Senate Committee Decides Fauci's Fate After Fifth Amendment Invocation in COVID Hearing — APT

[0:00] been one-sided and rushed. Rushed? When I was chairman of this committee back in 2020, I started [0:09] conducting oversight. I held hearings. There was no cooperation in those hearings. As a matter of [0:15] fact, I remember one when we held a hearing with Dr. Pierre Corder when he came in with [0:19] all kinds of evidence on the effectiveness of ivermectin. The ranking member then denigrated [0:25] him. Back then, Dr. Corder was a Democrat. He was shocked at the treatment he was given by the [0:34] ranking member. How many people died because they lacked early treatment with safe, effective, [0:41] generic drugs? Well, that hearing laid out the truth that this could be something that could help [0:50] people, and we had a ranking member that did everything that he could to denigrate that truth. [0:57] My current experience is the chairman of PSI. We've been holding hearings after hearings. My ranking [1:04] member blew in those hearings. We had one called Voice of the Vaccine Injured. We had parents [1:11] come in and tell their heart-wrenching stories. We had parents coming in and telling the truth. [1:21] And the ranking member, a few hours before that hearing, held a press conference and said, [1:25] hope the press doesn't cover it because there's nothing credible about this hearing. [1:32] If these investigations are one-sided, it's because one side simply doesn't want to look at the truth. [1:40] They want to bury the truth. They want to memory hole it. They don't want to look at the Fauci [1:47] diaries and take a look at how contradictory what he wrote to himself, how contradictory it was to [1:55] what he actually told the public. I think one of the revelations of those diaries, I think probably [2:01] the most significant one that's being overlooked, was early on in the pandemic. He wrote in his [2:05] diaries he thought COVID would be maybe twice a bad flu season. Now, I'm not downplaying a bad flu [2:13] season. We have them oftentimes. They overwhelm hospitals. Something takes seriously. But a pandemic [2:20] is going to be twice that. Is that really worth destroying people's lives, shutting down [2:26] businesses, destroying an economy? I argued back then that it wouldn't be. It's been six years [2:38] since the pandemic began. We have not had a reckoning of what happened. Last Wednesday's hearing was an [2:49] excellent hearing from a standpoint of legitimate questions being raised, legitimate questions the [2:55] American people want answers to. Legitimate questions that some of them, only Anthony Fauci, St. Fauci, [3:03] Mr. Science could answer. And even though we have quotes of him saying, I'm not afraid of any [3:10] oversight committee. I'm happy to talk to any oversight committee. I have nothing to hide. [3:17] That's not the position he took last Wednesday. What he displayed last Wednesday was contempt for [3:27] Congress. Contempt for this committee. Contempt for our investigation. The same contempt that our ranking [3:36] member, our ranking members have shown for the diligent oversight and the exposing of the truth [3:45] that I've been undertaking for six years. There's nothing rushed. It's been one-sided, but not because we [3:54] haven't reached out. Not because we haven't involved the other side. The other side, like way too many [4:00] Americans, have just closed their eyes, covered up their ears, and refused, refused to look at the [4:11] truth. I am definitely going to vote yes on contempt of Congress. And my investigation has just begun. [4:23] We've invited Dr. Fauci for a transcribed interview. Okay, he doesn't want to do it in front of the [4:27] American public. Come in front of our committee. We'll go through detail and detail. You say you have [4:34] nothing to hide. Good. We'll do it behind closed doors. We'll transcribe it. That's only one of the [4:40] interviews we'll be conducting. So again, no, this, this, this, last week's hearing just began the [4:48] accountability. There's a lot more accountability that's required. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [4:54] The committee will now proceed to consideration of an original resolution. We're going to continue the [4:59] debate once we get on it. There's going to be time for everyone to speak. The committee will now [5:03] proceed to consideration of an original resolution authorizing the president of the Senate to certify [5:08] to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Columbia, the committee's report [5:12] concerning Dr. Anthony Fauci's refusal to answer questions required by committee subpoena. [5:18] Mr. Chairman, I move the motion is to be tabled. This motion to table is intended to avoid [5:27] accountability. We only have one question, whether to hold a witness responsible for his contempt [5:32] towards Congress. The witness had many chances to answer the questions pertinent to our [5:37] investigation and he made his decision 111 times. I will oppose this motion and urge my colleagues [5:42] to do the same. The clerk will call the roll. [5:44] Mr., I want to comment on the motion, Mr. Chairman. [5:47] Mr. Chairman, I moved a table of this resolution until the chairman commits to abiding by the Senate [5:53] rules, practice, and laws that address attempt of Congress. Under the Senate rules, longstanding [6:00] practice, as well as the U.S. code, following a committee vote, the full Senate must vote to [6:06] determine whether to refer a resolution of contempt of Congress to the Department of Justice. [6:12] The Senate as a body, not an individual member, must make that decision. Given that Chairman Paul [6:18] has indicated he may attempt to bypass this process, which is required by Senate rules and precedent, [6:24] members of this committee should move to table this resolution until we can be assured by the [6:29] chairman that he will not take action that weaken the Senate's and this committee's ability to [6:35] conduct oversight in the future. The clerk will call the roll. Second. Second the motion. [6:43] Senator Johnson. No. Senator Langford. No. Senator Scott. No. Senator Hawley. No. Senator Moreno. [6:52] Senator Ernst. Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Yes. Senator Hassan. Yes. Senator Blumenthal. Yes. [7:02] Senator Fetterman. Yes. Senator Kim. Yes. Senator Gallego. Yes, by proxy. Senator Slotkin. Yes, by proxy. [7:11] Senator Paul. No. Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are five, the nays are eight. On the [7:26] vote by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are zero. On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, [7:30] and the motion is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman. Senator Hassan. I move to table consideration of this [7:38] resolution until the chairman invites the views of legal experts who can speak to the constitutional [7:43] questions and legal authorities chairman Paul has raised in his contempt of Congress resolution. [7:49] This resolution should be tabled until our committee can hear from independent experts about the [7:54] applicability of the Fifth Amendment and other constitutional considerations raised by the [7:58] chairman's actions. This motion is intended to avoid accountability. I will oppose this motion and [8:05] urge my colleagues to do the same. Press the roll. Call the roll. Senator Johnson. No. Senator Langford. No. [8:13] Senator Scott. No. Senator Hawley. No. Senator Marino. No. Senator Ernst. No. Senator Moody. No. Senator Peters. Yes. [8:24] Senator Hassan. Yes. Senator Blumenthal. Yes. Senator Fetterman. Aye. Senator Kim. Yes. Senator Gallego. Yes, by proxy. [8:34] Senator Slotkin. Yes, by proxy. Senator Paul. No. Mr. Chairman. Senator Blumenthal. [8:42] Let's hear the vote first. On the vote of those present, [8:47] the yeas are five, the nays are eight on the vote by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are zero. On this [8:51] vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agreed to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [8:56] Senator Blumenthal. I move to postpone consideration of this resolution until the committee has an [9:02] opportunity to hear from Dr. Fauci's attorney, who was forcibly removed from the hearing last week. [9:11] I should point out that Dr. Fauci had a well-founded fear based on facts that he was in jeopardy of [9:21] prosecution for perjury. In fact, the chairman and others on the committee have said the quiet part [9:28] out loud. They've shouted it repeatedly that their objective in that proceeding was in fact to put Dr. [9:35] Fauci behind bars. He was represented by counsel who attempted to speak at this proceeding. Even during [9:44] the darkest days of the McCarthy hearings, counsel were allowed to speak. We denied that opportunity [9:54] to Dr. Fauci and we should hear from his counsel before we move on this motion so that we can hear [10:05] his side of the legal argument here. And I would simply predict, Mr. Chairman, based on the long history [10:15] of assertion of self-incrimination rights, that there is virtually no chance that a court would [10:21] actually approve any contempt because he had a well-founded fear of self-incrimination which entitled [10:30] him to invoke the Fifth Amendment and we should hear from his counsel. I ask for a roll call vote. [10:39] Even when the Fifth Amendment is appropriately taken where no pardon exists, [10:42] the Fifth Amendment doesn't allow you to testify on the other side of the question. Basically, [10:49] you are allowed not to self-incriminate, but you're not allowed to say, oh, I'm not going to self-incriminate, [10:55] but then I'm going to condemn the committee and the investigation. So he attempted to do that [10:58] in his opening statement, which courts have looked poorly upon, trying to have it both ways, [11:04] and allowing the attorney to take the positive role of saying this is what he would have said had he [11:10] spoken, but he's not going to speak, also doesn't fit in with the history of the Fifth Amendment. [11:15] So I will move to table. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? I will oppose tabling, the tabling motion. Mr. Chairman, [11:21] just to clarify, what's the name of the attorney? The attorney could be of Dr. Fauci's choice, [11:30] as I recall. No, no, the attorney that you're speaking of. But you said you want to hear from the [11:34] attorney. What's the name of the attorney you want to hear from? I think it was David Shardler. Mr. [11:39] Shardler. Okay. Could we put in the record that he is also the attorney for Senator Menendez in a [11:48] bribery scandal? And also, are you asking that you think it was something you'd be prosecuted for, [11:54] for answering Senator Hawley's questions about the color of the carpet? We could hear, by the way, [11:58] from Mr. Honorato, who also represented. But you think there was jeopardy in answering questions, [12:03] what's the color of your tie? What's the color of the floor? What's the color of the room? The format of the [12:09] hearing and the responses and who would be there could be determined by the committee. All I'm [12:15] asking is that we postpone this motion until we hear from an attorney of Dr. Fauci's choice representing [12:24] his Fifth Amendment rights. And to respond to Senator Paul, there is well-established precedent [12:32] that witnesses have their attorneys here make statements before the committee, even during the [12:39] McCarthy hearings. There is also well-established precedent for a witness providing a statement [12:45] at the outset and then declining to answer questions afterward. I think most of the prosecutors here [12:51] know that if one of us as a prosecutor had said, I'm putting this witness behind bars, [12:59] and then call him to a grand jury or any other proceeding, there's simply no way that a court would [13:05] say you can hold him in contempt because he's invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. I mean, this is sort of black [13:11] letter, basic constitutional rights, Senator Moreno. And I think all of us in this committee really have a stake [13:18] in making sure those rights are respected, because if we tear down the precedents and the principles [13:26] of the Fifth Amendment now, there is no telling where the decline will wind us up and we will all reap [13:36] the windfall. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Not to disagree with my fellow former attorney, [13:43] General Senator Blumenthal. The reason, but since Senator Moreno mentioned it, the reason that I asked [13:49] Dr. Fauci what color his tie was and what day of the week it was and what color the carpet is, he looked, [13:55] by the way. I thought he was going to answer that one. He looked very carefully at the carpet, then he [13:59] decided not to answer. The reason I asked those questions was precisely to test the good faith [14:06] nature of his invocation of the Fifth Amendment, because as the lawyers in the room will know, [14:11] the invocation of the Fifth Amendment, particularly in a context where immunity has already been [14:15] obtained, Dr. Fauci has full immunity, he has a full and unconditional pardon for a period of some 11 [14:20] years. In that context, the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege only adheres to those instances [14:26] where the witness has a reasonable fear of future prosecution and it must be tailored to any such [14:32] fear. And the fact that he wouldn't answer questions about the tie he was wearing or the color of the [14:38] carpet or the day of the week, Senator Paul asked him about, did he have a folder in front of him? He [14:41] wouldn't answer that, betrays the fact that his invocation of the Fifth Amendment wasn't tailored to [14:46] anything. It was a predetermined, premeditated design to evade this committee's questions on any subject, [14:54] including emphatically those for which he has a pardon. And the United States Supreme Court has [14:59] been clear for over a century, dating back to 1896, that when a witness has received immunity, he may [15:05] not stand upon his privilege. And multiple courts of appeals, including the United States Supreme Court [15:12] in the Kastegar case, it says that, I'm going to quote now, a witness must reasonably believe that his [15:17] statements could be used in criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used. [15:22] The court has also said that the danger must be real and appreciable. It must not be one of imaginary [15:27] and unsubstantial character. All that to say that, I think it's pretty clear, given Dr. Fauci's 111 [15:35] invocations of the Fifth Amendment, including the questions that he could have no fear of [15:40] prosecution on. He's not going to get prosecuted for the color of his tie. Shows that he had no interest [15:46] and no intention of answering any of our questions. And that is an abuse of the privilege. There's no privilege [15:50] for any of that. And I think there was no good faith attempt to. Mr. Chairman, I really need to answer with [15:56] your permission that point. Senator Blumenthal. Whether he had a reasonable fear, I think, is beyond question. [16:06] Not only the chairman of the committee, but three state attorneys general have said that they are [16:14] conducting investigation of Dr. Fauci. The color of his tie, the color of the carpet. Maybe you were [16:24] testing his good faith, but the standard is not the response to your questions. It is whether he had [16:31] a reasonable fear. And it is to be liberally construed, as you know, under the Supreme Court cases, [16:39] that you cited in favor of the potential defendant. President Trump invoked the Fifth Amendment 440 times [16:48] in his deposition with the New York Attorney General. Nobody held him in contempt for doing so. This right [16:54] is so fundamental that we ought to seriously consider before we take this immensely historic step and hear [17:05] from his counsel as to what he feared, why, and how. And my motion would simply postpone consideration of [17:16] this contempt motion until we hear from him. The primary question of the hearing last week was to [17:24] understand why Dr. Fauci made the decision to do this funding of this research in Wuhan. [17:30] I can't understand how there could be any liability attached to a question of why. That's his opinion [17:35] of why he funded it. There's not a crime in funding it. There's a judgment. And Mr. Chairman, [17:40] there is that we got the Fifth Amendment. All he had to do was tell the truth. The clerk will call the [17:46] roll on the Blumenthal motion. I will vote no. Senator Johnson. No. Senator Langford. No. Senator Scott. [17:52] No. Senator Hawley. No. Senator Moreno. No. Senator Ernst. No. Senator Moody. Yes. Senator Peters. Yes. [18:02] Senator Hassan. Yes. Senator Blumenthal. Yes. Senator Federman. Yes. Senator Kim. Yes. Senator Gallego. Yes, [18:12] by proxy. Senator Slotkin. Yes, by proxy. Senator Paul. No. Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, [18:19] the yeas are five, the nays are eight, and the vote by proxy. The yeas are two, the nays are zero on this vote. The [18:23] yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, uh, I move to, uh, uh, [18:28] table this, uh, resolution. I move, uh, to table consideration of this resolution until the chairman commits to [18:35] abiding, uh, by the, uh, uh, uh, uh, whoops. That was my last one. I move to, uh, uh, consider until the [18:47] chairman provides all members of this committee, uh, with access to all documents, transcripts, [18:52] and materials related to this investigation, uh, which I have repeatedly, uh, requested since, uh, [18:59] the beginning of this Congress. Senate and committee rules are clear that, uh, all members of this [19:04] committee have a right to access, uh, committee documents. The chairman has publicly stated he has [19:10] received over one million documents as part of this, uh, investigation and has only shared a small [19:17] fraction, uh, with a minority despite repeated requests over the past year and a half. That's why [19:23] I urge my colleagues, uh, to vote for this. And I just want to reply to some of the comments, uh, made by [19:29] the chair that, uh, we just didn't want to look, uh, at this, uh, information. Uh, we have been, uh, asking for [19:37] information for quite some period of time over the past, uh, 18 months. And at every turn, uh, whether it's the [19:44] documents or, uh, trying to, uh, have the ability to, uh, question witnesses, we have been denied. [19:50] Just in April of this year, your staff conducted a transcribed interview of Ralph Baric without even [19:55] notifying my staff about the interview. After you posted the transcript, uh, publicly, we asked for the [20:02] unredacted version, uh, uh, and the classified portion. Received absolutely no response. You refused to let [20:10] the minority participate in the transcribed interview that Dr. Fauci agreed to do voluntarily, [20:14] to comment on one of my colleagues made, uh, we could just do it, uh, uh, and have a transcript, [20:19] uh, in private. Uh, we were open to that. Dr. Fauci was open to it. Uh, but we were declined, uh, [20:26] ability to do that. It was going to be one-sided. And when he knew it was going to be one-sided, [20:30] he didn't want to come in. This committee normally always deals in a bipartisan way. We should have been [20:35] there asking those questions, uh, as well. Um, I know that, um, the, uh, chairman says that [20:44] there were these documents were on some sort of, uh, website. Uh, we did not know about that website. [20:50] Uh, we were told that there was a letter talking about the website. We understand it was hard copy [20:55] only. We have no record of receiving it. Most of everybody on the dais has no record of receiving it. [21:00] And yet as we continually ask for documents, if there was this website, which is different than [21:07] what we have done as a committee, we always have a shared site where all of us can take a look at [21:11] documents. We all have a right as members of the committee to look at those documents. If this other [21:15] website existed, uh, and we were supposedly told about it in a, in a letter, uh, and we didn't get it. [21:21] We don't have any record of receiving it. We didn't see it. But there were numerous times where [21:25] the chairman staff, when we were asking for documents, could have said, hey, go to that website. [21:31] We have. Oh, okay. We'll take a look at it. We didn't. We made, I don't know. We have records [21:37] of all these emails. We have records. I can go through them. I don't need to maybe go through [21:41] them all. We got them tabbed. You know, where are these records? We'd like to see records. Crickets. [21:45] Nothing. No, no mention of it. Could have been a mention like, oh, well, by the way, we have this. This is [21:50] over 18 months. Like stonewalling for 18 months. That's not the way this committee should ever [21:57] work. It didn't work when I was chair. Now chairman Paul, we went through investigation. We had a [22:03] detailed investigation of COVID-19. All those documents were provided. We worked with then ranking [22:10] member Paul. Under chairman Paul, we don't get those records. That's just not the way this place [22:16] should work. And I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would realize that, too, [22:20] because things change. If we make this the new precedent, there will be a Democrat as a chair. [22:26] Would you want them to do that? Would you want to be treated that way? I don't think you're going [22:30] to want to be treated that way, as well. And you'll scream and holler about it. And we should stop it [22:36] right now. Let's continue to have the kind of bipartisan investigations that has made this committee [22:42] a powerful committee over the years. Right now, we're seeding all that. We're just making it [22:46] highly partisan. And when you make it highly partisan, people just ignore what you do. And that's [22:51] really tragic. I think it's sad. So I would urge my colleagues to table this resolution. Let us take a [22:57] look at these documents. They're on his private web or whatever he has set up for it. We'll take a look [23:04] at it. But we should get back to the practice where we actually have shared information. I know when [23:09] Senator Johnson was chair, we had shared information. I know he wanted shared information under chairman [23:17] Paul's chairmanship as well. Okay, we need to get to the motion. [23:20] So, but I'm, well, let me finish. I've let you go on and on. And we're going to get to the votes. [23:26] Well, I understand that. But I don't remember ever cutting you off when you were a ranking member. [23:33] And I've always respected your rights. And I continue to respect your rights. I would just hope that you [23:39] would offer that same courtesy to us. Because things do change. And precedent is important. And I would urge my [23:45] colleagues to table this resolution until we have a chance to look at the information as has been the [23:51] practice of this committee for as long as this committee has been in existence. For the record, [23:56] Anthony Fauci refused a voluntary private deposition. And that's why he was brought in under subpoena. [24:01] Because it was going to be one-sided. Don't interrupt the chair. Don't interrupt the chair. [24:06] With regard to access to records, there has been an unprecedented access to records. They have all been [24:13] uploaded on a website that you were invited to join. You refused to join. You had utter disdain. [24:20] You never even asked for the password. Not one of you ever signed up. It's been up for over a year. [24:24] The information is there for the taking. I've repeated it publicly over and over. Don't come to this [24:31] hearing saying you weren't given the records. The records were given. The clerk will call the roll. [24:35] Senator Johnson. No. Senator Lankford. No. You've been talking ad nauseam. [24:42] Senator Hawley. Senator Moreno. Senator Ernst. Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Yes. [24:50] Senator Hassan. Yes. Senator Blumenthal. Yes. Senator Fetterman. Senator Kim. Senator Gallego. [25:01] Yes, by proxy. Senator Slotkin. Yes, by proxy. Senator Paul. No. Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, [25:08] the yeas are five. The nays are eight. On the vote by proxy, the yeas are two. The nays are zero. On this vote, [25:12] the yeas are seven. The nays are eight. And the motion is not agreed to. [25:14] Mr. Chairman. Seeing no other motions. The question is on reporting of an original resolution. [25:19] Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. Mr. Chairman. We will entertain more motions, [25:24] but the discussion has become dilatory. And so the discussion. I have one more motion. Listen to my [25:30] ruling. The discussion will be for two minutes. You will have two minutes to present your motion. [25:37] Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to postpone consideration of this [25:42] resolution until this committee has an opportunity to seek leave from the Department of Justice to [25:49] obtain a court order providing Dr. Fauci with immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony [25:56] on matters raised during the committee's hearing. The immunity from prosecution could be limited to [26:04] perjury. It is standard procedure. And again, we need to hear from his counsel as to whether it would be [26:10] satisfactory to provide immunity. If this committee is really interested in serious answers to the [26:16] serious questions, it will seek to provide him with this very limited immunity to appear before this [26:25] committee. There is a need for a serious inquiry to answer questions arising from the pandemic. We need to [26:33] know where COVID originated, how it spread, what could have been done better. We need to hear not only from [26:41] Dr. Fauci, but from others in the course of a bipartisan, nonpartisan inquiry, perhaps through a commission [26:49] where, again, Dr. Fauci could testify, a 9-11 type commission. But this kind of show trial is no way to [26:58] elicit the important information that the country needs to know. So I ask that we postpone consideration [27:05] this resolution until we can give Dr. Fauci the kind of legal protection against self-incrimination that [27:13] he needs. The clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson. No. Senator Lankford. No. Senator Scott. Nope. [27:20] Senator Hawley. No. Senator Moreno. Senator Ernst. Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Yes. Senator Hassan. Yes. Senator Blumenthal. [27:31] Senator Fetterman. Senator Kim. Senator Gallego. Yes, by proxy. Senator Slotkin. Yes, by proxy. Senator Paul. No. [27:45] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are 5, the nays are 8. On the vote by proxy, [27:49] the yeas are 2, the nays are 0. On this vote, the yeas are 7, the nays are 8. And the motion is not agreed to. [27:53] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, Mr. Chairman, without objection, I'd like to enter in the record all of the copies of [28:00] emails that we sent to your staff asking to have access to information. And you will see in these emails [28:09] there's either absolutely no response or no way to understand that there's a separate email or a separate [28:16] place somewhere where we can get an email. Certainly, I'll put these in the records without objection. [28:20] Certainly, we'd be opening open to see any emails that actually told us about this. We can't find any in any of [28:25] our electronic records. And we'd be open to seeing that. But I would like to do this without [28:30] objection. Without objection. Seeing no other motions, the question is on reporting an original [28:35] resolution regarding... Mr. Chairman, pursue it to committee rule 6B, if I may. Mr. Chairman, go ahead. [28:42] Seeing no other motions, the question is on reporting of an original resolution regarding contempt of [28:46] Congress. The clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson. Yes. Senator Lankford. Aye. [28:51] Senator Scott. Yes. Senator Hawley. Aye. Senator Moreno. [28:56] On behalf of the millions of people harmed by Anthony Fauci, resoundingly yes. Senator Ernst. Aye. [29:01] Senator Moody. Aye. Senator Peters. No. Senator Hassan. No. Senator Blumenthal. [29:10] Senator Fetterman. Senator Kim. No. Senator Gallego. No, by proxy. Senator Slotkin. No, by proxy. [29:19] Senator Paul. Yes. Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are 8, the nays are 5. On the vote [29:28] by proxy and for the record only, the yeas are 0, the nays are 2. On this vote, the yeas are 8, the nays are 5, and the motion is agreed to. [29:35] Mr. Chairman, uh, uh, pursuant, pursuant to committee rule. Mr. Chairman. [29:43] We've had ample remarks on this. The chair will limit remarks to two minutes. I will give you another [29:48] chance to state your opinion, which has been amply stated. You have two minutes. [29:53] Well, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to committee rule 6b and senate rule 26, section 10c, I'm notifying you that [30:00] I intend to file minority views regarding this resolution. The clerk will report the conclusion [30:07] of the vote. Just did. And that is reported favorably. The committee will now proceed to [30:18] consideration of S-4505, a bill to require the U.S. Post Office to designate zip codes for certain [30:24] communities. Um, Senator Ernst. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's markup. And I do have an [30:32] amendment at the desk in the nature of a substitute for S-4505 designating single zip codes. Americans [30:41] deserve timely and efficient mail service. And unfortunately, far too many of our communities [30:48] aren't having their needs met by the United States Postal Service. We have delayed tax refunds. We have [30:54] voter registration confusion. There are misdirected prescription deliveries. And it's time we change this [31:03] because our families are facing real-world consequences by having an outdated USPS zip code. [31:12] So these folks aren't minor inconveniences. They are affecting our families. Now, cities can appeal to [31:22] the U.S. Postal system for changing their zip codes. And most often, the answer is no to those communities. [31:31] And unfortunately, the process is not transparent. And they can only appeal these no's every 10 years. [31:41] And so we have communities like Urbandale, Iowa, where families, our medical centers, and our schools [31:48] are not receiving their mail or have to send someone to a post office, a community over to collect their [31:56] misdirected mail. This is not acceptable. And it is time for Congress to act. A lot of folks will say [32:04] that Congress shouldn't be involved in this, but we should be because this is one place where the [32:10] Constitution couldn't be clearer. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 says Congress has the power to establish post [32:18] offices and post roads. In other words, fixing postal problems is one of the jobs that we are actually [32:25] supposed to do. The USPS has not been doing its job. And so it's time for Congress to step in and fix [32:33] these zip code boundaries. Let's pass this bill. The substitute actually adds eight additional communities [32:42] into the bill. This bill passed by voice vote in the House of Representatives. So I am asking and [32:50] urging all of my colleagues to support my amendment to the underlying bill. And I would like to submit [32:57] for the record the letter asking for those eight additional communities to be included. [33:03] Without objection. Are there further amendments? [33:06] Mr. Chairman. [33:08] Do you have an amendment to offer? [33:11] I'm going to comment on the amendment. [33:13] Is there a comment on the bill? [33:17] Let's go with the amendments first. Are there any amendments to be offered? [33:20] The substitute.