Markwayne Mullin

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. I am, sir.

Mr. MULLIN. Just speaking the truth.

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, you know everything that the Senator from Vermont has railed about is why I think he supported the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. ObamaCare. I thought it was supposed to fix all this stuff that he wrote about, and we figured out it hasn't. It has wrecked the system. It is unaffordable for the American people. Yet it was the Democrats that sold us or sold the American people on it--not us, not Republicans, sold the American people on it. It has been disastrous. And so now he wants to hold kids that are dying of rare diseases and pediatric cancer, wants to hold them hostage, to now try to push his agenda further and not go through the committee of jurisdiction but hold the kids hostage--the kids. Everything the Senator from Vermont just talked about was political. I am talking about lives. I am talking about giving kids a chance to live an extra day or a lifetime. That is what I am talking about. This has nothing to do with politics. Nothing. Nothing I am talking about has to do with politics. This has to do with kids. Yet the Senator from Vermont wants to make it about politics. You know, this time of the year at Christmas we talk about grinches, all the time, right? They go in, and they steal the kids' gifts. By the end of the show, their hearts grow bigger and they give the gifts back and they allow kids to be excited about Christmas morning. What has happened right here in front of us, the grinch is stealing kids' lives, and they are stealing hope from the families, hope from the families that might have an opportunity just to try for a political agenda. And I hope to God that every single family that is going through this will hold the Senator from Vermont accountable, and the State of Vermont will hold him accountable, too, because he is playing with kids' lives. He is literally killing kids in front of us because of his political movement, and it is ridiculous. Therefore, I object.

Mr. MULLIN. I reserve the right to object.

Mr. MULLIN. I, too, want to say I support community health centers. As I said, they are very important in rural communities, very important in my hometown of Westville. In fact, it is the only healthcare that is available. I don't want them to be harmed; I want them to be well funded, but that is a separate conversation we can have. The chairman just said he will work to get it passed next year. Now, there is no reason to hold our kids hostage anymore. So, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1262, which was received from the House; 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. I yield to the chairman from Louisiana, Mr. Cassidy.

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, I am here today to ask the Senate to pass a bill that helps kids with cancer--the Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act. Now, very seldom do I actually read remarks. I typically like to just simply speak about it. But I think this is so important that I am actually going to read the remarks that are in front of me because I think it is important for people to know what we are doing, why we are doing it, and who she was--the advocate--and to understand why we are here today. Mikaela, whom the bill is named after, was a 16-year-old girl from Colorado. As a father of six, this is kind of personal to me, so this is why it is so passionate to me, too, because my son currently--while he doesn't have a cancer like this, we have been going to Rochester for over a year, and we are doing some experimentative stuff with him too. We got an opportunity--because it is not a death sentence. What he has isn't a death sentence. But we have had to go through this and continue to go through this. So it is even more personal to me now. In July of 2020, Mikaela was diagnosed with a rare pediatric cancer. She spent nearly 6 years traveling across the country for treatments while also coming to Capitol Hill to advocate for children with cancer. But unfortunately, she tragically passed away October 29 of this year-- advocating literally almost every day of her life. Mikaela was a fighter. She fought so other children could have an opportunity, that one day, the devastating diagnosis that she received would someday be curable for other kids. Some things that come across your desk in Congress just make sense, and this is one of them. This bill has 33 cosponsors in the Senate, and they are bipartisan, from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans. We worked hard to get this bill passed for over a year, and it passed the House by voice. Not one single person objected to this. Why? Because why wouldn't you want to allow kids, our kids, an opportunity to simply have the same opportunity as adults do with cancer? It is called pediatric cancer. Give kids a chance. Why wouldn't we want to do that? It is hard to explain why we wouldn't want to do that, but yet I understand the Senator from Vermont intends to object to the Senate doing this. I think it is wrong. I think it is dead wrong. To think that someone is willing to hold hostage a child who is fighting for their life, who simply wants to have an opportunity to try an experimental drug that may extend their life 1 week, 1 day, or may even cure it, and you are willing to take that away from the family because you have other priorities, because you want to hold it hostage so you can try to do something with community healthcare centers? I support community healthcare centers. I want them. They are important to rural Oklahoma. But there is a time and place for everything, and to hold this bill hostage because of it is not right. You are stealing from a family an opportunity to spend maybe an extra minute or an extra day or maybe a lifetime with a loved one. I don't know how you argue this. I don't know how you can possibly stand up here with a straight face and say that it is OK; it is just politics. This isn't just politics. We are playing with people's lives. This isn't politics. This is more than just politics. But I will tell you, if this is objected to and we can't find a path forward here today, I can promise you I will not stop fighting on this. It won't happen. We are going to rinse and repeat and continue to go down this path until we give the families with these rare diseases an opportunity to live because that is what this is about. I recognize my friend from New Hampshire who may have some comments about this too.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. The junior Senator from California knows good and well what ``classifications'' mean because he had 15 years on the House Intelligence Committee until his clearance was pulled in 2023. He understands classifications. He understands when certain things can be exposed and certain things cannot because of the sensitivity of them. He also understands that committees of jurisdiction are privileged with the correct clearance to be able to watch this video because the junior Senator from California stated that himself. It has been shown to not a partisan but a bipartisan group of individuals who do have the accurate oversight and clearances to watch it. Now, what is this really about? Politics? Maybe. During the junior Senator's time on the House Intelligence Committee, then-President Obama had 500 strikes on terrorist organizations. Let's keep in mind that we are striking terrorist organizations, and no one is denying that. There are 24 cartels that are being deemed terrorist organizations that are poisoning our streets, that are killing our families, that are killing our friends, that are affecting all of our homes and all of our streets in all of our States all across the country--in fact, to the tune that there have been more people killed in 2024 by drug overdoses--the sum of 10,000 more individuals--than we lost in U.S. personnel during the entire Vietnam war. If that is not an attack on us, I don't know. If that is not a terrorist organization that is truly poisoning our streets, then I don't know. During the time that the junior Senator from California sat on Intel, not one time did he ever ask for the release of the same videos from the Obama administration that killed 3,700 individuals, including U.S. citizens. Now, if you think there would be transparency, that would need to be released. We would want to see the videos at least on the U.S. citizens who were killed in this manner, not these narcoboats that are poisoning our streets. But that really isn't what this is about, and the junior Senator from California knows that. This is all about politics. That is what this is about. Why are we protecting the ones who are poisoning our streets? Shouldn't we be trying to protect the ones who are on our streets? I don't think it is crazy to think that we would want to be proactive about going after narcoboats. I, for sure, want to. I have zero issue with this. I have been able to be briefed. I know the junior Senator was recently briefed; he is just upset that he may not have the clearances to watch the videos anymore. But there is sensitive material, and it was clearly explained why it can't be released. Of all the people in this Chamber, the junior Senator from California knows that when it is in certain classifications, there is a reason for that. With that, I object.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. I object.

Mr. MULLIN

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

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to ask my colleagues to support this fiscal year 2026 Legislative Branch bill. This is a solid, bipartisan bill that meets the needs of Congress and supports our Agencies, especially the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police, in a very fiscally responsible manner. I commit to my colleagues to continue working in a bipartisan manner to address the best path forward for all of our security needs for the Members, for our families, and for the friends who may be around us. It is challenging, and I understand that. I commit to you guys--all--that I will work to meet those needs. We have had a bipartisan commitment from both sides, and I hear y'all's concerns. We will get those addressed, but this amendment moves us in the right direction. With that, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3412 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, in closing, I would just simply say that maybe my colleague from Arizona and I can work together, if he wants to, and we can drop some of the stuff in his resolution. Maybe we can come up with a conclusion with my resolution. I have concerns about yours blurring the lines between the separation of powers and at the same time want transparency. If we can both agree we want transparency--we have worked together on several issues in the past. Let's sit down and try working this one out. Mr. President, with that, I yield back.

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is interesting that my colleague wants to continue talking about the elites, but the elites are the ones who actually covered up the last 4 years of the Biden administration. I mean, think about what happened during the Biden administration. They covered up, No. 1, for his cognitive behavior; No. 2, they covered up the Hunter Biden laptop; No. 3, they covered up the Russiagate and continue to cover up the Russiagate; and No. 4, they covered up the fact that an autopen signed every--well, every one of his papers except one. Where was the coverup? Where did the elites come from? Well, it is because of the pressure from the Biden administration that actually did put it on all the social media outlets. It is interesting, when I started talking to the social media founders after President Trump was elected, they said: We feel like we can actually do our job again. Why? Because the DOJ wasn't threatening to sue them; the Biden administration wasn't threatening to blackmail them. Yet my colleague from Arizona is saying that we are covering up for the elites? Let's be honest. We know these files have been out there forever. I don't remember a single time the Biden administration called on these things to be released, and I definitely don't remember my colleague from Arizona calling for these files to be released. As I said before, this is nothing more than political theater. Everybody sees it. The American people see it. And what else can President Trump and AG Bondi do but call on the judges to release the information? We are simply going back and forth here saying the same thing. The difference between my resolution and my colleague from Arizona's resolution is mine isn't blurring the boundaries between separation of power; mine is simply calling upon the judges to release the information. What my colleague's resolution does is truly trying to tell the FBI and the DOJ how they can proceed in doing their job and how they can actually present the information--basically saying: We want all that information to go through Congress. Well, I am sure Congress has never once played politics with any information. I am sure that this investigation would be handled much like other investigations into this administration that the Democrats have done over the last, I don't know, 8 years. I am sure this will be handled just like any other thing they have tried to go after, like the baseless impeachments or the baseless special counsels or the unbelievable amount of charges they have tried to file against the President. I am sure this will be handled the exact same way. What we are simply wanting to do here is give them cover. So if my colleague from Arizona actually wants transparency, then he would drop his objection to my resolution and just simply have mine go through, and we can move forward with the transparency that maybe both of us actually want. Therefore, I object to combining them. I would ask my colleague once again to accept my resolution.

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, we all want transparency and for credible information on the Epstein case to be made public so that the American people can decide. The Trump administration has already said they are committed to releasing all available files. Last week, President Trump directed AG Bondi to produce any and all permanent grand jury testimony in the Epstein case. My colleague from Arizona's resolution tells the FBI and the DOJ how to do their job. My resolution would echo the seriousness of the directive from the President and the DOJ to the courts and calls immediately to unseal all materials. When combined with what our House colleagues have done, this resolution moves forward providing justice to the victims and transparency to the American people. Mr. President, as I said before, we want transparency, but the courts control the grand jury; the judges that oversee the courts control the grand jury. We in this body can have resolutions back and forth and suggest that it be done, but truthfully, the judges have to do it. AG Bondi and the President have both already called upon the judges to release this information. What my resolution is simply saying is that we agree with the President, we agree with AG Bondi on the judges and calling upon the judges to release it. As if in legislative session and not withstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 335, which is at the desk. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as we hear my colleague from Arizona use I would say very liberal truths as to what he was saying by not giving all the facts, I would also pose this question: Where was all this outrage over the last 4 years when Director Wray was over the FBI and Attorney General Garland was over the DOJ? He knows, I know, and all the Democrats know that if there was anything to do with President Trump, they would have happily released it. My lord, you went after him for everything else you could possibly think of. Why wouldn't you possibly go after this? Well, it is because this is nothing but political theater. We know that. We know that what your resolution is--it doesn't actually have transparency because we all want transparency. All of us want transparency. We want to know actually what happened. The American people want to know what has happened. But what this resolution does is it actually is a blurred line between the separation of powers. When we start dictating to the Department of Justice what they can and can't do--there is a clear separation of power. We are the legislative branch. That is what we do. We make laws. We can't dictate to the other branches on what they must and how they must do their job. Now, with that being said, I would simply ask the question: Why now? Is it because of their hatred toward President Trump, because they want to do anything they can possibly do to distract from what they might be hiding? Why wasn't this done the previous 4 years? What happened? They had the same files. This case wasn't new. So this resolution does absolutely nothing; therefore, I object.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is nothing but political theater. It is so obvious that the Democrats are just using this for a political football. If they are really serious about this, what happened the last 4 years? Where were they? Silent. Doing nothing but covering up for an absent President. And now, all of a sudden, they want to talk about transparency. We haven't even figured out who ran the White House the last 4 years, and now all of a sudden, they want to make something of this. Are you kidding me? If they are serious about it, then why didn't they say something the last 4 years? This is nothing more than just political theater trying to go after a President that they truly despise; therefore, I object.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. I object.

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MULLIN

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

Mr. MULLIN

Mr. MULLIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. MULLIN. Eight years. This was filed at the beginning of this Congress. Just because your staff didn't make you aware isn't my fault. That is not my fault. To say 8 years, which I opened with--maybe if you would have listened to what I said. We have been working on this for 8 years. This bill has been around for a long time. To accuse me of saying that I am waiting until the last minute, until the last day, at the last hour to do it is just absolutely wrong. I yield the floor.

Mr. MULLIN. That is just not right.

Mr. MULLIN. That is your staff's problem.

Mr. MULLIN. Well, if there wasn't a cloud, then this wouldn't be an issue. So, obviously, there was, and there is. You can say what you want to, but there is. That is why we are here today. That is why we are trying to solve the issue. This is why the gentleman from Utah isn't from Indian Country; he is not from Illinois; and he doesn't understand the issue, which is why we should have had a conversation one-on-one, not just your staff--because I promise you, if there was an issue that I had with the gentleman from Utah, I would have simply just said: Hey, Mike, let's talk. I yield the floor.