on Roll Call No. 58; YEA on Roll Call No. 59; NAY on Roll Call No. 60; YEA on Roll Call No. 61; YEA on Roll Call No. 62; YEA on Roll Call No. 63; YEA on Roll Call No. 64; YEA on Roll Call No. 65; YEA on Roll Call No. 66; YEA on Roll Call No. 67; YEA on Roll Call No. 68; NAY on Roll Call No. 69, and NAY on Roll Call No. 70

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I was not present the week of January 27 through 31, 2020 on account of supporting my son's continuing recovery. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 23; YEA on Roll Call No. 24; NAY on Roll Call No. 25; NAY on Roll Call No. 26; YEA on Roll Call No. 27; NAY on Roll Call No. 28; YEA on Roll Call No. 29; YEA on Roll Call No. 30; NAY on Roll Call No. 31; YEA on Roll Call No. 32; NAY on Roll Call No. 33; and NAY on Roll Call No. 34

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my opposition to these Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a member of my staff and a true servant of Oklahoma, Betty Ford. Betty has served southeast Oklahoma, working as a congressional field rep for 29 years. She has worked for five different Members of Congress, including myself. At the end of the year, Betty is going to retire. I know she is looking forward to spending more time with her grandkids and with her kids. While we will definitely miss her, we wish her nothing but the best in her next chapter. I thank Betty for serving with a servant's heart, and I thank her for all she has done for all of us in Oklahoma. May God bless her.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, while I respect the gentlewoman's opinion--and this is one of those things where we agree to disagree--I do have to say one thing. She said the science in measuring the social cost of carbon has proven true. Actually, that is not true. The science isn't there. We actually don't have a good method to measure the social cost of carbon. That is why the whole issue is that it can easily be manipulated to fit whatever model they choose, which means that they can pick and choose what type of energy we are able to produce and how we produce it, meaning that they can choose, not the consumer, to say: We no longer want to have fossil fuels as a choice; we only want renewables. If we are going to be an all-of-the-above country and we are going to embrace industry and entrepreneurs, then we have got to embrace all of the above. If consumers don't want that, if certain States don't want to buy fossil fuel energy, then they can choose not to do so. In Oklahoma, we are all of the above. Not only are we a leader in producing fossil fuels, but we are also the third largest in producing renewables. We believe all of the above. Our neighbor in Texas, while they are a leader in producing oil, they are the number one in renewables. Isn't it ironic that both are red States? All we are saying here is let's not manipulate and allow the government to pick and choose. Let the consumer choose. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, my amendment would prohibit funds from implementing the social cost of carbon rule. The Obama administration continuously used social cost of carbon models which can be easily manipulated in order to attempt to justify, once again, new job-killing regulations. I offered this same amendment yesterday, and, unfortunately, it failed. Until then, the House had a clear, strong record of opposition to the social cost of carbon, voting at least 12 times to block, defund, or oppose the proposal. We want clean air; we want clean water; and we take care of the land we live on. Using subjective standards to create job-killing regulations is not the way to accomplish this goal. The social cost of carbon rule is nothing more than more burdensome red tape for the American people. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, in closing, during the conversation that was taking place just a second ago, a comment was made that said it actually saves the industry money. I got have got to step back and think, how is that possible? Because if it was saving the industry money they wouldn't oppose it. If it is saving money, who would oppose it? I haven't met a regulation ever from a small business owner--which is the only reason why I am here, because of the job-killing regulations that come out of this place constantly--that has ever saved me any money. What we are talking about are real jobs that affect real people's lives. This Congress always talks about job creation and creating job packages. We want to brag about how many jobs we have created. This body doesn't create jobs. We are supposed to create an environment in which job creators can create a job, and we are saying this one will kill jobs. So why would we support this? It doesn't make any sense to me. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funds for enforcing the Obama administration EPA methane rule. The rule is currently facing litigation and uncertainty, and Congress must act to block this job-killing regulation estimating that it will cost the economy roughly $530 million annually. While oil and gas production has increased over 25 percent since 2005, related methane gas emissions have actually decreased over 40 percent during the same period, meaning the industry is doing a good job of regulating themselves. It is counterproductive for the Federal Government to enact harmful regulations that cause inefficiencies and recklessly spending taxpayer dollars enforcing hardships on true job creators. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, there is a lot to unpack there, and we can debate that all day, especially when you start bringing the farmers into it, because you are looking at one. I don't have to be with them because I am one of them, and I am from the Midwest. But when you start saying that everything is the fault and everything is to blame because of climate change, it has been changing for quite some time, and we could go ahead and talk about that, too. However, I am not going to change her mind, so we are going to agree to disagree. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, my amendment would prohibit funds for implementing the social cost of carbon rule. Congress and the American people have repeatedly rejected cap-and- trade proposals. The Obama administration continuously used social cost of carbon models, which can easily be manipulated in order to attempt to justify new job-killing regulations. I believe in efficiently using the Nation's vast energy resources while protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we live on. The House has a clear, strong record of opposition to the social cost of carbon, voting at least 12 times to block, defund, or oppose the proposal. A carbon tax would inevitably be passed along to consumers, undermining the success of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act we passed last Congress. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Haydon Michelle Payne Ishmael, a loving wife and mother who was taken from her family too soon after losing her battle with breast cancer. She was a vivacious and loving spirit with a heart for service, and she gave everything one hundred percent. Whether she was racing cars, scoring goals in a soccer game, volunteering, or cheering on her kids, her energy and enthusiasm shined through. She leaves behind her husband and childhood sweetheart Todd, her children Madysen, Jewele, and William, her mother Gail (Curtis) Payne and her mother-in-law Penny (Cornel) Ishmael. Her siblings Anne (Payne) and Scott McGarry, Kelly (Payne) and Brad Spears and Will and Brandi Payne, Todd's siblings Tripp and Kelly Ishmael and Thomas and Michelle Ishmael, eleven nieces and nephews, aunt and uncles, cousins and great nieces and nephews. She has gone to be with her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and will be greatly missed.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Susan McVey, State Librarian of Oklahoma. Susan McVey will be retiring at the end of January after 32 dedicated years of service to Oklahoma. For the past 18 years, she has served as the first female State Librarian. Prior to that, Susan served the Oklahoma Department of Libraries in a number of different capacities. As President of the Oklahoma Library Association, Susan received the Distinguished Service Award, the highest honor given by the Association, for exemplary service to the state's library community. She was honored as an Oklahoma Library Legend. She has served as President of the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies and has received the designation of Honored One from the National Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries, and Museums. Susan McVey has demonstrated her commitment and dedication to the education of Oklahomans time and time again. Under her leadership, Oklahoma's public libraries were included in the Oklahoma Universal Service Fund, providing rural Oklahomans access to free high speed broadband in their local libraries. She successfully secured the first statewide access to online reference resources for Oklahoma's nearly 1,300 private, public, and school libraries. She is responsible for obtaining $4 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to provide public access computers in every public library in Oklahoma. I am honored to recognize Susan McVey today before the United States House of Representatives. Well done on a lifetime of service to Oklahoma and congratulations on your well-deserved retirement.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of my bill, the State Offices of Rural Health Reauthorization Act of 2018. There is a healthcare crisis right now going on in rural America. Rural hospitals are closing their doors at an alarming rate. Eighty- five rural hospitals have closed since 2010, and 673 are vulnerable to close at any time. More closures are coming, and Congress needs to start making changes to ensure that rural Americans have the healthcare they need. My bill, the State Offices of Rural Health Reauthorization Act, will help Oklahoma's rural hospitals keep their doors open by reauthorizing the Oklahoma Office of Rural Health. This office provides a valuable resource to the hospitals of Oklahoma by helping hospitals explore innovative and collaborative ideas that can lead to improvements and savings. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss not to mention that awesome sweater- vest that you are wearing. So in the spirit of Christmas, I believe you just pull that off.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2606, the Stigler Act Amendments of 2018. This legislation would end a discriminatory blood quantum requirement for members of the Five Civilized Tribes: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee (Creek), and Seminole Nations. The Stigler Act of 1947 mandated that restricted land owned by a member of the Five Tribes must have \1/2\ blood quantum in order for it to remain restricted. If the land is handed down to a relative with less than \1/2\ blood quantum, the land is no longer restricted. No other Native American tribe in the United States is subject to the Stigler Act, and in no other tribe in the United States do the lands of tribal citizens lose their restricted status due to the blood quantum of an individual Native American. H.R. 2606 would do away with the blood quantum requirement so restricted fee land owned by citizens of the Five Tribes could remain restricted, regardless of blood quantum. By removing the blood quantum requirements in the Stigler Act, native land could remain within families and heirs despite individual Native American landowners falling below \1/2\ blood quantum. Tribes are sovereign nations and H.R. 2606 would treat them as such. This bill would create parity in federal law so that the government would not be able to unfairly dictate a minimum blood quantum requirement for certain tribes. It would also bring equality to members of the Five Tribes. For decades, their members have lived under a law so that applied to only their lands. As Native Americans, we take great pride in our heritage and the land that our ancestors maintained before us. The Stigler Act Amendments of 2018 would allow Natives to pass on their restricted land to future generations who may not meet the \1/2\ blood degree requirement. Members of the Five Tribes who seek to carry on their ancestors' heritage should be able to and this legislation ensures that members of the Five Tribes can continue to preserve restricted status of their land and reap all of the benefits that come along with it. The Five Tribes held more than 15 million acres of restricted land a century ago. Today, they hold just 380,000 acres. While H.R. 2606 will not reverse 70 years of land loss, it will certainly help prevent additional tribal land from falling out of restricted status. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Stigler Act Amendments of 2018 and am honored to speak in support of the legislation before the United States House of Representatives today. I urge its passage.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of my colleague's resolution, H. Con. Res. 119, which expresses the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States. A carbon tax is a tax on the American consumer and our economy. A carbon tax would significantly--I want to repeat that--significantly drive up the cost of the fuels that drive our way of life, and result in millions and millions of jobs lost. This burden would be unfairly shouldered by the lower and middle class incomes. The nonpartisan--I want to say that--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, in 2013 stated: ``A carbon tax would increase the price of fossil fuels in direct proportion to their carbon content. Higher fuel prices, in turn, would raise production costs and ultimately drive up prices for goods and services throughout the economy.'' A study from the National Association of Manufacturers found that a carbon tax could drive up gasoline costs between $6 and $14 per gallon, and lead to as many as 21 million jobs lost, a continually shrinking economy, and lowering our Federal revenue, all without doing anything to improve global greenhouse gas emissions. Just yesterday, the House passed my amendment to prohibit funds from implementing the Obama administration's social costs of carbon rule. The facts are clear. A carbon tax is not the way to protect our environment and economy. The social costs of a carbon tax far outweigh the potential benefits.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).