Senate committee holds more votes after holding Fauci in contempt of Congress — full video

[0:00] seeing it why he told his colleagues to delete emails why he told them to delete emails and then [0:06] delete the deleted file what was he told in january 2020 what was said on those calls what his agency [0:14] did with and for the intelligence community and whether knowing what he knows now he still believes [0:21] that the risks were worth taking documents tell only part of the story many of these questions [0:27] can be answered only by dr fauci he under he answered none of them there will be another [0:33] pandemic the time to determine which legislative reforms are necessary to ensure that the mistakes [0:40] of the past are not repeated is now not later this committee passed the bipartisan risky research [0:47] review act to strengthen oversight of dangerous life sciences research funded by the federal [0:52] government to address failures exposed by the covet 19 pandemic but congress cannot determine what [0:59] additional reforms are necessary until it fully understands what remains unanswered holding a [1:05] witness in contempt is a serious thing and it should be rare but the contempt power exists for precisely [1:11] this circumstance oversight is not a courtesy this committee extends or a favor a former official [1:18] grants us it is a constitutional obligation and when voluntary cooperation ends congress must be able to compel [1:25] compliance with its lawful demands that is congress's compulsory instrument a subpoena is not an invitation [1:33] a subpoena with no consequence is not a subpoena it's a suggestion seeking the truth is not a witch hunt [1:40] accountability is not vengeance accountability is what stands between the american people [1:45] and a repeat of the mistakes and the very real consequences of the past the senator peters you're [1:53] recognized thank you mr chairman the uh senate homeland security and government affairs committee has a long [2:01] and very proud history of conducting serious bipartisan oversight on behalf of the american people democrats [2:10] and republicans have worked together to follow the facts compel information and hold both democratic [2:17] and republican administrations alike accountable that work depends on the credibility of this committee [2:26] it depends on the legitimacy of our investigations and a recognition by witnesses courts and the public [2:33] that congress is exercising its powers dutifully the contempt resolution before us today puts [2:42] all of that at risk following a one-sided investigation and a rushed process that has [2:49] repeatedly excluded the minority and other members of this committee the chairman is now asking the [2:55] committee to take a vote that could harm our ability to conduct future investigations and disregards [3:02] constitutional protections long recognized by the u.s senate all without making a reliable case that there [3:10] is a legal basis for holding dr fauci in contempt let's be clear this resolution will not provide the committee [3:18] committee with any additional information or compel dr fauci to provide answers to our inquiries criminal [3:26] contempt is punitive it does not compel a witness to answer questions or produce the documents we'd all like [3:34] to see what it will do is create a damaging precedent that future witnesses will use to resist legitimate [3:42] constitutional or excuse me congressional oversight and weaken this committee's ability to compel [3:48] testimony for decades the senate has maintained that a witness must appear before a committee even when [3:56] that witness intends to invoke the fifth amendment senate committees have been able to defend that position in the courts [4:02] in the courts because both democratic and republican chairs have considered have consistently recognized [4:08] and respected the constitutional rights of witnesses when they appear and when a witness refuses to [4:17] voluntarily appear that principle leaves the senate on very strong ground to compel their appearance and [4:25] where necessary in rare instances make referrals for criminal contempt if this committee now seeks to punish a [4:31] witness for asserting their constitutional protected fifth amendment rights future witnesses will argue that [4:38] appearing before congress exposes them to punishment regardless of they whether they comply with the subpoena [4:44] and invoke a constitutional protection they will point directly to this vote this vote as a justification for [4:51] refusing to appear at all that would make it harder for this committee and every committee in congress to compel [4:58] testimony in future investigations the chairman has also suggested he may attempt to refer this matter to [5:05] the department of justice without approval of the full senate that would be even more dangerous [5:12] and widely unprecedented move no individual center senator and no committee speaks for the entire senate as a whole [5:23] the senate's institutional powers belong to the full body allowing one chairman to unilaterally assert those powers [5:31] would invite future chairs in both parties to bypass the senate whenever they cannot secure the support of their colleagues [5:39] this investigation has been one-sided from the beginning the minority has excluded uh been has been excluded from [5:48] witness interviews and full access to committee records and information has been selectively released to support [5:55] conclusions that the chairman reached years ago a process that likes lacks bipartisan participation and seeks to [6:02] confirm predetermined conclusions it does not strengthen congressional oversight it makes our work to conduct [6:10] oversight more challenging and less likely to withstand scrutiny this committee should not damage its future [6:17] investigative authority to advance the chairman's years-long campaign against a single signal a single [6:23] individual it is not just what we investigate that matters and that really matters what we investigate [6:29] but it's also how we conduct those investigations that matters too so i urge my colleagues to protect this [6:36] committee protect the senate's institutional powers and oppose this uh this resolution thank you mr chairman [6:46] despite minority statements to the contrary this investigation has been conducted with unparalleled [6:51] transparency thousands and thousands of documents have been put up for review from the minority you have to [6:57] request a password they've been for informed of that not one democrat has requested a password to look at any of the documents [7:05] so there is transparency they're just not interested in reviewing the documents mr chair i'm sorry i didn't mean to interrupt [7:15] i just also want to take a moment to address today's contempt resolution vote there is a real need for a serious [7:22] bipartisan examination into what went well and what went wrong during our country's response to the pandemic [7:29] but that's not what we saw last week in this committee instead my colleagues in the majority [7:34] held a hearing openly designed to target a single doctor and dedicated public servant who has testified [7:41] before congress many times before and they wanted to blame him for everything that went wrong during [7:47] the pandemic the goal was clear and i want to emphasize this the goal was to wait for dr fauci to make any kind [7:57] of misstatement and then have a weaponized department of justice file criminal charges for that [8:04] new statement that would not have been covered by the pardon leaving dr fauci little choice but to invoke his [8:11] constitutional right to not walk directly into a trap so who's helped by this political theater [8:20] it's certainly not this committee which now goes without answers to the important questions about [8:25] our pandemic response that would help us prepare for future pandemics it's certainly not parents [8:31] who are not seeing any action to reverse the devastated cuts to the affordable care act [8:37] and medicaid that kicked them off their health insurance it's certainly not our children who are [8:41] seeing no pushback or hearings in this committee on the baseless attacks on science of vaccines coming [8:47] from senator robert f kennedy jr and his administration sadly this is gamesmanship and it represents [8:54] everything wrong with congress which under this majority is clearly not focused on the priorities of the [9:00] american people mr chairman let's be clear all that was required from anthony fauci last week was to [9:07] tell the truth he had no liability if he told the truth senator johnson mr chairman first of all i want to [9:12] associate myself with in second year opening comments um and i also want to strongly rebut the comments [9:22] from our democrat colleagues here you know particularly when ranking member peter says this has been one-sided [9:29] and rushed rushed when i was chairman of this committee back in 2020 i started conducting oversight i held [9:38] hearings there was no cooperation those hearings as a matter of fact i remember one when we held a hearing [9:45] with dr pierre quarter when he came in with uh all kinds of evidence on the effectiveness of ivermectin [9:51] the ranking member then denigrated him back then dr corey was a democrat he was shocked at the [10:01] treatment he was given by the right ranking member how many people died because they lacked early treatment [10:09] with safe effective generic drugs well that hearing laid out the truth that this could be something that [10:18] could help people and we had a ranking member that did everything that he could to denigrate that [10:24] truth my current experience is the chairman of psi we've been holding hearings after hearings my [10:31] ranking member blewenthal in those hearings we had one called voice of the vaccine injured we had parents [10:41] come in and tell their heart-wrenching stories we had parents coming in telling the truth and the [10:49] ranking member a few hours before that hearing held a press conference said hope the press doesn't cover it [10:55] because there's nothing credible about this hearing if these investigations are one side it's because [11:02] one side simply doesn't want to look at the truth they want to bury the truth they want to memory hole it [11:12] they don't want to look at the the fauci diaries and take a look at how contradictory what he wrote to [11:19] himself how contradictory it was to what he actually told the public i think one of the revelations of [11:28] those diaries i think probably the most significant one that's being overlooked was early on in the [11:32] pandemic he wrote in his diaries he thought covert would be maybe twice a bad flu season now i'm [11:40] not downplaying a bad flu season we have them oftentimes they overwhelm hospitals something takes [11:45] seriously but a pandemic is going to be twice that is that is that really worth destroying people's [11:53] lives shutting down businesses destroying economy i argued back then that it wouldn't be it's been six years [12:06] since the since the pandemic began we have not had a reckoning of what happened last wednesday's [12:16] hearing was an excellent hearing from a standpoint of legitimate questions being raised legitimate [12:22] questions the american people want answers to legitimate questions that some of them only anthony fauci [12:29] saint fauci mr science could answer and even though we have quotes of him saying i'm not afraid of any [12:38] oversight committee i'm happy to talk to any oversight committee i have nothing to hide that's not the [12:46] position he took last wednesday what he displayed last wednesday was contempt for congress contempt for [12:59] this committee contempt for our investigation the same contempt that our ranking member our ranking members [13:08] have shown for the diligent oversight and the exposing of the truth that i've been undertaking for six [13:17] years there's nothing rushed it's been one-sided but not because we haven't reached out not because we [13:24] haven't involved the other side the other side like way too many americans have just closed their eyes [13:32] covered up their ears and refused refused to look at the truth i am definitely going to vote yes on [13:45] contempt of congress and my investigation has just begun we've invited dr fauci for a transcribed interview [13:54] okay he doesn't want to do it in front of the american public come in front of our front of our [13:58] committee we'll go through detail and detail you say you you have nothing to hide good we'll do it [14:04] behind closed doors we'll transcribe it that's only one of the interviews we'll be conducting so again [14:12] no this this this last week's hearing just began the accountability there's a lot more accountability [14:20] that's required thank you mr chairman the committee will now proceed to consideration of an original [14:25] resolution we're going to continue the debate once we get on it there's going to be time for everyone [14:29] to speak the committee will now proceed to consideration of an original resolution [14:34] authorizing the president of the senate to certify to the united states attorney for the district of [14:38] columbia columbia the committee's report concerning dr anthony fauci's refusal to answer questions [14:44] required by committee subpoena mr chairman i'm uh move the uh motion is to be tabled this motion to [14:53] the table is intended to avoid accountability we only have one question whether to hold a witness [14:59] responsible for his contempt towards congress the witness had many chances to answer the questions [15:04] pertinent to our investigation and he made his decision 111 times i will oppose this motion and urge my [15:10] colleagues to do the same the clerk will call mr comment on the motion mr chairman mr chairman i moved [15:16] a table this resolution until the chairman commits to abiding by the senate rules practice and laws that [15:25] address attempt of congress under the senate rules long-standing practice as well as the u.s code following [15:31] a committee vote the full senate must vote to determine whether to refer a resolution of contempt of [15:38] congress to the department of justice the senate as a body not an individual member must make that [15:44] decision given the chairman paul has indicated he may attempt to bypass this process which is required [15:51] by senate rules and precedent members of this committee should move to table this resolution until we can [15:56] be assured by the chairman that he will not take action that weaken the senate's and this committee's [16:02] ability to conduct oversight in the future the clerk will call the roll second the motion senator johnson no [16:14] senator langford senator scott no senator holly senator moreno senator ernst senator moody [16:24] senator peters yes senator hassan yes senator blumenthal yes senator fetterman yes senator kim yes [16:35] senator gallego yes by proxy senator slocken yes by proxy senator paul no mr chairman on the vote of those [16:52] present the yeas are five the nays are eight on the vote by proxy the yeas are two the nays are zero on this [16:57] vote the yeas are seven the nays are eight and the motion is not agreed to mr chairman i move to table [17:06] consideration of this resolution until the chairman invites the views of legal experts who can speak to [17:11] the constitutional questions and legal authorities chairman paul has raised in his contempt of congress [17:16] resolution this resolution should be tabled until our committee can hear from independent experts about [17:22] the applicability of the fifth amendment and other constitutional considerations raised by the chairman's [17:27] actions this motion is intended to avoid accountability um i will oppose this motion and urge my colleagues [17:34] to do the same press the roll call the roll senator johnson no senator langford no senator scott nope [17:43] senator holly no senator marino senator ernst senator moody senator peters yes senator hassan yes [17:54] senator blumenthal yes senator fetterman all right senator kim yes senator gallego yes by proxy [18:02] senator slottkin yes by proxy senator paul no mr chairman senator blumenthal all right let's hear the [18:12] let's hear the vote first on the vote of those present the yeas are five the nays are eight on the vote [18:17] by proxy the yeas are two the nays are zero on this vote the yeas are seven the nays are eight and the motion is not agreed to [18:22] thank you mr senator blumenthal uh i move to postpone consideration of this resolution until the committee [18:30] has an opportunity to hear from dr fauci's attorney who was forcibly removed from the hearing last week [18:39] i should point out that dr fauci had a well-founded fear based on facts that he was in jeopardy of [18:49] prosecution for perjury in fact the chairman and others on the committee have said the quiet part out loud [18:57] they've shouted it repeatedly that their objective in that proceeding was in fact to put dr fauci behind [19:05] bars he was represented by council who attempted to speak at this proceeding even during the darkest days [19:13] of the mccarthy hearings council were allowed to speak we denied that opportunity to dr fauci and we should [19:26] hear from his council before we move on this motion so that we can hear his side of the legal argument [19:38] here and i would simply predict mr chairman based on the long history of assertion of self-incrimination [19:46] rights that there is virtually no chance that a court would actually approve any contempt because he had a [19:54] well-founded fear of self-incrimination which entitled him to invoke the fifth amendment and [20:03] we should hear from his council i ask for a roll call vote even when the fifth amendment is appropriately [20:09] taken where no pardon exists the fifth amendment uh doesn't allow you to testify on the other side of [20:15] the question basically you are you are allowed not to self-incriminate but you're not allowed to say [20:22] oh i'm not going to self-incriminate but then i'm going to condemn the committee and the investigation [20:26] so he attempted to do that in his opening statement which courts have looked poorly upon trying to have [20:31] it both ways and allowing the attorney to take the positive role of saying this is what he would have [20:37] said had he spoken but he's not going to speak also doesn't fit in with the history of the fifth [20:42] amendment so i will move to table mr chairman mr chairman i will oppose tabling the tabling motion mr [20:49] chairman just to clarify uh what who what's the name of the attorney uh the attorney could be of [20:57] dr fauci's choice as i know no the attorney that you're saying yes but you said you want to hear from [21:02] the attorney what's the name of the attorney you want to hear from i think it was david shardler uh mr [21:08] uh shellard okay uh could we put in a record uh that he is also the uh the attorney for senator [21:15] menendez in a bribery scandal and also are you asking that you think it was something you'd be prosecuted [21:22] for for answering senator holly's questions about the color of the carpet we could hear by the way [21:26] from mr honorado who also represented uh but you think there was jeopardy in answering questions what's [21:32] the color of your tie what's the color of the of the floor what's the color the format of the hearing [21:38] and the responses and who would be there could be determined by the committee all i'm asking is that [21:44] we postpone this motion until we hear from an attorney of dr fauci's choice representing his [21:54] fifth amendment rights and to respond to senator paul there is well established precedent that [22:02] witnesses have their attorneys here make statements before the committee even during the mccarthy [22:08] hearings there is also well-established precedent for a witness providing a statement at the outset and then [22:14] declining to answer questions afterward i think most of the prosecutors here know that if one of us [22:22] as a prosecutor had said i'm putting this witness behind bars and then call him to a grand jury or any [22:30] other proceeding there's simply no way that a court would say you can hold him in contempt because [22:35] he's invoked his fifth amendment rights i mean this is sort of black letter basic constitutional rights [22:42] senator moreno and i think all of us in this committee really have a stake in making sure those [22:48] rights are respected because if we tear down the precedents and the principles of the fifth amendment [22:55] now there is no telling where the decline will wind us up and we will all reap the windfall mr chairman [23:06] yes not to uh not to disagree with my fellow attorney former attorney general senator blumenthal [23:12] the reason but since senator moreno mentioned it the reason that i asked dr fauci what color his tie [23:19] was and what day of the week it was and what color the carpet is he looked by the way i thought he's [23:25] going to answer that one he looked very carefully at the carpet then he decided not to answer [23:29] the reason i asked those questions was precisely to test the good faith nature of his invocation of [23:36] the fifth amendment because as the lawyers in the room will know the invocation of the fifth amendment [23:41] particularly in a context where immunity has already been obtained dr fauci has full immunity he has a [23:45] full and unconditional pardon for a period of some 11 years in that context the assertion of the fifth [23:51] amendment privilege only adheres to those instances where the witness has a reasonable fear of future [23:57] prosecution and it must be tailored to any such fear and the fact that he wouldn't answer questions [24:03] about the tie he was wearing or the color of the carpet of the day of the week senator paul asked him [24:08] about did he have a folder in front of me he wouldn't answer that betrays the fact that his invocation [24:13] the fifth amendment wasn't tailored to anything it was a predetermined premeditated design to evade this [24:20] this committee's questions on any subject including emphatically those for which he has a pardon [24:25] and the united states supreme court has been clear for over a century dating back to 1896 [24:30] that when a witness has received immunity he may not stand upon his privilege and multiple courts of [24:37] appeals from the united including the united states supreme court in the castigar case it says that [24:42] i'm going to quote now a witness must reasonably believe that his statements could be used in [24:46] criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used the court has also said that [24:52] the danger must be real and appreciable it must not be one of imaginary and unsubstantial character [24:57] all that to say that i think it's pretty clear given dr fauci's 111 invocations of the fifth amendment [25:05] including the questions that he had could have no fear of prosecution on something to get prosecuted [25:10] for the color of his tie shows that he had no interest and no intention of answering any of our [25:16] questions and that is an abuse of the there's no privilege for any of that and i think there was [25:20] no good faith attempt to mr chairman i i really need to answer with your permission that point senator [25:29] blumenthal whether he had a reasonable fear i think is beyond question not only the chairman of the [25:37] committee but three state attorneys general have said that they are conducting investigation of dr fauci [25:46] the color of his tie the color of the carpet maybe you were testing his good faith but the standard [25:55] is not the response to your questions it is whether he had a reasonable fear and it is to be liberally [26:05] construed as you know under the supreme court cases that you cited in favor of the potential defendant [26:12] president trump invoked the fifth amendment 440 times in his deposition with the new york attorney general [26:19] nobody held him in contempt for doing so this right is so fundamental that we ought to seriously [26:27] consider before we take this immensely historic step and hear from his counsel as to what he feared why [26:39] and how and my motion would simply postpone consideration this contempt motion until we hear from him the the [26:50] primary question of the hearing last week was to understand why uh dr fauci made the decision to do this [26:57] funding of this research in wuhan i can't understand how there could be any liability attached to a [27:01] question of why that's his opinion of why he funded it there's not a crime in funding it there's a [27:07] judgment and mr chairman there is that we got the fifth amendment all he had to do was tell the truth [27:13] clerk will call the roll on the blumenthal motion i will vote no senator johnson no senator langford no [27:19] senator scott no senator holly no senator moreno no senator ernst no senator moody yes senator peters yes [27:31] senator hassan yes senator blumenthal yes senator fetterman yes senator kim yes senator gallego yes by [27:40] proxy senator slotkin yes by proxy senator paul no mr chairman on the vote of those present the [27:47] yeas are five the nays are eight and the vote by proxy the yeas are two the nays are zero in this vote the [27:51] the yeas are 7, the nays are 8, and the motion is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I move to table this [27:57] resolution. I move to table consideration of this resolution until the chairman commits to abiding [28:04] by the, oops, that was my last one. I move to consider until the chairman provides all members [28:17] of this committee with access to all documents, transcripts, and materials related to this [28:22] investigation, which I have repeatedly requested since the beginning of this Congress. Senate and [28:30] committee rules are clear that all members of this committee have a right to access committee [28:35] documents. The chairman has publicly stated he has received over 1 million documents as part of this [28:42] investigation and has only shared a small fraction with a minority despite repeated requests over the [28:50] past year and a half. That's why I urge my colleagues to vote for this. And I just want to reply to some [28:56] of the comments made by the chair that we just didn't want to look at this information. We have [29:04] been asking for information for quite some period of time over the past 18 months. And at every turn, [29:11] whether it's the documents or trying to have the ability to question witnesses, we have been denied. [29:18] Just in April of this year, your staff conducted a transcribed interview of Ralph Barrick without even [29:24] notifying my staff about the interview. After you posted the transcript publicly, we asked for the [29:30] unredacted version and the classified portion. Received absolutely no response. You refused to let the [29:38] minority participate in the transcribed interview that Dr. Fauci agreed to do voluntarily. A comment that one of my [29:44] colleagues made, we could just do it and have a transcript in private. We were open to that. Dr. Fauci was open to it. [29:52] But we were declined ability to do that. It was going to be one sided. And when he knew it was going to be one sided, [29:58] he didn't want to come in. This committee normally always deals in a bipartisan way. We should have been [30:03] there asking those questions as well. I know that the chairman says that these documents were on some [30:14] sort of website. We did not know about that website. We were told that there was a letter talking about [30:21] the website. We understand it was hard copy only. We have no record of receiving it. Most of everybody on [30:27] the dais has no record of receiving it. And yet as we continually ask for documents, if there was this [30:34] website, which is different than what we have done as a committee, we always have a shared site where [30:38] all of us can take a look at documents. We all have a right as members of the committee to look at those [30:42] documents. If this other website existed and we were supposedly told about it in a letter and we didn't [30:49] get it, we don't have any record of receiving it, we didn't see it. But there were numerous times where [30:54] the chairman staff, when we were asking for documents, could have said, hey, go to that website. [30:59] We have, oh, okay, we'll take a look at it. We didn't. We made, I don't know, we have records [31:05] of all these emails. We have records. I can go through them. I don't need to maybe go through them [31:09] all. We got them tabbed. You know, where are these records? We'd like to see records. Crickets. Nothing. [31:15] No, no mention of it. Could have been a mention like, oh, well, by the way, we have this. This is over 18 months, [31:20] like stonewalling for 18 months. That's not the way this committee [31:25] should ever work. It didn't work when I was chair. Now Chairman Paul, we went through investigation. [31:31] We had a detailed investigation of COVID-19. All those documents were provided. We worked with [31:37] then-ranking member Paul. Under Chairman Paul, we don't get those records. That's just not the way this [31:43] place should work. And I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would realize that, too, [31:48] because things change. If we make this the new precedent, there will be a Democrat as a chair. [31:54] Would you want them to do that? Would you want to be treated that way? I don't think you're going to [31:58] want to be treated that way as well. And you'll scream and holler about it. And it should- we should [32:04] stop it right now. Let's continue to have the kind of bipartisan investigations that has made this [32:10] committee a powerful committee over the years. Right now, we're seeding all that. We're just making it [32:15] highly partisan. And when you make it highly partisan, people just ignore what you do. And that's really [32:20] tragic. I think it's sad. So I would urge my colleagues to table this resolution. Let us take [32:25] a look at these documents. They're on his private web or whatever he has set up for it. We'll take a [32:32] look at it. But we should get back to the practice where we actually have shared information. I know [32:37] when Senator Johnson was chair, we had shared information. I know he wanted shared information [32:45] under Chairman Paul's chairmanship as well. Okay, we need to get to the motion. So- but I'm- well, [32:50] let me finish. Is that- I've let you go on and on. And we're going to get to the votes. Well, [32:55] I understand that. But I don't remember ever cutting you off when you were a ranking member. And I've [33:02] always respected your rights. And I continue to respect your rights. I would just hope that you would [33:07] offer that same courtesy to us. Because things do change. And precedent is important. And I would urge my [33:13] colleagues to table this resolution until we have a chance to look at the rec- the information. [33:18] As has been the practice of this committee for as long as this committee has been in existence. [33:23] For the record, Anthony Fauci refused a voluntary private deposition. And that's why he was brought [33:28] in under subpoena. Because it was going to be one-sided. Don't interrupt the chair. Don't interrupt [33:33] the chair. With regard to access to records, there has been an unprecedented access to records. [33:40] They have all been uploaded on a website that you were invited to join. You refused to join. You [33:46] had utter disdain. You never even asked for the password. Not one of you ever signed up. [33:51] It's been up for over a year. The information is there for the taking. I've repeated it publicly [33:57] over and over. Don't come to this hearing saying you weren't given the records. The records were given. [34:02] The clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson. No. Senator Lankford. No. You've been talking ad [34:09] nauseam. Senator Hawley. Senator Moreno. Senator Ernst. Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Yes. Senator [34:19] Hassan. Yes. Senator Blumenthal. Yes. Senator Fetterman. Senator Kim. Senator Gallego. Yes, [34:29] by proxy. Senator Slotkin. Yes, by proxy. Senator Paul. No. Mr. Chairman, on the vote, [34:35] those present, the yeas are five, the nays are eight. On the vote by proxy, the yeas are two, [34:39] the nays are zero. On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight. And the motion is not [34:42] agreed to. Seeing no other motions. The question is on reporting of an original resolution. Mr. Chairman, [34:47] I have a motion. Mr. Chairman. We will entertain more motions, but the discussion has become dilatory. [34:55] And so the discussion. I have one more motion. Listen to my ruling. The discussion will be for two [35:02] minutes. You will have two minutes to present your motion. Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, [35:06] Mr. Chairman. I move to postpone consideration of this resolution until this committee has an [35:13] opportunity to seek leave from the Department of Justice to obtain a court order providing Dr. [35:19] Fauci with immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony on matters raised during the [35:27] committee's hearing. The immunity from prosecution could be limited to perjury. It is standard procedure. [35:35] And again, we need to hear from his counsel as to whether it would be satisfactory to provide [35:40] immunity. If this committee is really interested in serious answers to the serious questions, [35:46] it will seek to provide him with this very limited immunity to appear before this committee. There is a [35:54] need for a serious inquiry to answer questions arising from the pandemic. We need to know [36:03] where COVID originated, how it spread, what could have been done better. We need to hear not only from Dr. [36:10] Fauci, but from others in the course of a bipartisan, nonpartisan inquiry, perhaps through a commission, [36:17] where again, Dr. Fauci could testify, a 9-11 type commission. But this kind of show trial is no way to [36:26] elicit the important information that the country needs to know. So I ask that we postpone consideration [36:33] this resolution until we can give Dr. Fauci the kind of legal protection against self-incrimination that [36:41] he needs. The clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson. No. Senator Lankford. No. Senator Scott. Nope. [36:48] Senator Hawley. No. Senator Moreno. Senator Ernst. Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Yes. Senator Hassan. Yes. [36:58] Senator Blumenthal. Yes. Senator Fetterman. Senator Kim. Yes. Senator Gallego. Yes, by proxy. [37:06] Senator Slotkin. Yes, by proxy. Senator Paul. No. Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, [37:14] the yeas are five, the nays are eight. On the vote by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are zero. On this [37:18] vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight. And the motion is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, [37:24] Mr. Chairman, without objection, I'd like to enter in the record all of the copies of emails that we [37:30] sent to your staff asking to have access to information. And you will see in these emails, [37:37] there's either absolutely no response or no way to understand that there's a separate email or a separate [37:44] place somewhere where we can get an email. Certainly, I'll put these in the records without [37:48] objection. Certainly, we'd be opening open to see any emails that actually told us about this. We [37:52] can't find any in any of our electronic records. And we'd be open to seeing that. But we'll have [37:57] we'd like to do this without objection. Without objection. Seeing no other emotions, [38:01] the question is on reporting an original resolution regarding. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. [38:05] If I may. Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. Seeing no other motions, the question is on reporting of an original [38:13] resolution regarding contempt of Congress. The clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson. Yes. [38:17] Senator Lankford. Aye. Senator Scott. Yes. Senator Hawley. Aye. Senator Moreno. On behalf of the [38:25] millions of people harmed by Anthony Fauci, resoundingly, yes. Senator Ernst. Aye. Senator Moody. Aye. [38:31] Senator Peters. No. Senator Hassan. No. Senator Blumenthal. No. Senator Fetterman. Senator Kim. No. [38:41] Senator Gallego. No. By proxy. Senator Slotkin. No. By proxy. Senator Paul. Yes. [38:52] Mr. Chairman. On the vote of those present, the yeas are eight. The nays are five. On the vote by proxy [38:57] and for the record only, the yeas are zero. The nays are two. On this vote, the yeas are eight. The nays [39:01] are five. And the motion is agreed to. Mr. Chairman, uh, uh, pursue. I recognize you. Mr. Chairman. [39:11] We've had ample remarks on this. The chair will limit remarks to two minutes. I will give you another chance [39:17] to state your opinion, which has been amply stated. You have two minutes. Well, Mr. Chairman, [39:22] pursuant to Committee Rule 6B and Senate Rule 26, Section 10C, I'm notifying you that I intend to [39:30] file minority views regarding, uh, this resolution. The clerk will report the conclusion of the vote. [39:40] And that it is reported favorably. The committee will now proceed to consideration of S-4505, a bill to [39:49] require the U.S. Post Office to designate zip codes for certain communities. Um, uh, Senator Ernst. [39:56] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's markup. And I do have an amendment at the desk [40:02] in the nature of, uh, substitute for S-4505 designating single zip codes. Uh, Americans deserve [40:10] timely and efficient mail service. And unfortunately, far too many of our communities [40:16] aren't having their needs met by the United States Postal Service. We have delayed tax refunds. We have [40:23] voter registration confusion. There are misdirected prescription deliveries. And it's time we change [40:31] this because our families are facing real world world consequences by having an outdated USPS zip code. Um, [40:40] so these folks aren't minor inconveniences. They are affecting our families. Now, [40:47] cities can appeal to the U.S. Postal system for changing their zip codes. And most often, [40:56] the answer is no, uh, to those communities. And unfortunately, the process is not transparent, [41:03] and they can only appeal these no's every 10 years. And so we have communities like Urbandale, Iowa, [41:13] where families, our medical centers, and our schools are not receiving their mail or have to send someone [41:20] to a post office, a community over, uh, to collect their misdirected mail. This is not acceptable, [41:27] and it is time for Congress to act. Um, a lot of folks will say that Congress shouldn't be involved [41:34] in this, but we should be because this is one place where the Constitution couldn't be clearer. [41:40] Article one, section eight, clause seven says Congress has the power to establish post offices and post [41:47] roads. In other words, fixing postal problems is one of the jobs that we are actually supposed to do. [41:55] The USPS has not been doing its job, and so it's time for Congress to step in and fix these zip code [42:02] boundaries. Um, let's pass this bill. Uh, the substitute actually adds eight additional communities [42:11] into the bill. This bill passed by voice vote in the House of Representatives. So I am asking and urging [42:19] all of my colleagues to support my amendment to the underlying bill. And I would like to [42:25] submit for the record the, uh, letter asking for those eight additional communities to be included. [42:32] Without objection. Are there further amendments? Mr. Chairman. Uh, do you have an amendment to offer? [42:40] We've got a comment on the amendment. Is there a comment on the bill? [42:44] The bill. Let's go with the amendments first. Are there any amendments to be offered? [42:48] The substitute. Yes. We will consider the bill as a substitute. Thank you. [42:52] With the unanimous consent that the other eight be included. Uh, comments on the bill? [42:57] Mr. Chairman. Senator Peters. So I certainly understand my frustrations, uh, uh, with my [43:02] colleagues, uh, and certainly respect Senator Ernst immensely and been working with her on this issue. [43:07] I just want to raise the issue that under the leadership of chairs of both parties, [43:11] Hizgak has avoided, uh, legislating and established, uh, and establishing zip codes. Um, as the postmaster [43:18] general testified, uh, to Hizgak last month, each number in a zip code has a specific meaning. Uh, [43:24] and any changes to these numbers actually require corresponding changes to delivery units, processing [43:30] plants. It's not an easy process. It appears easy on the surface, uh, but it isn't. The postal service [43:37] actually estimates that these changes, which I think are the 83 communities, uh, may cost nearly [43:42] one billion dollars, according to the postal service. Passing this bill would be irresponsible [43:48] as the postal service continues to face financial difficulties. Uh, we, I certainly heard from my [43:52] colleagues and this panel. We all agree that the post office needs to become solvent. It needs to be [43:57] more efficient. They need to reduce cost. But this committee now wants to take action to add, [44:02] according to the postal service estimates, one billion dollars of cost. Uh, and, uh, while they [44:07] face serious financial problems, they're not even contributing to their employees' pension plans [44:11] right now. And we're asking them to incur additional costs, uh, for a complicated process, uh, that there is [44:17] a process within the postal service. We shouldn't be legislating and micromanaging the postal service. [44:22] That's not the way a business should have to operate. And I would urge my colleagues to vote no. [44:27] It's interesting that the people who lose nine billion dollars a year are telling us it'll cost [44:32] a billion dollars to change zip codes. That to me shows utter incompetence that you can't figure out [44:38] a software way of changing the zip codes for less than a billion dollars. That alone argues you for [44:44] being the wrong people in charge of the post office. And we need to address this. So I think that's a [44:50] crazy notion, a billion dollars to add about 15, uh, zip codes. My goodness, what incompetence? [44:57] Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, it's part of the sad fact. And, uh, you know, [45:02] I appreciate it. We get, I think those, uh, those eight additions are from Wisconsin cities who have [45:07] lobbied me pretty hard to do this exact same thing. And I understand it's kind of a vanity thing. You want [45:12] to have your community have its own zip code. I personally have never really quite understood that, but [45:17] you know, I'll, I'll take the postal services where it's going to cost them a lot of money, [45:21] disrupt things. And, uh, so again, I understand the good intentions. I understand communities [45:26] wanting to do this, but I'll, I'll be opposing this bill, not, not the amendment, but the bill. [45:33] Yes, uh, I understand. And, and for these cities, I don't believe it is a vanity, uh, project, uh, when [45:39] prescriptions are being delivered somewhere else, um, mail is misdirected. This is the federal [45:46] government's job and the fact that we don't want to spend money, uh, to correct what is going on [45:53] in these communities. I think it speaks to the fact that, that we are not doing our job if we can't [45:59] direct the postal service to actually deliver constituents mails in a timely manner. Um, so I do [46:06] believe the postal, uh, the postal service can do a much better job. We know that there's a lot of waste [46:12] within that organization, but certainly we can find a way to get people's mail delivered to their [46:18] communities. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Senator Lackford. May I make a brief comment on this? [46:23] The, the issue about zip codes is not just about, uh, zip codes for a specific community. It's also [46:29] about tax revenue for that community. Uh, as more and more e-commerce is happening, uh, a lot of that [46:34] tax revenue comes back in based on a zip code in a community. Uh, that matters to rural communities, [46:39] especially that they have the ability to be able to get the tax revenue that actually comes in [46:43] to that rural community. The Oklahoma zip codes that are included in this are exactly that issue [46:48] where the tax revenue is going to the wrong town based on e-commerce. And it's incredibly important [46:53] for those small rural communities to be able to maintain. The post office also assumes in their [46:57] figures that every one of these rural communities is going to have to have a physical post office. [47:01] It's including this large billion dollar number. I've said over and over again, they're not asking for a [47:06] post office. They're asking for their revenue to actually be directed to the right place on it. [47:10] And, uh, so I would challenge some of the numbers that there have been the assumptions that they're [47:14] making in this, but I do think this is important for those rural communities. And the only thing I [47:17] would add to that is that what happens is a town grows, another town grows, sometimes separated by [47:23] several miles. You have two distinct towns, but they have one zip code and it becomes confusing where [47:28] the mail goes to. And there is, there is a matter of, uh, you know, being a distinct community, [47:33] needing a distinct, um, zip code. Let's go ahead and vote on it. This will be on the modified bill [47:38] modified by the amendment. Senator Ernst added a few, uh, eight different zip codes. It'll be on S4, [47:44] four, five, zero, five, a bill to require the U S postal service to designate zip codes for certain [47:49] communities as modified. The clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson. No. Senator Langford. Aye. [47:56] Senator Scott. Aye. Senator Hawley. Aye. Senator Marino. Aye. Senator Ernst. Aye. Senator Moody. [48:05] Senator Peters. No. Senator Hassan. Aye. Senator Blumenthal. Senator Fetterman. Senator Kim. [48:16] Senator Gallego. No, by proxy. Senator Slotkin. No, by proxy. Senator Paul. Yes. Mr. Chairman, on the [48:32] vote of those present, the yeas are 10, the nays are 3. On the vote by proxy, and for the record, [48:35] only the yeas are 0, the nays are 2 in this vote. The yeas are 10, the nays are 3, and the motion is agreed to. [48:40] The next bill will be Senate Bill 2733, Duplication Scoring Act. This bill requires the [48:47] Government Accountability Office to review each committee-reported bill or joint resolution [48:52] and determine whether it is at risk of duplicating or overlapping with an existing program, helping us [48:57] to stop waste in government before it happens. For years, we've had a CBO score on how much something [49:03] costs. People come up with great ideas, great charitable notions and intentions, but they sometimes [49:10] aren't careful to look and find out that we already have 80 other federal programs doing the same thing. [49:14] So this would allow an independent agency to tell us, hey, you already tried this 14 times, [49:19] why don't you see if your previous 14 times are working before you create a new agency. [49:25] Are there any amendments? Seeing none, the question is on final passage of S2733. The Clerk will call the roll. [49:32] Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to thank you for the work on this bill. I appreciate it. [49:38] For your help also. Senator Johnson. Senator Lankford. Aye. Senator Scott. [49:45] Senator Hawley. Aye. Senator Moreno. Aye. Senator Ernst. Aye. Senator Moody. [49:52] Senator Peters. Aye. Senator Hassan. Aye. Senator Blumenthal. [49:58] Senator Fetterman. Aye, by proxy. Senator Kim. Aye. Senator Gallego. Aye, by proxy. [50:04] Senator Slotkin. Aye, by proxy. Senator Paul. Yes. [50:09] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are 12, the nays are 0. On the vote by proxy, [50:16] and for the record only the yeas are 3, the nays are 0. On this vote, the yeas are 12, the nays are 0. And the motion is agreed to. [50:21] The committee will now proceed to consideration of S2732, Bonuses for Cost Cutters Act. [50:28] This bill incentivizes federal employees to report waste, fraud, and abuse to the Inspector General, [50:34] Chief Financial Officer of the representative agencies. In private business, you're often given [50:39] a bonus for saving money for your employer. I think if we brought this private business incentive [50:45] into the government, it would be a good idea. I ask the committee to consider the Paul A&S as the [50:51] underlying bill. Without objection, are there any further amendments? Mr. Chairman. Senator Peters. [50:57] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer Peters Amendment 4. This amendment would prohibit agencies from [51:05] canceling grants solely, solely because of the political leadership of the state or local government [51:12] where the grant is located. In court filings from June, the Department of Energy admitted [51:20] that it canceled over 200 grants, quote, and this is, quote, based solely on the political identity [51:26] of the grant recipient's state, end of quote. This is not about reducing fraud or improving program [51:34] performance. The department wrote in court documents that the cancellations were, quote, again, [51:40] not based on any programmatic statutory cost reduction or performance-based factor, end of quote. It was just [51:49] plain old simple political retaliation. Agencies should fairly award grants to carry out programs that [51:57] Congress has authorized, not punish the president's political opponent of the day, whoever that may be. [52:04] So I'd urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment. Peter's Amendment 4. I support the [52:10] Senator's intent. Unfortunately, as written, I believe the amendment would prohibit the federal [52:15] government from making decisions about how to best use taxpayer dollars. It's also not germane to the bill. [52:21] I urge a no vote. Without any further debate, the clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson. No. Senator Lankford. No. Senator Scott. No. Senator Hawley. Senator Marino. No. Senator Ernst. Senator [52:32] Marino. Senator Ernst. Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Aye. Senator Hassan. Aye. Senator Blumenthal. Senator [52:43] Fetterman. Aye. By proxy. Senator Kim. Aye. Senator Gallego. Aye. By proxy. Senator Slotkin. Aye. By proxy. Senator Paul. Yes. [53:03] Sorry, I was not considering the appropriate question. No. Appreciate your sentiment. [53:16] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, [53:18] the yeas are four, the nays are eight. On the vote by proxy, the yeas are three, the nays are zero. [53:21] On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight. And the amendment is not agreed to. [53:25] Are there further amendments? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer Peter's number nine. [53:33] This amendment would prohibit the president and the vice president from participating in matters [53:39] that would benefit them personally, financially. This is the most basic minimum requirement that I think we [53:47] can all ask for, that the leaders of our country do not profit from the positions they have been [53:53] elected to deal with. At a time when Americans are facing rising costs, we should know that our [53:59] highest-ranking federal officials are working to lower prices and not just looking for ways to line [54:05] their pockets. For far too long, this has been a glaring loophole in the law. We already require our [54:11] rank-and-file federal workers not to use their public office for their own benefit, as we should. [54:17] It's also time that we also require the president and the vice president to do so as well, [54:22] and I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. The Constitution, you know, [54:26] already prohibits the president from enriching themselves and accepting awards. Unfortunately, [54:32] for folks like Anthony Fauci, those rules don't apply, and he was able to make an extra million [54:38] dollars from a foreign entity while he was in office. So I think that it's an issue worth looking [54:43] at, but it's not germane to this bill. And I think we need to do further study. Before this brings up, [54:49] I'll vote no. Clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson. No. Senator Lankford. No. Senator Scott. No. [54:57] Senator Hawley. Senator Moreno. Senator Ernst. Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Aye. Senator Hassan. Aye. [55:06] Senator Blumenthal. Senator Fetterman. Aye. By proxy. Senator Kim. Aye. Senator Gallego. Aye. By proxy. [55:14] Senator Slotkin. Aye. By proxy. Senator Paul. No. Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, [55:24] the yeas are four, the nays are eight. On the vote by proxy, the yeas are three, the nays are zero. On this [55:28] vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further [55:32] amendments? Mr. President, I have, or Mr. Chairman rather, amendment number 12, Peters number 12, I'd like to [55:39] offer. This amendment would require the disclosure of all donors for the east wing construction project [55:47] and the state ballroom at the White House. The administration has financed a portion of this [55:53] project with opaque private donations, allowing wealthy special interests to basically buy influence [56:01] and access. Only some of the hundreds of millions that have been donated are actually tied to specific [56:08] donors. We don't know who the other folks are. And the public certainly has a right to know exactly [56:13] who is funding this project, how much they are contributing, and what, if anything, they have [56:18] been promised in return. This is not a vote about whether you like the ballroom or not. This is just [56:23] saying, let's be fully transparent to the American people, common sense transparency, plain and simple. [56:29] And I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this. If we wish to have disclosure, [56:35] I think there are dozens and dozens, if not hundreds of entities funded by George Soros that [56:41] people would like to know, you know, which fund, which things he's funding, which things he's not. [56:46] I think there's a whole issue here and it's, it's worth discussion, but it would be, uh, deleterious to this [56:53] bill to, uh, just have this discussion here and make it one-sided where we want the president's donors to be listed, [56:58] but not any of the people on the left that are giving billions and billions to left-wing causes. [57:03] So I will vote no. Clerk will call the roll. [57:08] Senator Johnson? No. Senator Lankford? No. Senator Scott? Senator Hawley? No. Senator Moreno? No. Senator Ernst? No. Senator Moody? No. Senator Peters? Aye. Senator Hassan? Aye. Senator Blumenthal? [57:20] Senator Federman? Aye. Senator Blumenthal? Senator Federman? Aye. [57:26] Aye. By proxy. Senator Kim? Senator Gallego? Aye. By proxy. Senator Slotkin? Aye. By proxy? Senator Paul? No. [57:35] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are four, the nays are eight, and the vote by proxy, [57:40] the yeas are three, the nays are zero, and this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the [57:44] amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Seeing none. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Senator Kim? [57:51] Uh, Mr. Chairman, at the request of Senator Gallego, who couldn't be here today, I'd like to call up [57:56] Gallego amendment number two. On Monday, President Trump launched Truth API to begin selling early [58:04] access to his own social media posts. Subscribers reportedly pay up to $100,000 a month, $1.2 million [58:12] a year, for a head start on the president's own words, words that move markets, and he owns half the [58:19] company selling that access. Let's call this what it is, insider trading with a presidential seal on it. [58:26] American democracy cannot survive if presidential access is sold to the highest bidder. This [58:31] arrangement raises serious concerns about markets fairness, investor protection, and public trust, [58:37] and it warrants immediate condemnation by this committee. This amendment does two things. First, [58:43] it makes clear the president, vice president, and senior officials cannot sell or profit from non-public [58:49] information gained through their office. That's not radical. It's the same standard we hold for every [58:55] federal employee. Second, it demands transparency. Americans have a right to know who is willing to [59:01] give top dollar for access to the president. National security requires that we know when foreign nations [59:07] are paying to gain favor, intel, or private insight. For the sake of all of us, access to non-public [59:13] government information cannot be for sale, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. [59:18] I think the debate is worth having, you know, particularly when we have ethical rules on [59:24] Congress, we keep placing more and more should these be placed on the executive branch. This particular [59:29] amendment, though, targets the president and one of his groups, and I think really laws should be more [59:35] general in the sense that if we think the executive branch should be included in ethics, that we look [59:40] at it in a general way and not in a punitive way towards one individual. So I'll vote no. [59:45] Clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson, Senator Lankford, [59:50] Senator Scott, Senator Hawley, Senator Moreno, Senator Ernst, Senator Moody, [59:58] Senator Peters, Senator Hassan, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Fetterman, [1:00:05] Senator Kim, Senator Gallego, Senator Slocken, Senator Paul. [1:00:20] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are four, the nays are eight. On the vote by proxy, [1:00:24] the yeas are three, the nays are zero on this vote, the yeas are four, sorry, the yeas are seven, [1:00:29] the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if I may speak on [1:00:45] the bill briefly. Senator Peters. Mr. Chairman, this bill would basically create a backdoor authority [1:00:51] for the executive branch to unilaterally cancel funding without Congress's approval. It changes an [1:00:58] existing program that already, already allows bonuses to be paid to employees who identify waste, [1:01:04] fraud and abuse. We already have that law. Passing this bill would be a gift, however, [1:01:09] to President Trump and Russ Vogt by supercharging their efforts to cancel funding that Congress [1:01:15] has authorized. I've spent my career fighting waste, fraud and abuse, but giving the president [1:01:21] authority to override Congress and our spending decisions will forever harm Congress's ability [1:01:27] to serve the American people as an independent branch of government. I would urge my colleagues to [1:01:33] vote against the bill. One of the stories I always remember is when Senator Johnson was chairman, [1:01:38] he became chairman, and he discovered a whole room full of like printer cartridges. You remember the [1:01:43] story? They didn't fit anything and there was like a hundred thousand dollars worth in a room. When [1:01:48] someone finds that or avoids some sort of waste like that, we need to give them an incentive to report [1:01:53] it and let us know before we have tens of thousands of dollars of printer cartridges that aren't [1:01:57] being used. This is just a common sense good government bill. I recommend a yes vote. Clerk will call the roll. [1:02:03] Senator Johnson. Aye. Senator Lankford. Aye. Senator Scott. Aye. Senator Holley. Aye. Senator Moreno. Aye. Senator Ernst. Aye. Senator Moody. [1:02:12] Senator Peters. No. Senator Hassan. No. Senator Blumenthal. Senator Fetterman. No, by proxy. Senator Kim. [1:02:26] Senator Gallego. No, by proxy. Senator Slotkin. No, by proxy. Senator Paul. Yes. Mr. Chairman, on the vote [1:02:37] those present, the yeas are eight, the nays are four. On the vote by proxy, for the record, only the [1:02:41] yeas are zero, the nays are three. On this vote, the yeas are eight, the nays are four, and the motion is agreed to. [1:02:45] We will now consider S-164, Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2025. Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, this uh, [1:02:54] uh, every president, both parties, often time, uh, issue rules as they're walking out the door, [1:03:00] the end of their term. And so we passed the Congressional Review Act to address that, [1:03:05] to be able to overturn those, uh, midnight rules. Uh, this, uh, bill simply allows Congress to include [1:03:14] a number of rules in one Congressional Review Act so you can overturn them, uh, quickly. There, [1:03:19] there was, by the way, mistakenly, a substitute amendment, uh, offered or entered the, that would [1:03:24] have, uh, sunset the bill. I don't want to sunset the bill. I think what's good for the Goose is good [1:03:29] for the Gandalf. So if this passed, it should, uh, it should apply to, uh, members of both, uh, [1:03:34] you know, both parties. So again, that's the basic bill. It's good government. [1:03:38] There's a further debate. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer, uh, Peter's amendment 10. [1:03:47] Uh, this amendment would prohibit the, uh, president and vice president from [1:03:50] earning significant income outside of their official salary. Uh, this is just basically a [1:03:56] common sense amendment and it already applies. Let's be clear. It already applies to all other [1:04:01] federal employees. Public officials are paid to work in the public interest, uh, not to run a side [1:04:07] hustle, uh, push, uh, questionable crypto schemes or hawk, uh, their merchandise. Uh, last year, [1:04:14] for example, the president made at least 2.2 billion in outside income, including hundreds of millions [1:04:20] from the sale of crypto products. Uh, that makes the president a major player in the crypto industry, [1:04:26] while also being its top regulator and its top policy maker. The conflict of interest, uh, [1:04:32] could not be more stark at a time when Americans are facing rising costs and are struggling to make [1:04:38] ends meet. We should know that our highest federal officials are working in the public interest [1:04:43] and not for their own financial interests and would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. [1:04:49] I think it's a complicated issue and we should, uh, discuss it further to try to figure out the best way [1:04:54] to do this in a nonpartisan way. At this point, I will, uh, pose it because it's not germane to the bill. [1:05:00] I agree. Clerk will call the roll on the amendment. [1:05:05] Senator Johnson. No. Senator Lankford. No. Senator Scott. No. [1:05:10] Senator Hawley. Senator Moreno. No. Senator Ernst. No, by proxy. [1:05:16] Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Aye. Senator Hassan. Aye. Senator Blumenthal. [1:05:22] Senator Fetterman. Aye, by proxy. Senator Kim. Aye, by proxy. Senator Gallego. Aye, by proxy. [1:05:29] Senator Slotkin. Aye, by proxy. Senator Paul. No. [1:05:37] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are three, the nays are seven. [1:05:40] On the vote, by proxy, the yeas are four, the nays are one. On this vote, the yeas are seven, [1:05:44] the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. [1:05:46] If there are no further amendments, uh, the clerk will call the roll on. [1:05:51] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak on the bill. Senator Peters. [1:05:54] This, uh, bill would allow Congress to overturn an unlimited number of rules all at once under [1:06:00] fast-track congressional procedures. Members of Congress should be able to give due consideration [1:06:05] to each regulatory repeal that they vote on and not be forced, uh, to vote on a bundle of, uh, [1:06:12] unrelated, uh, rules. The bill would also supercharge, uh, President Trump's, uh, agenda, [1:06:18] which has already rolled back environmental protections, protections for clean water, [1:06:22] uh, consumer safeguards, as well as worker safety standards. I would urge my colleagues to vote [1:06:27] no. The truth of the matter is Congress almost never votes on regulations. Thousands and thousands [1:06:32] of regulations every year are put forward, and we have no vote on them. This is one of the [1:06:37] greatest defects of Congress. I think the bill is a good step in the right direction, [1:06:41] where we actually would vote on more regulations. Do you have the last word, Senator Johnson? [1:06:45] No, I, I obviously urge a yes vote. Okay. The clerk will call the roll on the bill. [1:06:49] Senator. Senate, uh, 164. Final passage. Senator Johnson. Aye. Senator Langford. Aye. [1:06:55] Senator Scott. Aye. Senator Hawley. Aye. Senator Moreno. Senator Ernst. Aye. [1:07:03] Aye, by proxy. Senator Moody. Senator Peters. No. Senator Hassan. No. Senator Blumenthal. [1:07:11] Senator Fetterman. No, by proxy. Senator Kim. No, by proxy. Senator Gallego. No, by proxy. [1:07:16] Senator Slocken. No, by proxy. Senator Paul. Yes. Mr. Chairman, on the vote, [1:07:29] those present, the yeas are seven, the nays are three. On the vote by proxy, and for the record, [1:07:32] only the yeas are one, the nays are four. On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are three, [1:07:36] and the motion is agreed to. The Senate will proceed to S252, Guidance Out of Darkness, [1:07:43] the Good Act. Senator Johnson. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I first introduced this bill in 2018 when I was [1:07:49] chair of this committee. Uh, then ranking member Peters supported it. Uh, it is passed out of the House [1:07:55] Oversight Committee by a vote of 41 to zero. It passed, uh, the House by voice vote. And it's, [1:08:01] it's just pretty simple, you know, common sense. Uh, it's been frustrating. This has taken this long [1:08:06] to hopefully get this thing passed. Now, if the House has passed it, we, if we pass it as is, [1:08:11] it gets signed to law. It just says that when, when, uh, agencies and departments issue what they call [1:08:17] guidance, that they publish it. So, so that businesses and Americans actually know what the rules and [1:08:24] laws, they're supposed to live by are, uh, right now, they're not required to, they have to publish [1:08:29] rules, but not guidances. So this is just, you know, guidance out of darkness. Uh, it's the, the minimum [1:08:34] we can do when government continues to expand and, you know, influence so much of our lives, at least [1:08:40] let the American people and businesses know what rules and guidances are out there so we can try and [1:08:45] comply with them. Our GS vote. There's a further debate. Mr. Chairman. Senator Peters. Mr. Chairman, [1:08:53] I, I would like to, uh, offer Peter's amendment, uh, number nine. Uh, in the vein of transparency, [1:08:59] uh, that this, uh, bill supports, uh, I, uh, offer this amendment that would require the president to [1:09:04] disclose presidential emergency action documents to, uh, members of Congress. The president prepares, [1:09:12] uh, these plans in case of emergency and are supposed to be shared with Congress. However, [1:09:17] administrations of both parties, uh, have refused to disclose them despite numerous bipartisan requests. [1:09:24] This is a problem with both parties, both administrations. Congress has made these numerous [1:09:29] requests. The few plans that have been declassified over the years raise concerns that presidents would [1:09:34] push the limits of their authority during an emergency in ways that violate constitutional rights. [1:09:40] Uh, in these plans, past presidents prepared options to suspend habeas corpus, detain, quote, [1:09:46] dangerous persons that they would, uh, define as dangerous within the United States, censor the news [1:09:53] media, and halt international travel. Actually, Chairman Paul and I worked together to get the [1:10:00] administrations, uh, to disclose these plans to Congress on several occasions. And I hope that we [1:10:05] can work together today, uh, for this common sense transparency step and would urge my colleagues to [1:10:11] support the amendment. Mr. Chairman. Senator Johnson. As, as good an idea as his, as his amendment might be, [1:10:18] the House has already passed the Good Act. It's required. It's needed. You know, Americans need to [1:10:25] know what government expects of them. If that's an idea, uh, that should be passed, ought to pass on its own [1:10:32] merits. If, if we add it to this bill, the Good Act is going to die. It won't have, have another chance. [1:10:38] We've been waiting since 2018. The ranking member, ranking member Peters supported this bill back in [1:10:44] 2019. It's been languishing ever since. We have a real chance of passing it into law. And so I'll oppose [1:10:51] any amendment that modifies this bill and basically acts as a poison pill so it doesn't get passed. So [1:10:57] I'll oppose the amendment. And if you, if you want to work with, uh, Senator Paul to, to pass your idea, [1:11:01] that's great, but, uh, should not be attached to this bill. And I urge a no vote on the amendment. [1:11:06] I will oppose the amendment. The clerk will call the roll. [1:11:08] No. Okay. I'm sorry. Senator Johnson. No. Senator Lankford. No. [1:11:13] Senator Scott. Nope. Senator Hawley. Senator Moreno. Senator Ernst. [1:11:18] No, by proxy. Senator Moody. Senator Peters. [1:11:23] Aye. Senator Hassan. Aye. Senator Blumenthal. [1:11:27] Senator Fetterman. Aye, by proxy. Senator Kim. Aye, by proxy. [1:11:34] Senator Gallego. Aye, by proxy. Senator Slocken. Aye, by proxy. [1:11:37] Senator Paul. No. Mr. Chairman, on the vote that was present, [1:11:42] the yeas are three, the nays are seven. On the vote by proxy, the yeas are four, the nays are one. [1:11:46] On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. [1:11:50] Are there further amendments? [1:11:51] Yes, Mr. Chairman. Senator Johnson. [1:11:53] There is a substitute amendment that just has a technical edit to the format of the guidance [1:11:58] documents. It provides a rule of construction that non-compliance impacts the validity of [1:12:02] any guidance document that a guidance document is subject to congressional review. [1:12:06] Is there any further debate? The clerk will call the roll. [1:12:09] Senator Johnson. Aye. Senator Lankford. Aye. Senator Scott. Aye. [1:12:16] Senator Hawley. Aye. Senator Moreno. Senator Ernst. Aye, by proxy. [1:12:22] Senator Moody. Senator Peters. This is on the substitute amendment. [1:12:30] Senator Hassan. Aye. Senator Blumenthal. [1:12:35] Senator Fetterman. Aye, by proxy. [1:12:39] Senator Kim. Aye, by proxy. [1:12:41] Senator Gallego. Aye, by proxy. [1:12:43] Senator Slocken. Aye, by proxy. [1:12:45] Senator Paul. Aye. Mr. Rowe. [1:12:50] Mr. Chairman, on the votes present, the yeas are 10, the nays are 0. On the vote by proxy, [1:12:54] the yeas are 5, the nays are 0. On this vote, the yeas are 15, the nays are 0. And the amendment is [1:12:58] agreed to. Are there further amendments? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer amendment 18. We've already [1:13:05] passed an amendment, so if it has to go back to the House, then it's got to go back to the House [1:13:08] already. We just did that in the second one. That was the argument against the first amendment, [1:13:12] but we are sending it back to the House now. This amendment would require any agency settlement [1:13:18] agreement to be made public. Agencies can use settlement agreements to reign in corporations and [1:13:24] individuals who have broken the law. For example, the Department of Justice uses settlement agreements [1:13:30] to provide compensation for victims of contaminated water at Camp Lejeune and an authority I helped pass [1:13:39] into law. However, too often these settlement agreements are not made public, which undermines [1:13:44] trust that the government is fairly enforcing the law. This is especially true as President Trump [1:13:52] directed the Department of Justice to settle a suit with himself to create the now infamous [1:14:00] weaponization fund. Making these settlement agreements public would ensure that agencies enforce the law [1:14:06] without favor to political allies and that those who seek to break the law clearly understand the [1:14:12] consequences of them breaking the law. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Senator [1:14:18] Johnson. Mr. Chairman, while it is true that this will have to go back to the House to be passed, [1:14:22] they agree with this technical amendment. So it doesn't really change the basic bill. As I said, the House [1:14:29] bill passed by voice vote. I'm quite sure that this substitute amendment will also pass by voice vote. We start [1:14:35] adding additional things. It puts the whole thing in doubt. So again, I oppose any amendments that [1:14:40] change the substance of the bill as Senator Peters would. So this amendment is non germane to the [1:14:46] bill. So I will oppose it. The clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson. No. Senator Lankford. No. Senator Scott. [1:14:52] No. Senator Hawley. No. Senator Marino. No. Senator Ernst. No, by proxy. Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Aye. [1:15:03] Senator Hassan. Aye. Senator Blumenthal. Aye. Senator Fetterman. Aye, by proxy. Senator Kim. Aye, by proxy. [1:15:10] Senator Gallego. Aye, by proxy. Senator Slotkin. Aye, by proxy. Senator Paul. No. [1:15:16] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are three, the nays are seven. On the vote by [1:15:19] proxy, the yeas are four, the nays are one. On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the [1:15:23] amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Seeing no further amendments, the questions on the final [1:15:31] passage of S252. As modified, the clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson. Aye. Senator Lankford. Aye. [1:15:37] Senator Scott. Aye. Senator Hawley. Aye. Senator Moreno. Aye. Senator Ernst. Aye, by proxy. [1:15:46] Senator Moody. Aye. Senator Peters. Aye. Senator Hassan. Aye. Senator Blumenthal. [1:15:52] Senator Fetterman. Aye, by proxy. Senator Kim. Aye, by proxy. Senator Gallego. Aye, by proxy. [1:16:00] Senator Slotkin. Aye, by proxy. Senator Paul. Yes. Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the [1:16:09] yeas are ten, the nays are zero. On the vote by proxy, and for the record, only the yeas are five, [1:16:12] the nays are zero. On this vote, the yeas are ten, the nays are zero, and the motion is agreed to. [1:16:16] We now turn to S3175, Community Involvement in Zone Improvement Plans, the SIP-ZIP Act of 2025. [1:16:26] Senator Lankford. I encourage passage, and I'm going to just not make an opening statement so we can get [1:16:34] on with this. How about that? Without further debate. That ought to bring unanimous consent. Yes. Without [1:16:40] objection. Are there amendments to be offered? Without further debate, the clerk will call the [1:16:46] roll. Senator Johnson. Aye. Senator Langford. Aye. Senator Scott. Aye. Senator Hawley. Aye. Senator [1:16:56] Moreno. Senator Ernst. We'll call it again. Let's abort this vote and start over. Apparently, [1:17:08] there's a Langford substitute amendment, and so do we have to vote on it or not? We just need to [1:17:16] announce that it's been modified and agreed to, and so the vote will actually be on the S3175 [1:17:24] as modified by the Langford Amendment. Without objection, the vote will be on the modified version. [1:17:29] Clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson. Aye. Senator Langford. Still aye. Senator Scott. Aye. Senator [1:17:36] Hawley. Aye. Senator Moreno. Senator Ernst. Aye. By proxy. Senator Moody. Aye. Senator Peters. Aye. Senator Hassan. Aye. Senator [1:17:47] Bloomfield. Senator Fetterman. Aye. By proxy. Senator Kim. Aye. By proxy. Senator Gallego. Aye. By proxy. [1:17:55] Senator Slotkin. Aye. By proxy. Senator Paul. Aye. Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, [1:18:02] the yeas are ten, the nays are zero. On the vote by proxy, and for the record only, the yeas are five, [1:18:06] the nays are zero. On this vote, the yeas are ten, the nays are zero, and the motion is agreed to. [1:18:10] All right. Next, we'll consider H.R. 5235, Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025. [1:18:27] Is there further debate? Are there further amendments? Hearing none, the clerk will call the roll. [1:18:34] Senator Johnson. Aye. By proxy. Aye. Senator Lankford. Aye. Senator Scott. Aye. Senator Hawley. Aye. Senator [1:18:50] Morino. Aye. Senator Ernst. Aye. Aye. By proxy. Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Aye. Senator Hassan. Aye. [1:18:58] Senator Blumenthal. Senator Fetterman. Aye. By proxy. Senator Kim. Aye. By proxy. Senator Gallego. Aye. [1:19:09] By proxy. Senator Slotkin. Aye. By proxy. Senator Paul. Aye. Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, [1:19:15] the yeas are ten, the nays are zero. On the vote by proxy, and for the record only, the yeas are five, [1:19:19] the nays are zero. On this vote, the yeas are ten, the nays are zero, and the motion is agreed to. [1:19:23] We will now turn to S1735, Permitting Transparency and Accountability Act. [1:19:31] Senator Scott. [1:19:32] Mr. Chairman, so the bill in front of the committee is pretty simple. [1:19:35] I did it when I was governor, and maybe Senator Hassam did it when she was governor. [1:19:38] We get all these questions, and so you figure out how you can use the Internet to just put the process up [1:19:43] so when people are getting a permit, they can just see where the process is. [1:19:47] We did it with all of our FEMA applications because people are constantly calling. [1:19:50] So we all can track where packages are from, from the warehouse to the front door. [1:19:55] So this just, it doesn't add any money. [1:19:57] It doesn't change any standards. [1:19:59] It just says we're going to give everybody information if you're applying for a permit. [1:20:03] It's a secure, it'll be a secure website, so it's really simple. [1:20:07] And we're probably all getting questions at our offices because you can't get an answer from the federal government. [1:20:12] We have to call, so it'll just be, everybody will know what's going on. [1:20:15] So I hope everybody will vote for it. [1:20:16] I ask the unanimous consent that we consider the vote to be on the Scott substitute amendment without objection. [1:20:23] Are there any other amendments? [1:20:25] Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer Peter's number nine. [1:20:29] This amendment would require that agencies report if they have placed a pause, moratorium, or a stop work order on the permit. [1:20:39] Under this administration, agencies have halted projects that were already under construction or even completed by pausing the permitting process. [1:20:50] This causes not only tremendous confusion, but it also costs millions of dollars in wasted resources. [1:20:58] For example, the Trump administration paused permitting on a wind project in Rhode Island, throwing its timeline into chaos, costing millions of dollars, and jeopardizing union construction jobs. [1:21:12] Permit applicants deserve to know why their permits are being delayed, especially if it's because of the agency issuing that particular permit. [1:21:21] I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. [1:21:23] Mr. Chairman. [1:21:25] Senator Scott. [1:21:26] It's not necessary. [1:21:27] The agency can already, the way this would work, the agency can put that information up, and any agency, if they want to stop getting questions all the time, that's what they would do. [1:21:36] So it's not necessary. [1:21:38] I will oppose the amendment. [1:21:40] The clerk will call the roll. [1:21:41] Senator Johnson. [1:21:43] No by proxy. [1:21:45] Senator Lankford. [1:21:45] No. [1:21:46] Senator Scott. [1:21:47] Nope. [1:21:47] Senator Hawley. [1:21:48] No. [1:21:48] Senator Moreno. [1:21:49] No. [1:21:50] Senator Ernst. [1:21:51] No. [1:21:51] No by proxy. [1:21:52] Senator Moody. [1:21:54] Senator Peters. [1:21:56] Aye. [1:21:57] Senator Hassan. [1:21:58] Aye. [1:21:58] Senator Blumenthal. [1:22:00] Senator Fetterman. [1:22:01] Aye by proxy. [1:22:02] Senator Kim. [1:22:03] Aye by proxy. [1:22:04] Senator Gallego. [1:22:05] Aye by proxy. [1:22:05] Senator Slocken. [1:22:06] Aye by proxy. [1:22:07] Senator Paul. [1:22:08] No. [1:22:10] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are three, the nays are six. [1:22:14] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are four, the nays are two. [1:22:16] In this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. [1:22:19] Are there further amendments? [1:22:22] Hearing none. [1:22:23] Mr. Chairman. [1:22:24] I'd just like to make more of a comment. [1:22:26] First off, I'd just like to thank my colleague, Senator Scott, for his leadership on this bill. [1:22:32] And I agree with him that the permitting process certainly needs more transparency and accountability. [1:22:38] It's a huge, huge problem. [1:22:39] But I also believe that this bill, as drafted, needs some changes to strengthen that transparency [1:22:45] and hold agencies accountable when permits are delayed. [1:22:49] I hope to continue to work with Senator Scott on this bill, but it's currently drafted. [1:22:53] I can't support it. [1:22:54] But I hope we can work together and refine it. [1:22:57] And I look forward to working with you in the future. [1:22:59] The vote will be on S-1735 as amended by the Scott substitute. [1:23:04] The clerk will call the roll. [1:23:05] Senator Johnson. [1:23:07] Aye. [1:23:08] Aye, by proxy. [1:23:08] Senator Lankford. [1:23:09] Aye. [1:23:10] Senator Scott. [1:23:10] Aye. [1:23:11] Senator Hawley. [1:23:12] Aye. [1:23:13] Senator Moreno. [1:23:13] Aye. [1:23:14] Senator Ernst. [1:23:16] Aye, by proxy. [1:23:17] Senator Moody. [1:23:18] Senator Peters. [1:23:19] No. [1:23:20] Senator Hassan. [1:23:22] No. [1:23:23] Senator Blumenthal. [1:23:25] Senator Fetterman. [1:23:26] No, by proxy. [1:23:27] Senator Kim. [1:23:28] No, by proxy. [1:23:29] Senator Gallego. [1:23:30] No, by proxy. [1:23:31] Senator Slotkin. [1:23:32] Aye, by proxy. [1:23:34] Senator Paul. [1:23:35] Yes. [1:23:40] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are six, the nays are three. [1:23:43] On the vote by proxy, and for the record, only the yeas are three, the nays are three. [1:23:46] On this vote, the yeas are six, the nays are three, and the motion is agreed to. [1:23:51] We will next consider S-5163, no bonuses for bad service act. [1:23:56] Senator Hawley. [1:23:57] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:23:58] I'd like to ask the committee to consider the Hawley substitute amendment as the underlying bill, without objection. [1:24:02] Without objection. [1:24:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:24:05] I'd like to thank Senator Blumenthal for his great partnership on this issue, and also your help, Mr. Chairman. [1:24:10] This is a very simple bill, and I just want to show the committee one picture. [1:24:13] I think we've got it here. [1:24:15] The bill just says that the postmaster general cannot be paid a bonus while areas of our states are not getting the mail. [1:24:23] I think we've got a picture of Missouri. [1:24:25] Let's see. [1:24:25] Do we have it, guys? [1:24:26] Here it is. [1:24:27] Here it is. [1:24:27] This is the mail. [1:24:28] This is a pile of mail in St. Louis, Missouri. [1:24:31] This is not AI. [1:24:32] This is real. [1:24:33] I wish it were AI. [1:24:35] This is real. [1:24:35] This is from April of this year. [1:24:37] An entire massive pile of mail left to rot. [1:24:42] People not getting their prescriptions, not getting their bank statements, not getting their Social Security checks, [1:24:46] not getting their Medicaid and Medicare statements. [1:24:48] All of it just left there. [1:24:49] The postmaster general, when I asked him about this when he was in front of our committee, [1:24:53] months after this had happened, months after we had requested help from the post office, [1:24:56] he didn't know anything about it. [1:24:58] And meanwhile, that postmaster general last year got paid $305,000 in bonuses. [1:25:03] Bonuses. [1:25:04] That's not his salary, mind you. [1:25:05] Bonuses. [1:25:06] Here's the numbers. [1:25:07] Postmaster generals over the last decade, over $2 million in bonuses. [1:25:10] I just think that we ought to say, until the mail starts getting delivered in our states, [1:25:15] the postmaster general does not need to be getting a bonus. [1:25:18] Certainly not millions of dollars in bonuses. [1:25:21] All this bill would do is say you've got to deliver the mail at least 95% of the time [1:25:28] before you can start getting a bonus and exercise some basic financial due diligence over the postal service. [1:25:34] That's all it is. [1:25:35] I thank you again, Senator Blumenthal and other folks who are co-sponsoring and asked for a yes vote. [1:25:41] Mr. Chairman. [1:25:42] Senator Blumenthal. [1:25:43] Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:25:44] I'd like to thank Senator Hawley for his leadership on this bipartisan measure, [1:25:48] which is admittedly only one step, and some may regard it as a small step, [1:25:55] toward greater accountability for the postmaster general and the post office service in general. [1:26:01] Americans are really very dissatisfied. [1:26:05] I think that's an understatement with the quality of service to be providing bonuses at this point [1:26:12] after questions about that quality of service I think is really a travesty, [1:26:17] and this is one step I'm glad we're going to take it today. [1:26:21] For years I've been asking the same question, you know, with a $9 billion annual deficit, [1:26:27] why are we paying bonuses? [1:26:28] And years ago I remember the response was, well, you know, to get talent, you've got to pay for talent. [1:26:35] And I said, well, how much talent does it take to lose $9 billion a year? [1:26:39] I'd go one step further and say let's start paying bonuses when we actually have a, you know, [1:26:44] balanced budget or they're in the black. [1:26:45] But I do support the concept of this. [1:26:48] Incentives work. [1:26:49] Nobody in the private world gets paid for not doing a good job. [1:26:52] However, the only thing I would add is much of the post office's problems is because of Congress and the constraints. [1:26:59] There are at least a half a dozen mandates that we put on them that make it virtually impossible, [1:27:04] not to deliver the mail on time, but make it virtually impossible to run in the black. [1:27:09] We do need to consider those. [1:27:10] The post office is out of money. [1:27:11] They come asking for more money. [1:27:13] It's a big problem. [1:27:14] But we on this dais need to be open to looking at the mandates because they'll never make, [1:27:20] they'll never break even with all the mandates we put on them. [1:27:22] We would be better off actually contracting out the whole thing. [1:27:26] Call up UPS, call up FedEx and say, you know, do you want first class mail? [1:27:32] They probably wouldn't take it with all the mandates. [1:27:34] If you gave it to them and they could contract it, you'd probably get reasonable bids and good delivery on time with a smile. [1:27:41] But you'd have to get rid of some of the mandates. [1:27:43] Did you have a comment you wanted to further, without further comment, I would say we call the roll. [1:27:49] You want to, you have something else to have an amendment? [1:27:54] Okay, Senator Peters. [1:27:57] Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer Peters number one. [1:28:00] This, this amendment would repeal the president's illegal March 2026 executive order on elections [1:28:08] and would forbid the postal service from using any of its funds for its implementation. [1:28:13] The president's executive order seeks to basically transform the postal service [1:28:18] into an election administration agency controlled by President Trump. [1:28:23] If this executive order were to be implemented, it would give the postal service and the White House [1:28:29] the authority to decide who can and who cannot vote by mail. [1:28:34] For generations, the postal service has played a non-partisan role in our elections. [1:28:39] It simply delivers ballots. [1:28:42] We should all be willing to protect this non-partisan role. [1:28:45] I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. [1:28:48] You know, one interesting thing, my, one of my kids lived in an apartment years ago [1:28:51] and he got like eight ballots, all with different names. [1:28:54] Is there not an obligation to the post office to figure out who lives there [1:28:58] and whether the mail is accurate, particularly when it's going to be a legally binding document [1:29:02] that people might turn in? [1:29:04] So I think the post office does have an obligation not to aid and abet fraud in our elections. [1:29:10] I will vote no on this amendment. [1:29:12] Further debate? [1:29:14] The clerk will call the roll. [1:29:16] Senator Johnson. [1:29:17] No by proxy. [1:29:18] Senator Lankford. [1:29:20] Senator Scott. [1:29:21] No. [1:29:21] Senator Hawley. [1:29:23] Senator Moreno. [1:29:25] No by proxy. [1:29:26] Senator Ernst. [1:29:26] No by proxy. [1:29:28] Senator Moody. [1:29:29] Senator Peters. [1:29:30] Aye. [1:29:31] Senator Hassan. [1:29:32] Aye. [1:29:32] Senator Blumenthal. [1:29:34] Senator Fetterman. [1:29:35] Aye by proxy. [1:29:36] Senator Kim. [1:29:36] Aye by proxy. [1:29:37] Senator Gallego. [1:29:38] Aye by proxy. [1:29:39] Senator Slocken. [1:29:40] Aye by proxy. [1:29:41] Senator Paul. [1:29:42] No. [1:29:44] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are three, the nays are five. [1:29:47] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are four, the nays are three. [1:29:50] On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. [1:29:55] Are there further amendments? [1:29:56] Seeing no further amendments, the question is on the final passage. [1:29:59] Of S-5163 as modified, the clerk will call the roll. [1:30:04] Senator Johnson. [1:30:05] No. [1:30:07] He's no. [1:30:08] No by proxy. [1:30:08] No by proxy. [1:30:10] Senator Lankford. [1:30:11] Aye. [1:30:12] Senator Scott. [1:30:13] Aye. [1:30:14] Senator Hawley. [1:30:15] Aye. [1:30:15] Senator Moreno. [1:30:18] Yes. [1:30:18] Yes. [1:30:18] Yes by proxy. [1:30:20] Senator Ernst. [1:30:20] Yes. [1:30:21] Yes by proxy. [1:30:22] Senator Moody. [1:30:23] Senator Peters. [1:30:24] Aye. [1:30:25] Senator Hassan. [1:30:26] Aye. [1:30:32] Senator Blumenthal. [1:30:34] Senator Fetterman. [1:30:38] Aye. [1:30:38] By proxy. [1:30:39] Senator Kim. [1:30:40] Aye. [1:30:40] By proxy. [1:30:41] Senator Gallego. [1:30:42] No. [1:30:43] By proxy. [1:30:44] Senator Slotkin. [1:30:45] Aye. [1:30:45] By proxy. [1:30:46] Senator Paul. [1:30:47] Aye. [1:30:49] Mr. Chairman, on the vote that's present, the yeas are nine, the nays are zero. [1:30:57] On the vote by proxy, and for the record only, the yeas are four, the nays are two. [1:31:00] On this vote, the yeas are nine, the nays are zero, and the motion is agreed to. [1:31:04] Senator Peters. [1:31:04] Mr. Chairman, just a quick ado, the sponsor, Senator Hawley. [1:31:09] I voted yes for this to move it forward. [1:31:11] Appreciate what you're doing, but I do believe that there's some corrections that we'd like [1:31:15] to work, so I won't support it going to the floor without some further discussion, [1:31:19] but look forward to working with you as we always do. [1:31:23] We will next go to Senate Bill 2542, Federal Building Threat Notification Act. [1:31:29] Senator Peters. [1:31:30] Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer my substitute as the underlying bill by the UC. [1:31:35] Without objection. [1:31:36] This bipartisan bill will ensure, as modified. [1:31:40] Without objection. [1:31:42] This bipartisan bill will ensure that Federal Productive Service is able to work with agencies [1:31:46] in over 9,000 facilities that they protect to keep building tenants safe and informed [1:31:52] in a crisis. [1:31:54] In January of 2025, a man fired gunshots in front of the Patrick McNamara Federal Building [1:31:59] in downtown Detroit. [1:32:01] While fortunately no one was injured and the shooter was apprehended, [1:32:04] it took hours for workers in the building to learn about the incident. [1:32:09] This bill requires the FPS director to develop and implement guidance for emergency communications [1:32:14] regarding law enforcement-related events, such as active shooter threats that occur in and [1:32:19] around Federal buildings. [1:32:21] Federal workers should be able to feel safe in the workplace, knowing that systems are in [1:32:25] place to alert them in a timely manner and would urge adoption. [1:32:28] This vote will be by voice. [1:32:33] Those in favor, say aye. [1:32:35] Aye. [1:32:36] Those opposed, no. [1:32:38] The ayes appear to have it. [1:32:45] Next will be Senate Bill 3211, recognizing the measure is reported favorably. [1:32:52] The next bill is Senate Bill 3211, recognizing the role of Direct Support Professionals Act. [1:32:58] Senator Hassan. [1:32:59] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:33:00] First of all, I move by unanimous consent the Hassan Substitute Amendment. [1:33:05] Without objection. [1:33:06] Thank you. [1:33:07] Chairman Paul and Ranking Member Peters, I want to thank you both for the committee's consideration [1:33:12] today of this bill. [1:33:13] Direct Support Professionals provide critical support services for people who experience disabilities, [1:33:19] and they help ensure that people with disabilities can live independently and fully participate [1:33:24] in their communities. [1:33:25] This bill will help the federal government more accurately track the direct support professional [1:33:30] workforce so that we can better understand and address what are critical workforce shortages. [1:33:35] I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. [1:33:38] Is there further debate? [1:33:40] The vote will be a voice vote on 3211 as modified. [1:33:44] All those in favor, say aye. [1:33:46] Aye. [1:33:46] Aye. [1:33:47] All those opposed, say no. [1:33:49] The ayes appear to have it. [1:33:52] The measure is reported favorably. [1:33:56] The next bill will be Senate Bill 4079, providing emotional assistance with relief and love. [1:34:05] Senator Scott. [1:34:15] The amendments tend to improve the bill. [1:34:17] It will always be in support of law enforcement and their well-being. [1:34:20] But our nation is $40 trillion in debt. [1:34:21] It's important that we are responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. [1:34:24] The CBO estimates this bill will cost millions. [1:34:27] I believe it can be implemented without adding to our national debt. [1:34:30] So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which basically it pays for from existing funds. [1:34:37] Okay. [1:34:38] Further debate? [1:34:39] Mr. Chairman. [1:34:40] Senator Peters. [1:34:41] Mr. Chairman, I'm going to speak against this amendment for Senator Gallego, who could not be with us here today. [1:34:49] While I understand the intent behind this amendment, the companion bill has passed the House unanimously. [1:34:58] DHS already has billions of dollars from two reconciliation bills. [1:35:02] Congress doesn't need to appropriate additional funding for this program at all. [1:35:07] The bill has minimal cost. [1:35:08] It's intended to improve the well-being of front-line DHS law enforcement officers while also rescuing dogs from shelters. [1:35:16] If we avoid making unnecessary changes, we can move this quickly and advance the House passed version on the floor [1:35:22] and expand mental health resources for DHS personnel when this is signed into law. [1:35:28] We'd love to move this forward. [1:35:29] I urge, along with Senator Gallego, folks to oppose this amendment. [1:35:35] I will support the amendment. [1:35:36] The clerk will call the roll. [1:35:38] Senator Johnson. [1:35:41] Aye, by proxy. [1:35:42] Senator Lankford. [1:35:43] Senator Scott. [1:35:44] Senator Hawley. [1:35:46] Aye. [1:35:47] Senator Marino. [1:35:47] Aye. [1:35:48] Senator Ernst. [1:35:50] Aye, by proxy. [1:35:51] Senator Moody. [1:35:52] Senator Peters. [1:35:53] No. [1:35:54] Senator Hassan. [1:35:55] No. [1:35:55] Senator Blumenthal. [1:35:56] No. [1:35:57] Senator Fetterman. [1:35:58] No, by proxy. [1:35:59] Senator Kim. [1:35:59] No, by proxy. [1:36:00] Senator Gallego. [1:36:01] No, by proxy. [1:36:02] Senator Slotkin. [1:36:03] No, by proxy. [1:36:03] Senator Paul. [1:36:07] Aye. [1:36:13] Mr. Chairman, on the vote that was present, the yeas are six, the nays are three. [1:36:16] On the vote, by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are four. [1:36:18] On this vote, the yeas are eight, the nays are seven, and the amendment is agreed to. [1:36:23] Can we agree to vote on voice on this? [1:36:28] The vote will be on S-4079. [1:36:32] The amendment passed, as amended. [1:36:34] Excuse me. [1:36:34] As modified. [1:36:36] As modified. [1:36:38] All those in favor will say aye. [1:36:39] Aye. [1:36:40] Those opposed, no. [1:36:43] The ayes appear to have it. [1:36:45] The measure is reported favorably. [1:36:53] We will next go to S-3296, improving access to workers' compensation for injured federal workers of 2025. [1:37:04] Are there any amendments? [1:37:07] Is there debate? [1:37:09] Is there a substitute? [1:37:10] We did. [1:37:11] Yeah, that was a reduction in the voice. [1:37:12] We'll move forward with a voice vote without objection. [1:37:16] All those in favor say aye. [1:37:18] Aye. [1:37:18] Aye. [1:37:19] All those opposed say no. [1:37:21] The ayes appear to have it. [1:37:24] The bill will be reported favorably. [1:37:27] Mr. Chair, was there a substitute amendment considered there? [1:37:30] I don't believe there is on that, on the Collins. [1:37:33] I don't. [1:37:34] Oh, on the Collins. [1:37:34] Sorry, I was in the wrong place. [1:37:35] I don't know. [1:37:35] That was on the Collins. [1:37:36] Yeah, got it. [1:37:36] Thank you. [1:37:37] The next one will be S-388, Promoting Resilient Buildings Act, Cornyn. [1:37:46] And this one does have a substitute. [1:37:48] Without objection, we will offer the substitute amendment as the underlying bill. [1:37:56] Is there further debate? [1:37:58] Amendments? [1:38:00] Voice vote. [1:38:02] All those in favor will say aye. [1:38:03] Aye. [1:38:04] All those opposed, no. [1:38:06] The ayes appear to have it. [1:38:08] The act will be reported favorably. [1:38:15] The next bill is S-3226, Bring Our Heroes Home Act, by Senator Crapo. [1:38:21] This one has a substitute. [1:38:23] Without objection, it will be considered as modified by the substitute. [1:38:29] Are there amendments? [1:38:33] Is there further debate? [1:38:34] By voice vote, those in favor of S-3226, as modified, will answer aye. [1:38:44] Those opposed, no. [1:38:46] The ayes appear to have it. [1:38:55] The bill is reported favorably. [1:38:58] Is there a bill number here? [1:39:02] We're just going to do them together. [1:39:04] Mr. Chairman? [1:39:05] Yes. [1:39:06] Senator Blumenthal. [1:39:09] I'm not sure whether we have voted on this. [1:39:13] On the last measure, is that the en banc consideration of post offices? [1:39:21] That's what we're getting to now. [1:39:23] This will be en banc. [1:39:25] I hope the debate will not be too extensive. [1:39:28] And this will be on naming of the post offices. [1:39:30] These will all be together. [1:39:32] Do we have to list anything or ask for unanimous consent that the post office naming bills listed [1:39:43] on August 5, 2026, updated agenda, be considered en banc without objection. [1:39:50] Are there any amendments? [1:39:52] Seeing no amendments, the question is on final passage of postal naming measures en banc. [1:39:56] The clerk will call the roll. [1:40:00] I said I'm wrong. [1:40:01] No. [1:40:02] Voice vote. [1:40:04] Oh. [1:40:05] All those in favor will say aye. [1:40:07] Aye. [1:40:08] Aye. [1:40:08] Those opposed, no. [1:40:10] The ayes appear to have it. [1:40:12] Mr. Chairman? [1:40:13] The postal naming bill is approved and sent forward. [1:40:16] Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as a no on S-2394. [1:40:23] Without objection. [1:40:24] And, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to be recorded as a no on S-2394. [1:40:29] Without objection. [1:40:30] Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to be recorded as a no on S-2394. [1:40:34] Without objection. [1:40:35] Thank you. [1:40:37] I recognize Senator Moreno for brief remarks. [1:40:41] Mr. Chair, I just wanted to thank you for your work and commitment on placing the American [1:40:45] Glove Act of 2026 on the agenda for the next markup. [1:40:49] It's important that we make certain that we are never left to be dependent on the Chinese [1:40:54] Communist Party for critical PPE. [1:40:56] So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:40:57] This concludes the August 6, 2026 markup. [1:41:02] This business meeting is now adjourned. [1:41:05] So, thank you. [1:41:06] Thanks for listening. [1:41:06] I'm on the agenda. [1:41:08] I'm on the agenda. [1:41:08] I'm off the agenda. [1:41:09] I'm going to say to you some more wonderful book. [1:41:10] This has been great difficult to bear. [1:41:11] I'm going to keep onέoint jomen of the national need for the safetyoque balance.