Sen. Paul holds contempt vote after Fauci invokes 5th Amendment

[0:00] Pursuant to the notice issued on July 29, 2026, the committee will consider 55 pieces of legislation today. [0:10] I note the presence of a quorum. [0:13] Eight days ago, Dr. Anthony Fauci sat before this committee in the witness chair under subpoena. [0:20] For conduct covered by the President Biden's full and unconditional pardon, reaching back to 2014, [0:27] Dr. Fauci faced no risk of federal prosecution. [0:29] All he had to do was tell the truth. [0:32] More than 100 times, though, he refused. [0:36] The chair ruled that Dr. Fauci's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege was unsupported in light of the pardon [0:42] and the testimony he offered in his opening statement. [0:47] The chair directed Anthony Fauci to answer. [0:50] He refused again. [0:52] That is what we are voting on today. [0:54] Not his opinions, not his policies, not anything he said from a podium six years ago. [1:01] We are voting on whether a witness who has received the benefit of a sweeping federal pardon [1:06] can be ordered by this committee to answer questions and then defy that order without consequence. [1:13] More than a million Americans died from COVID. [1:15] Many of them died alone. [1:18] Workers were forced to choose between a mandate and a job they needed. [1:21] Businesses closed and never reopened. [1:25] Children lost years of school they will never get back. [1:27] Americans lost the freedom to work, to worship, and to decide what went into their own bodies. [1:34] Nothing we do today can undo those losses, but silence does not honor them either. [1:39] This committee and the American people have a right to know why Dr. Fauci's agency [1:43] funded dangerous research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology [1:47] and what role he played in approving and overseeing it. [1:50] Why he told his colleagues to delete emails, why he told them to delete emails and then delete [1:56] the deleted file, what was he told in January 2020, what was said on those calls, what his [2:04] agency did with and for the intelligence community, and whether knowing what he knows now, he still [2:10] believes that the risks were worth taking. [2:13] Documents tell only part of the story. [2:16] Many of these questions can be answered only by Dr. Fauci. [2:19] He answered, none of them. [2:22] There will be another pandemic. [2:25] The time to determine which legislative reforms are necessary to ensure that the mistakes of [2:30] the past are not repeated is now, not later. [2:34] This committee passed the bipartisan Risky Research Review Act to strengthen oversight of dangerous [2:40] life sciences research funded by the federal government to address failures exposed by the [2:45] COVID-19 pandemic. [2:46] But Congress cannot determine what additional reforms are necessary until it fully understands [2:51] what remains unanswered. [2:53] Holding a witness in contempt is a serious thing, and it should be rare. [2:58] But the contempt power exists for precisely this circumstance. [3:03] Oversight is not a courtesy, this committee extends, or a favor a former official grants us. [3:08] It is a constitutional obligation. [3:11] And when voluntary cooperation ends, Congress must be able to compel compliance with its lawful [3:16] demands. [3:17] That is Congress's compulsory instrument. [3:21] A subpoena is not an invitation. [3:23] A subpoena with no consequence is not a subpoena. [3:26] It's a suggestion. [3:28] Seeking the truth is not a witch hunt. [3:30] Accountability is not vengeance. [3:32] Accountability is what stands between the American people and a repeat of the mistakes [3:37] and the very real consequences of the past. [3:42] Senator Peters, you're recognized. [3:45] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [3:46] The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee has a long and very proud [3:52] history of conducting serious bipartisan oversight on behalf of the American people. [3:59] Democrats and Republicans have worked together to follow the facts, compel information, and [4:06] hold both Democratic and Republican administrations alike accountable. [4:11] That work depends on the credibility of this committee. [4:15] It depends on the legitimacy of our investigations and a recognition by witnesses, courts, and [4:22] the public that Congress is exercising its powers dutifully. [4:28] The contempt resolution before us today puts all of that at risk. [4:33] Following a one-sided investigation and a rushed process that has repeatedly excluded the [4:41] minority and other members of this committee, the chairman is now asking the committee to [4:46] take a vote that could harm our ability to conduct future investigations and disregards [4:52] constitutional protections long recognized by the U.S. Senate, all without making a reliable [4:59] case that there is a legal basis for holding Dr. Fauci in contempt. [5:04] Let's be clear, this resolution will not provide the committee with any additional information [5:10] or compel Dr. Fauci to provide answers to our inquiries. [5:15] Criminal contempt is punitive. [5:18] It does not compel a witness to answer questions or produce the documents we'd all like to see. [5:24] What it will do is create a damaging precedent that future witnesses will use to resist legitimate [5:32] constitutional or, excuse me, congressional oversight and weaken this committee's ability to compel testimony. [5:39] For decades, the Senate has maintained that a witness must appear before a committee even when [5:46] that witness intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment. [5:49] Senate committees have been able to defend that position in the courts because both Democratic and [5:55] Republican chairs have consistently recognized and respected the constitutional rights of witnesses [6:04] when they appear. And when a witness refuses to voluntarily appear, that principle leaves the Senate on very [6:12] strong ground to compel their appearance and, where necessary, in rare instances, make referrals for [6:17] criminal contempt. If this committee now seeks to punish a witness for asserting their constitutional [6:24] protected Fifth Amendment rights, future witnesses will argue that appearing before Congress exposes them to punishment, [6:31] regardless of whether they comply with the subpoena and invoke a constitutional protection. [6:36] They will point directly to this vote, this vote as a justification for refusing to appear at all. [6:44] That would make it harder for this committee and every committee in Congress to compel testimony in future investigations. [6:50] The chairman has also suggested he may attempt to refer this matter to the Department of Justice without approval of the full Senate. [6:59] That would be even more dangerous and widely unprecedented move. [7:05] No individual senator and no committee speaks for the entire Senate as a whole. [7:13] The Senate's institutional powers belong to the full body. [7:17] Allowing one chairman to unilaterally assert those powers would invite future chairs in both parties to bypass the Senate [7:26] whenever they cannot secure the support of their colleagues. [7:29] This investigation has been one sided from the beginning. [7:33] The minority has been excluded from witness interviews and full access to committee records. [7:41] And information has been selectively released to support conclusions that the chairman reached years ago. [7:47] A process that lacks bipartisan participation and seeks to confirm predetermined conclusions, it does not strengthen congressional oversight. [7:58] It makes our work to conduct oversight more challenging and less likely to withstand scrutiny. [8:03] This committee should not damage its future investigative authority to advance the chairman's years-long campaign against a single individual. [8:14] It is not just what we investigate that matters, and that really matters what we investigate, but it's also how we conduct those investigations. [8:22] That matters too. [8:24] So I urge my colleagues to protect this committee, protect the Senate's institutional powers, and oppose this resolution. [8:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [8:36] Despite minority statements, to the contrary, this investigation has been conducted with unparalleled transparency. [8:42] Thousands and thousands of documents have been put up for review from the minority. [8:47] You have to request a password. [8:49] They've been informed of that. [8:50] Not one Democrat has requested a password to look at any of the documents. [8:55] So there is transparency. [8:56] They're just not interested in reviewing the documents. [8:59] Mr. Chair? [9:00] I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. [9:03] I just also want to take a moment to address today's contempt resolution vote. [9:08] There is a real need for a serious bipartisan examination into what went well and what went wrong during our country's response to the pandemic. [9:18] But that's not what we saw last week in this committee. [9:21] Instead, my colleagues in the majority held a hearing openly designed to target a single doctor and dedicated public servant who has testified before Congress many times before, [9:33] and they wanted to blame him for everything that went wrong during the pandemic. [9:38] The goal was clear, and I want to emphasize this. [9:43] The goal was to wait for Dr. Fauci to make any kind of misstatement and then have a weaponized Department of Justice file criminal charges for that new statement that would not have been covered by the pardon, [9:57] leaving Dr. Fauci little choice but to invoke his constitutional right to not walk directly into a trap. [10:06] So who's helped by this political theater? [10:10] It's certainly not this committee, which now goes without answers to the important questions about our pandemic response that would help us prepare for future pandemics. [10:19] It's certainly not parents who are not seeing any action to reverse the devastated cuts to the Affordable Care Act [10:26] and Medicaid that kicked them off their health insurance. [10:29] It's certainly not our children who are seeing no pushback or hearings in this committee on the baseless attacks on science and vaccines coming from Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his administration. [10:41] Sadly, this is gamesmanship, and it represents everything wrong with Congress, which under this majority is clearly not focused on the priorities of the American people. [10:53] Mr. Chairman. [10:54] Let's be clear, all that was required from Anthony Fauci last week was to tell the truth. [10:58] He had no liability if he told the truth. [11:00] Senator Johnson. [11:01] Hey, Mr. Chairman. [11:02] First of all, I want to associate myself with, and second, your opening comments. [11:06] And I also want to strongly rebut the comments from our Democrat colleagues here. [11:14] You know, particularly when Ranking Member Peters says this has been one-sided and rushed. [11:20] Rushed? [11:21] When I was chairman of this committee back in 2020, I started conducting oversight. [11:28] I held hearings. [11:29] There was no cooperation in those hearings. [11:32] As a matter of fact, I remember one when we held a hearing with Dr. Pierre Corder when he came in with all kinds of evidence on the effectiveness of ivermectin. [11:40] The ranking member then denigrated him. [11:43] Back then, Dr. Corder was a Democrat. [11:46] He was shocked at the treatment he was given by the ranking member. [11:53] How many people died because they lacked early treatment with safe, effective, generic drugs? [12:01] Well, that hearing laid out the truth that this could be something that could help people. [12:08] And we had a ranking member that did everything that he could to denigrate that truth. [12:14] My current experience as a chairman of PSI, we've been holding hearings after hearings. [12:21] My ranking member, Bluenthal, in those hearings, we had one called Voice of the Vaccine Injured. [12:28] We had parents come in and tell their heart-wrenching stories. [12:34] We had parents coming in and telling the truth. [12:38] And the ranking member, a few hours before that hearing, held a press conference and said, [12:43] hope the press doesn't cover it because there's nothing credible about this hearing. [12:48] It's these investigations are one-sided because one side simply doesn't want to look at the truth. [12:56] They want to bury the truth. They want to memory hole it. [13:02] They don't want to look at the Fauci diaries and take a look at how contradictory what he wrote to himself, [13:09] how contradictory it was to what he actually told the public. [13:15] I think one of the revelations of those diaries, I think probably the most significant one that's being overlooked, [13:20] was early on in the pandemic, he wrote in his diaries he thought COVID would be maybe twice a bad flu season. [13:27] Now, I'm not downplaying a bad flu season. We have them oftentimes. [13:33] They overwhelm hospitals. Something takes seriously. [13:36] But a pandemic that's going to be twice that, is that really worth destroying people's lives, shutting down businesses, destroying economy? [13:46] I argued back then that it wouldn't be. It's been six years since the pandemic began. [13:58] We have not had a reckoning of what happened. [14:04] Last Wednesday's hearing was an excellent hearing from a standpoint of legitimate questions being raised, [14:12] the legitimate questions the American people want answers to, [14:15] legitimate questions that some of them only Anthony Fauci, Saint Fauci, Mr. Science could answer. [14:23] And even though we have quotes of him saying, I'm not afraid of any oversight committee. [14:29] I'm happy to talk to any oversight committee. I have nothing to hide. [14:33] That's not the position he took last Wednesday. [14:39] What he displayed last Wednesday was contempt for Congress, contempt for this committee, contempt for our investigation. [14:52] The same contempt that our ranking member, our ranking members have shown for the diligent oversight [15:00] and the exposing of the truth that I've been undertaking for six years. [15:08] There's nothing rushed. It's been one sided, but not because we haven't reached out, not because we haven't involved the other side. [15:16] The other side, like way too many Americans, have just closed their eyes, covered up their ears and refused, refused to look at the truth. [15:29] I am definitely going to vote yes on contempt of Congress. And my investigation has just begun. [15:40] We've invited Dr. Fauci for a transcribed interview. Okay, he doesn't want to do it in front of the American public. [15:46] Come in front of our committee. We'll go through detail and detail. [15:51] You say you have nothing to hide. Good. We'll do it behind closed doors. We'll transcribe it. [15:57] That's only one of the interviews we'll be conducting. So again, this last week's hearing just began the accountability. [16:08] There's a lot more accountability that's required. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [16:13] The committee will now proceed to consideration of an original resolution. Mr. Chairman. [16:16] We're going to continue the debate once we get on it. There's going to be time for everyone to speak. [16:20] The committee will now proceed to consideration of an original resolution authorizing the President of the Senate [16:26] to certify to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia the committee's report concerning Dr. Anthony Fauci's refusal [16:33] to answer questions required by committee subpoena. [16:36] Mr. Chairman, I move the motion to be tabled. [16:41] This motion to table is intended to avoid accountability. We only have one question. [16:47] Whether to hold a witness responsible for his contempt towards Congress. [16:51] The witness had many chances to answer the questions pertinent to our investigation, and he made his decision 111 times. [16:58] I will oppose this motion and urge my colleagues to do the same. The Clerk will call the roll. [17:02] Mr. I would comment on the motion, Mr. Chairman. [17:05] Mr. Chairman, I move to table this resolution until the chairman commits to abiding by the Senate rules, practice, and laws that address attempt of Congress. [17:16] Under the Senate rules, longstanding practice, as well as the U.S. Code, following a committee vote, the full Senate must vote to determine whether to refer a resolution of contempt of Congress to the Department of Justice. [17:30] The Senate as a body, not an individual member, must make that decision. [17:35] Given that Chairman Paul has indicated he may attempt to bypass this process, which is required by Senate rules and precedent, [17:42] members of this committee should move to table this resolution until we can be assured by the chairman that he will not take action that weaken the Senate's and this committee's ability to conduct oversight in the future. [17:55] The Clerk will call the roll. [17:59] Second. [18:00] Second the motion. [18:01] Senator Johnson. [18:03] No. [18:04] Senator Lankford. [18:05] No. [18:06] Senator Scott. [18:08] No. [18:10] Senator Hawley. [18:12] No. [18:14] Senator Moreno. [18:15] Senator Ernst. [18:16] Senator Moody. [18:18] Senator Peters. [18:20] Yes. [18:21] Senator Hassan. [18:22] Yes. [18:24] Senator Blumenthal. [18:25] Yes. [18:26] Senator Fetterman. [18:27] Yes. [18:28] Senator Kim. [18:29] Yes. [18:30] Senator Gallego. [18:31] Yes, by proxy. [18:41] Senator Slocken. [18:42] Mr. President, the yeas are five, the nays are eight. [18:44] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are zero. [18:46] On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agreed to. [18:50] Mr. Chair. [18:53] Senator Hassan. [18:55] Senator Hassan. [18:56] I move to table consideration of this resolution until the chairman invites the views of legal experts who can speak to the constitutional questions and legal authorities chairman Paul has raised in his contempt of Congress resolution. [19:07] This resolution should be tabled until our committee can hear from independent experts about the applicability of the fifth amendment and other constitutional considerations raised by the chairman's actions. [19:18] This motion is intended to avoid accountability. [19:21] I will oppose this motion and urge my colleagues to do the same. [19:24] Press the roll. [19:25] Clerk, call the roll. [19:28] Senator Johnson. [19:29] No. [19:31] Senator Lankford. [19:32] No. [19:33] Senator Scott. [19:34] No. [19:36] Senator Hawley. [19:37] No. [19:39] Senator Moreno. [19:41] Senator Ernst. [19:42] Yes. [19:43] Senator Hassan. [19:44] Yes. [19:45] Senator Blumenthal. [19:46] Yes. [19:47] Senator Fetterman. [19:49] Aye. [19:50] Senator Kim. [19:51] Yes. [19:52] Senator Gallego. [19:53] Yes, by proxy. [19:54] Senator Slotkin. [19:55] Yes, by proxy. [19:58] Senator Paul. [20:00] No. [20:01] Mr. Chairman. [20:02] Senator Blumenthal. [20:03] Let's hear the vote first. [20:04] On the vote of those present, the yeas are five, the nays are eight. [20:07] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are zero. [20:09] On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agreed to. [20:12] Mr. Chairman. [20:15] Senator Blumenthal. [20:16] I move to postpone consideration of this resolution until the committee has an opportunity to [20:21] hear from Dr. Fauci's attorney, who was forcibly removed from the hearing last week. [20:29] I should point out that Dr. Fauci had a well-founded fear based on facts that he was in jeopardy [20:39] of prosecution for perjury. [20:42] In fact, the chairman and others on the committee have said the quiet part out loud. [20:46] They've shouted it repeatedly that their objective in that proceeding was, in fact, to put Dr. Fauci behind bars. [20:55] He was represented by counsel who attempted to speak at this proceeding. [21:00] Even during the darkest days of the McCarthy hearings, counsel were allowed to speak. [21:10] We denied that opportunity to Dr. Fauci, and we should hear from his counsel before we move on this motion, [21:22] so that we can hear his side of the legal argument here. [21:28] And I would simply predict, Mr. Chairman, based on the long history of assertion of self-incrimination rights, [21:36] that there is virtually no chance that a court would actually approve any contempt because he had a well-founded fear of self-incrimination, [21:47] which entitled him to invoke the Fifth Amendment, and we should hear from his counsel. [21:55] I ask for a roll call vote. [21:57] Even when the Fifth Amendment is appropriately taken where no pardon exists, [22:01] the Fifth Amendment doesn't allow you to testify on the other side of the question. [22:06] Basically, you are allowed not to self-incriminate, but you're not allowed to say, [22:11] oh, I'm not going to self-incriminate, but then I'm going to condemn the committee and the investigation. [22:15] So he attempted to do that in his opening statement, which courts have looked poorly upon, [22:20] trying to have it both ways, and allowing the attorney to take the positive role of saying, [22:26] this is what he would have said had he spoken, but he's not going to speak, [22:30] also doesn't fit in with the history of the Fifth Amendment. [22:33] So I will move to table. [22:34] Mr. Chairman? [22:35] Mr. Chairman? [22:36] I will oppose tabling the tabling motion. [22:39] Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, what's the name of the attorney? [22:44] The attorney could be of Dr. Fauci's choice, as I recall. [22:49] No, no, the attorney that you're speaking of. [22:51] But you said you want to hear from the attorney. [22:53] What's the name of the attorney you want to hear from? [22:55] I think it was David Scherdler. [22:57] Mr. Scheller. [22:59] Okay. [23:01] Could we put in the record that he is also the attorney for Senator Menendez in a bribery scandal? [23:06] And also, are you asking that you think it was something you'd be prosecuted for, for answering Senator Hawley's questions about the color of the carpet? [23:14] We could hear, by the way, from Mr. Honorato, who also represented. [23:18] But you think there was jeopardy in answering questions, what's the color of your tie? [23:22] What's the color of the floor? [23:23] What's the color of the room? [23:26] The format of the hearing and the responses and who would be there could be determined by the committee. [23:33] All I'm asking is that we postpone this motion until we hear from an attorney of Dr. Fauci's choice representing his Fifth Amendment rights. [23:46] And to respond to Senator Paul, there is well-established precedent that witnesses have their attorneys here make statements before the committee, even during the McCarthy hearings. [23:58] There is also well-established precedent for a witness providing a statement at the outset and then declining to answer questions afterward. [24:06] I think most of the prosecutors here know that if one of us as a prosecutor had said, [24:13] I'm putting this witness behind bars, and then call him to a grand jury or any other proceeding, [24:20] there's simply no way that a court would say you can hold him in contempt because he's invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. [24:27] I mean, this is sort of black-letter basic constitutional rights, Senator Moreno. [24:33] And I think all of us in this committee really have a stake in making sure those rights are respected [24:39] because if we tear down the precedents and the principles of the Fifth Amendment now, [24:46] there is no telling where the decline will wind us up and we will all reap the windfall. [24:55] Mr. Chairman. [24:56] Yes. [24:57] Not to disagree with my fellow former Attorney General, Senator Blumenthal. [25:03] The reason, but since Senator Moreno mentioned it, the reason that I asked Dr. Fauci what color his tie was, [25:09] and what day of the week it was, and what color the carpet is, he looked, by the way. [25:14] I thought he was going to answer that one. [25:15] He looked very carefully at the carpet, then he decided not to answer. [25:18] The reason I asked those questions was precisely to test the good faith nature of his invocation of the Fifth Amendment. [25:25] Because as the lawyers in the room will know, the invocation of the Fifth Amendment, [25:30] particularly in a context where immunity has already been obtained, [25:33] Dr. Fauci has full immunity, he has a full and unconditional pardon for a period of some 11 years. [25:38] In that context, the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege only adheres to those instances where the witness has a reasonable fear of future prosecution, [25:47] and it must be tailored to any such fear. [25:50] And the fact that he wouldn't answer questions about the tie he was wearing or the color of the carpet of the day of the week, [25:57] Senator Paul asked him about, did he have a folder in front of him? [25:59] He wouldn't answer that. [26:00] Betrays the fact that his invocation of the Fifth Amendment wasn't tailored to anything. [26:04] It was a predetermined, premeditated design to evade this committee's questions on any subject, [26:12] including emphatically those for which he has a pardon. [26:15] And the United States Supreme Court has been clear for over a century, dating back to 1896, [26:20] that when a witness has received immunity, he may not stand upon his privilege. [26:25] And multiple courts of appeals, including the United States Supreme Court in the Kastegar case, [26:31] has said that, I'm going to quote now, a witness must reasonably believe that his statements could be used in criminal prosecution, [26:37] or could lead to other evidence that might be so used. [26:40] The court has also said that the danger must be real and appreciable. [26:43] It must not be one of imaginary and unsubstantial character. [26:47] All that to say that, I think it's pretty clear given Dr. Fauci's 111 invocations of the Fifth Amendment, [26:55] including the questions that he could have no fear of prosecution on. [26:59] He's not going to get prosecuted for the color of his tie. [27:03] Shows that he had no interest and no intention of answering any of our questions. [27:06] And that is an abuse of the privilege. [27:08] There's no privilege for any of that. [27:09] And I think there was no good faith attempt to... [27:11] Mr. Chairman, I really need to answer with your permission that point. [27:18] Senator Blumenthal. [27:19] Whether he had a reasonable fear, I think, is beyond question. [27:25] Not only the chairman of the committee, but three state attorneys general have said that they are conducting investigation of Dr. Fauci. [27:35] The color of his tie, the color of the carpet. [27:40] Maybe you were testing his good faith, but the standard is not the response to your questions. [27:48] It is whether he had a reasonable fear. [27:52] And it is to be liberally construed, as you know, under the Supreme Court cases that you cited in favor of the potential defendant. [28:02] President Trump invoked the Fifth Amendment 440 times in his deposition with the New York Attorney General. [28:08] Nobody held him in contempt for doing so. [28:11] This right is so fundamental that we ought to seriously consider before we take this immensely historic step and hear from his counsel as to what he feared, why, and how. [28:30] And my motion would simply postpone consideration of this contempt motion until we hear from him. [28:39] The primary question of the hearing last week was to understand why Dr. Fauci made the decision to do this funding of this research in Wuhan. [28:48] I can't understand how there could be any liability attached to a question of why. [28:52] That's his opinion of why he funded it. [28:55] It's not a crime in funding it. [28:57] There's a judgment question. [28:58] And Mr. Chairman, there is a serious. [28:59] We got the Fifth Amendment. [29:01] All he had to do was tell the truth. [29:03] The clerk will call the roll on the Blumenthal motion. [29:05] I will vote no. [29:06] Senator Johnson. [29:07] No. [29:08] Senator Langford. [29:09] No. [29:10] Senator Scott. [29:11] No. [29:12] Senator Hawley. [29:13] No. [29:15] Senator Moreno. [29:16] No. [29:17] Senator Ernst. [29:19] No. [29:20] Senator Moody. [29:21] Yes. [29:22] Senator Peters. [29:23] Yes. [29:24] Senator Hassan. [29:26] Yes. [29:27] Senator Blumenthal. [29:29] Yes. [29:30] Senator Federman. [29:31] Yes. [29:32] Senator Kim. [29:33] Yes. [29:34] Senator Gallego. [29:35] Yes. [29:37] By proxy. [29:38] The yeas are five. [29:39] The nay's are eight. [29:40] And the vote by proxy. [29:41] The nay's are two. [29:42] The nay's are zero. [29:43] The nay's are seven. [29:44] The nay's are eight. [29:45] And the motion is not agreed to. [29:46] Mr. Chairman, I move to table this resolution. [29:48] I move to table consideration of this resolution until the chairman commits to abiding by the, [29:55] whoops, that was my last one. [30:02] I move to consider it until the chairman provides all members of this committee with access to [30:08] all documents, transcripts, and materials related to this investigation, which I have [30:14] repeatedly requested since the beginning of this Congress. [30:19] Senate and committee rules are clear that all members of this committee have a right to [30:24] address committee documents. [30:25] The chairman has publicly stated he has received over one million documents as part of this [30:32] investigation and has only shared a small fraction with a minority despite repeated requests [30:39] over the past year and a half. [30:41] That's why I urge my colleagues to vote for this. [30:44] And I just want to reply to some of the comments made by the chair that we just didn't [30:49] want to look at this information. [30:52] We have been asking for information for quite some period of time over the past 18 months [30:59] and at every turn, whether it's the documents or trying to have the ability to question witnesses, [31:07] we have been denied. [31:08] Just in April of this year, your staff conducted a transcribed interview of Ralph Barrick without [31:13] even notifying my staff about the interview. [31:16] After you posted the transcript publicly, we asked for the unredacted version and the classified [31:23] portion. [31:24] Received absolutely no response. [31:26] You refused to let the minority participate in the transcribed interview that Dr. Fauci agreed [31:31] to do voluntarily. [31:32] To comment on one of my colleagues made, we could just do it and have a transcript in private. [31:38] But we were open to that. [31:40] Dr. Fauci was open to it. [31:42] But we were declined ability to do that. [31:45] It was going to be one sided. [31:46] And when he knew it was going to be one sided, he didn't want to come in. [31:49] This committee normally always deals in a bipartisan way. [31:51] We should have been there asking those questions as well. [31:55] I know that the chairman says that these documents were on some sort of website. [32:05] We did not know about that website. [32:08] We were told that there was a letter talking about the website. [32:12] We understand it was hard copy only. [32:14] We have no record of receiving it. [32:16] Most everybody on the dais has no record of receiving it. [32:19] And yet as we continually ask for documents, if there was this website, which is different [32:25] than what we have done as a committee, we always have a shared site where all of us can take a look at documents. [32:29] We all have a right as members of the committee to look at those documents. [32:32] If this other website existed, and we were supposedly told about it in a letter, and we didn't get it, [32:39] we don't have any record of receiving it, we didn't see it. [32:41] But there were numerous times where the chairman's staff, when we were asking for documents, [32:45] could have said, hey, go to that website. [32:49] We have. [32:50] Oh, okay. [32:51] We'll take a look at it. [32:52] We didn't. [32:53] I don't know. [32:54] We have records of all these emails. [32:56] We have records. [32:57] I can go through them. [32:58] I don't need to maybe go through them all. [32:59] We got them tabbed. [33:00] You know, where are these records? [33:01] We'd like to see records. [33:03] Crickets. [33:04] Nothing. [33:05] No mention of it. [33:06] Could have been a mention like, oh, well, by the way, we have this. [33:08] This is over 18 months. [33:10] Like stonewalling for 18 months. [33:12] That's not the way this committee should ever work. [33:15] It didn't work when I was chair. [33:19] Now Chairman Paul, we went through investigation. [33:21] We had a detailed investigation of COVID-19. [33:24] All those documents were provided. [33:26] We worked with then-ranking member Paul. [33:30] Under Chairman Paul, we don't get those records. [33:32] That's just not the way this place should work. [33:34] And I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would realize that, too. [33:38] Because things change. [33:39] If we make this the new precedent, there will be a Democrat as a chair. [33:44] Would you want them to do that? [33:46] Would you want to be treated that way? [33:47] I don't think you're going to want to be treated that way as well. [33:49] And you'll scream and holler about it. [33:53] And we should stop it right now. [33:55] Let's continue to have the kind of bipartisan investigations that has made this committee [34:01] a powerful committee over the years. [34:03] Right now we're seeding all that. [34:04] We're just making it highly partisan. [34:06] And when you make it highly partisan, people just ignore what you do. [34:09] And that's really tragic. [34:11] I think it's sad. [34:12] So I would urge my colleagues to table this resolution. [34:15] Let us take a look at these documents. [34:17] They're on his private web or whatever he has set up for it. [34:22] We'll take a look at it. [34:23] But we should get back to the practice where we actually have shared information. [34:27] I know when Senator Johnson was chair, we had shared information. [34:33] He wanted shared information under Chairman Paul's chairmanship as well. [34:37] Okay. [34:38] We need to get to the motion. [34:39] Well, let me finish. [34:41] Is that... [34:42] I've let you go on and on. [34:43] And we're going to get to the votes. [34:45] Well, I understand that. [34:46] But I don't remember ever cutting you off when you were ranking member. [34:51] And I've always respected your rights. [34:54] And I continue to respect your rights. [34:56] I would just hope that you would offer that same courtesy to us because things do change. [35:01] And precedent is important. [35:03] And I would urge my colleagues to table this resolution until we have a chance to look at the information, [35:08] as has been the practice of this committee for as long as this committee has been in existence. [35:13] For the record, Anthony Fauci refused a voluntary private deposition. [35:17] And that's why he was brought in under subpoena. [35:19] Because it was going to be one-sided. [35:21] Don't interrupt the chair. [35:22] Don't interrupt the chair. [35:23] With regard to access to records, there has been an unprecedented access to records. [35:30] They have all been uploaded on a website that you were invited to join. [35:35] You refused to join. [35:36] You had utter disdain. [35:38] You never even asked for the password. [35:40] Not one of you ever signed up. [35:41] It's been up for over a year. [35:43] The information is there for the taking. [35:45] I've repeated it publicly over and over. [35:48] Don't come to this hearing saying you weren't given the records. [35:51] The records were given. [35:52] The clerk will call the roll. [35:54] Senator Johnson. [35:55] No. [35:57] Senator Lankford. [35:58] No. [35:59] You've been talking ad nauseam. [36:01] Senator Hawley. [36:02] Senator Moreno. [36:03] Senator Ernst. [36:04] Senator Moody. [36:06] Senator Peters. [36:08] Yes. [36:09] Senator Hassan. [36:10] Yes. [36:11] Senator Blumenthal. [36:12] Yes. [36:13] Senator Fetterman. [36:15] Senator Kim. [36:17] Senator Gallego. [36:19] Yes, by proxy. [36:20] Senator Slotkin. [36:21] Yes, by proxy. [36:22] Senator Paul. [36:23] No. [36:24] Mr. Chairman, on the vote at those present, the yeas are five, the nays are eight. [36:27] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are zero. [36:29] On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agreed to. [36:32] Mr. Chairman. [36:34] Seeing no other motions, the question is on reporting of an original resolution. [36:37] Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. [36:39] Mr. Chairman. [36:40] We will entertain more motions, but the discussion has become dilatory. [36:45] And so the discussion. [36:46] I have one more motion. [36:47] Listen to my ruling. [36:49] The discussion will be for two minutes. [36:52] You will have two minutes to present your motion. [36:55] Senator Blumenthal. [36:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [36:58] I move to postpone consideration of this resolution until this committee has an opportunity to seek [37:04] leave from the Department of Justice to obtain a court order providing Dr. Fauci with immunity from prosecution [37:11] in exchange for his testimony on matters raised during the committee's hearing. [37:18] The immunity from prosecution could be limited to perjury. [37:22] It is standard procedure. [37:24] And again, we need to hear from his counsel as to whether it would be satisfactory to provide immunity. [37:30] If this committee is really interested in serious answers to the serious questions, [37:35] it will seek to provide him with this very limited immunity to appear before this committee. [37:44] There is a need for a serious inquiry to answer questions arising from the pandemic. [37:51] We need to know where COVID originated, how it spread, what could have been done better. [37:58] We need to hear not only from Dr. Fauci, but from others in the course of a bipartisan, nonpartisan inquiry, [38:04] perhaps through a commission where, again, Dr. Fauci could testify, a 9-11 type commission. [38:11] But this kind of show trial is no way to elicit the important information that the country needs to know. [38:20] So I ask that we postpone consideration of this resolution until we can give Dr. Fauci the kind of legal protection against self-incrimination that he needs. [38:32] The clerk will call the roll. [38:33] Senator Johnson. [38:34] No. [38:35] Senator Lankford. [38:36] No. [38:38] Senator Scott. [38:39] No. [38:40] Senator Hawley. [38:41] No. [38:42] Senator Moreno. [38:44] Senator Ernst. [38:45] Senator Moody. [38:46] Senator Peters. [38:47] Yes. [38:48] Senator Hassan. [38:49] Yes. [38:50] Senator Fetterman. [38:52] Senator Kim. [38:54] Senator Gallego. [38:55] Yes, by proxy. [38:56] Senator Slotkin. [38:57] Yes, by proxy. [38:58] Senator Paul. [39:00] No. [39:03] Mr. Chairman, on the vote with those present, the yeas are 5, the nays are 8. [39:06] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are 2, the nays are 0. [39:08] On this vote, the yeas are 7, the nays are 8, and the motion is not agreed to. [39:11] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, Mr. Chairman, without objection, I'd like to enter into the record all of the copies of emails that we sent to your staff asking to have access to information. [39:24] And you will see in these emails, there's either absolutely no response or no way to understand that there's a separate email or a separate place somewhere where we can get an email. [39:36] Certainly, I'll put these in the records without objection. [39:38] Certainly, we'd be open to see any emails that actually told us about this. [39:42] We can't find any in any of our electronic records, and we'd be open to seeing that, but we'd like to do this without objection. [39:48] Without objection. Seeing no other motions, the question is on reporting of an original resolution regarding contempt of Congress. [40:04] The Clerk will call the roll. [40:05] Senator Johnson. Yes. [40:07] Senator Lankford. Aye. [40:09] Senator Scott. Yes. [40:12] Senator Hawley. Aye. [40:13] Senator Moreno. [40:14] On behalf of the millions of people harmed by Anthony Fauci, resoundingly yes. [40:18] Senator Ernst. Aye. [40:19] Senator Moody. Aye. [40:21] Senator Peters. No. [40:23] Senator Hassan. No. [40:26] Senator Blumenthal. No. [40:27] Senator Fetterman. [40:29] Senator Kim. No. [40:31] Senator Gallego. [40:33] No, by proxy. [40:34] Senator Slocken. [40:36] No, by proxy. [40:37] Senator Paul. [40:38] Yes. [40:39] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are eight, the nays are five. [40:45] On the vote by proxy and for the record only, the yeas are zero, the nays are two. [40:49] On this vote, the yeas are eight, the nays are five, and the motion is agreed to. [40:53] Mr. Chairman, pursuant to committee rule. [40:56] Senator Warren. [40:57] Mr. Chairman. [41:00] We've had ample remarks on this. [41:03] The chair will limit remarks to two minutes. [41:06] I will give you another chance to state your opinion, which has been amply stated. [41:10] You have two minutes. [41:11] Senator Warren. [41:12] Well, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to committee rule 6B and Senate rule 26, section 10C, I'm notifying [41:18] you that I intend to file minority views regarding this resolution. [41:24] The clerk will report the conclusion of the vote. [41:26] Just did. [41:30] And that it is reported favorably. [41:35] The committee will now proceed to consideration of S-4505, a bill to require the U.S. Postal [41:40] Service to designate zip codes for certain communities. [41:43] Senator Ernst. [41:45] Yes. [41:46] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's markup. [41:48] And I do have an amendment at the desk in the nature of a substitute for S-4505 designating [41:57] single zip codes. [41:59] Americans deserve timely and efficient mail service. [42:03] And unfortunately, far too many of our communities aren't having their needs met by the United States [42:09] Postal Service. [42:10] We have delayed tax refunds. [42:12] We have voter registration confusion. [42:15] There are misdirected prescription deliveries. [42:18] And it's time we change this because our families are facing real world consequences by having an outdated [42:27] USPS zip code. [42:29] So these folks aren't minor inconveniences. [42:33] They are affecting our families. [42:36] Now, cities can appeal to the U.S. Postal System for changing their zip codes. [42:44] And most often, the answer is no to those communities. [42:49] And unfortunately, the process is not transparent. [42:53] And they can only appeal these no's every 10 years. [42:59] And so we have communities like Urbandale, Iowa, where families, our medical centers and our schools are not [43:07] receiving their mail or have to send someone to a post office, a community over to collect their misdirected mail. [43:15] This is not acceptable and it is time for Congress to act. [43:20] A lot of folks will say that Congress shouldn't be involved in this. [43:24] But we should be. [43:25] Because this is one place where the Constitution couldn't be clearer. [43:30] Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 says Congress has the power to establish post offices and post roads. [43:38] In other words, fixing postal problems is one of the jobs that we are actually supposed to do. [43:45] The USPS has not been doing its job and so it's time for Congress to step in and fix these zip code boundaries. [43:53] Let's pass this bill. [43:55] The substitute actually adds eight additional communities into the bill. [44:01] This bill passed by voice vote in the House of Representatives. [44:06] So I am asking and urging all of my colleagues to support my amendment to the underlying bill. [44:13] And I would like to submit for the record the letter asking for those eight additional communities to be included. [44:21] Without objection. [44:22] Are there further amendments? [44:24] Mr. Chairman. [44:26] Do you have an amendment to offer? [44:30] I'm going to comment on the amendment. [44:32] A comment on the bill. [44:34] The bill. [44:35] Let's go with the amendments first. [44:36] Are there any amendments to be offered? [44:38] The substitute. [44:39] Yes. [44:40] We will consider the bill as the substitute. [44:41] Thank you. [44:42] With unanimous consent that the other eight be included. [44:45] Comments on the bill? [44:46] Mr. Chairman. [44:47] Senator Peters. [44:48] So I certainly understand my frustrations with my colleagues and certainly respect Senator Ernst immensely [44:54] and been working with her on this issue. [44:57] I just want to raise the issue that under the leadership of chairs of both parties, [45:01] HISGAC has avoided legislating and establishing zip codes. [45:07] As the postmaster general testified to HISGAC last month, each number in a zip code has a specific meaning. [45:13] And any changes to these numbers actually require corresponding changes to delivery units, processing plants. [45:20] It's not an easy process. [45:22] It appears easy on the surface, but it isn't. [45:25] The postal service actually estimates that these changes, which I think are the 83 communities, [45:30] may cost nearly $1 billion, according to the postal service. [45:35] Passing this bill would be irresponsible as the postal service continues to face financial difficulties. [45:40] I certainly heard from my colleagues and this panel. [45:43] We all agree that the post office needs to become solvent. [45:46] It needs to be more efficient. [45:47] They need to reduce cost. [45:49] But this committee now wants to take action to add, according to the postal service estimates, [45:54] $1 billion of cost. [45:56] And while they face serious financial problems, they're not even contributing to their employees' pension plans right now. [46:02] And we're asking them to incur additional costs for a complicated process, [46:07] so that there is a process within the postal service. [46:09] We shouldn't be legislating and micromanaging the postal service. [46:12] That's not the way a business should have to operate. [46:15] And I would urge my colleagues to vote no. [46:17] It's interesting that the people who lose $9 billion a year are telling us it'll cost $1 billion to change zip codes. [46:25] That, to me, shows utter incompetence that you can't figure out a software way of changing the zip codes [46:31] for less than a billion dollars. [46:33] That alone argues you for being the wrong people in charge of the post office, [46:37] and we need to address this. [46:39] So I think that's a crazy notion. [46:41] A billion dollars to add about 15 zip codes? [46:44] My goodness, what incompetence. [46:46] Senator Johnson. [46:48] Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, it's probably the sad fact. [46:50] And, you know, I appreciate we get, I think, those eight additions from Wisconsin cities [46:56] who have lobbied me pretty hard to do this exact same thing. [46:59] And I understand it's kind of a vanity thing. [47:01] You want to have your community have its own zip code. [47:04] I personally have never really quite understood that. [47:06] But, you know, I'll take the postal service that is worth. [47:09] It's going to cost them a lot of money, disrupt things. [47:12] And so, again, I understand the good intentions. [47:14] I understand communities wanting to do this, but I'll be opposing this bill. [47:17] Not the amendment, but the bill. [47:19] Yes, I understand. [47:24] And for these cities, I don't believe it is a vanity project. [47:29] When prescriptions are being delivered somewhere else, mail is misdirected, [47:34] this is the federal government's job. [47:37] And the fact that we don't want to spend money to correct what is going on in these communities, [47:44] I think it speaks to the fact that we are not doing our job if we can't direct the postal service [47:50] to actually deliver constituents' mails in a timely manner. [47:55] So I do believe the postal service can do a much better job. [48:00] We know that there's a lot of waste within that organization, [48:04] but certainly we can find a way to get people's mail delivered to their communities. [48:09] Thank you. [48:10] Mr. Chairman. [48:11] Senator Lackford. [48:12] May I make a brief comment on this? [48:14] The issue about zip codes is not just about zip codes for a specific community. [48:18] It's also about tax revenue for that community. [48:20] As more and more e-commerce is happening, [48:22] a lot of that tax revenue comes back in based on a zip code in a community. [48:27] That matters to rural communities especially, [48:29] that they have the ability to be able to get the tax revenue that actually comes in to that rural community. [48:34] The Oklahoma zip codes that are included in this are exactly that issue, [48:37] where the tax revenue is going to the wrong town based on e-commerce, [48:41] and it's incredibly important for those small rural communities to be able to maintain. [48:45] The post office also assumes in their figures that every one of these rural communities is going to have to have a physical post office. [48:51] It's included in this large billion dollar number. [48:54] I've said over and over again, they're not asking for a post office. [48:57] They're asking for their revenue to actually be directed to the right place on it. [49:00] And so I would challenge some of the numbers that are coming, [49:03] and the assumptions that they're making in this. [49:05] But I do think this is important for those rural communities. [49:07] And the only thing I would add to that is that what happens is a town grows, [49:11] another town grows, sometimes separated by several miles. [49:14] You have two distinct towns, but they have one zip code. [49:16] And it becomes confusing where the mail goes to. [49:19] And there is a matter of being a distinct community needing a distinct zip code. [49:25] Let's go ahead and vote on it. [49:27] This will be on the modified bill, modified by the amendment. [49:30] Senator Ernst added a few, eight different zip codes. [49:33] It'll be on S4 4505, a bill to require the U.S. Postal Service to designate zip codes for certain communities as modified. [49:41] The clerk will call the roll. [49:42] Senator Johnson. [49:43] No. [49:44] Senator Lankford. [49:45] Aye. [49:47] Senator Scott. [49:49] Senator Hawley. [49:50] Senator Marino. [49:52] Senator Ernst. [49:54] Senator Moody. [49:56] Senator Peters. [49:57] No. [49:59] Senator Hassan. [50:00] Senator Blumenthal. [50:02] Senator Fetterman. [50:05] Senator Kim. [50:07] Senator Gallego. [50:08] Senator. [50:09] Senator. [50:10] Senator. [50:12] Senator. [50:13] Senator. [50:21] Senator. [50:22] Senator. [50:23] Senator. [50:24] Senator. [50:25] Senator. [50:26] Senator. [50:27] Senator. [50:28] Senator. [50:29] Senator. [50:30] Senator. [50:32] Senator. [50:33] Senator. [50:34] Senator. [50:35] Senator. [50:37] Senator. [50:38] Senator. [50:39] Senator. [50:40] Senator. [50:41] Senator. [50:42] Senator. [50:43] Senator. [50:44] Senator. [50:45] Senator. [50:46] Senator. [50:47] Senator. [50:48] to stop waste in government before it happens. [50:51] For years, we've had a CBO score on how much something costs. [50:54] People come up with great ideas, [50:56] great charitable notions and intentions, [50:59] but they sometimes aren't careful to look and find out [51:01] that we already have 80 other federal programs [51:03] doing the same thing. [51:05] So this would allow an independent agency to tell us, [51:08] hey, you already tried this 14 times. [51:10] Why don't you see if your previous 14 times [51:12] are working before you create a new agency? [51:15] Are there any amendments? [51:18] Seeing none, the question is on final passage of S2733. [51:21] The clerk will call the roll. [51:22] Mr. Chair. [51:25] Mr. Chair, I just wanted to thank you [51:26] for the work on this bill. [51:28] I appreciate it. [51:28] Very helpful. [51:30] Senator Johnson. [51:31] Aye. [51:32] Senator Lankford. [51:33] Aye. [51:34] Senator Scott. [51:36] Aye. [51:36] Senator Hawley. [51:37] Aye. [51:37] Senator Moreno. [51:39] Aye. [51:39] Senator Ernst. [51:41] Aye. [51:41] Senator Moody. [51:43] Senator Peters. [51:43] Aye. [51:44] Senator Hassan. [51:45] Aye. [51:46] Senator Blumenthal. [51:49] Senator Fetterman. [51:49] Aye. [51:51] Senator Kim. [51:52] Aye. [51:52] Senator Gallego. [51:53] Aye. [51:55] Senator Slotkin. [51:56] Aye. [51:57] Senator Paul. [51:58] Yes. [52:03] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are 12, the nays are zero. [52:06] On the vote by proxy for the record, only the yeas are three, the nays are zero. [52:08] On this vote, the yeas are 12, the nays are zero, and the motion is agreed to. [52:13] The committee will now proceed to consideration of S-2732, Bonuses for Cost Cutters Act. [52:19] This bill incentivizes federal employees to report waste, fraud, and abuse to the Inspector [52:23] General, Chief Financial Officer of the representative agencies. [52:28] In private business, you're often given a bonus for saving money for your employer. [52:32] I think if we brought this private business incentive into the government, it would be [52:36] a good idea. [52:37] I ask the committee to consider the Paul A&S as the underlying bill. [52:42] Without objection, are there any further amendments? [52:44] Mr. Chairman. [52:46] Senator Peters. [52:47] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer Peters Amendment 4. [52:52] This amendment would prohibit agencies from canceling grants solely because of the political leadership [53:00] of the state or local government where the grant is located. [53:05] In court filings from June, the Department of Energy admitted that it canceled over 200 [53:12] grants, quote, and this is quote, based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's [53:18] state, end of quote. [53:21] This is not about reducing fraud or improving program performance. [53:25] The department wrote in court documents that the cancellations were, quote, again, not based [53:31] on any programmatic statutory cost reduction or performance-based factor, end of quote. [53:39] It was just plain old simple political retaliation. [53:44] Agencies should fairly award grants to carry out programs that Congress has authorized, not [53:49] punish the president's political opponent of the day, whoever that may be. [53:54] So I'd urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment. [53:57] Peter's Amendment 4. [54:00] I support the senator's intent. [54:02] Unfortunately, as written, I believe the amendment would prohibit the federal government from making [54:06] decisions about how to best use taxpayer dollars. [54:09] It's also not germane to the bill. [54:11] I urge a no vote. [54:12] Without any further debate, the clerk will call the roll. [54:16] Senator Johnson. [54:17] No. [54:18] Senator Lankford. [54:19] No. [54:21] Senator Scott. [54:23] No. [54:24] Senator Holley. [54:26] Senator Moreno. [54:27] Senator Ernst. [54:29] Senator Moody. [54:30] Senator Peters. [54:31] Aye. [54:33] Senator Hassan. [54:34] No. [54:35] Senator Blumenthal. [54:37] Senator Fetterman. [54:38] Aye. [54:39] Senator Slocken. [54:40] Aye. [54:41] By proxy. [54:43] Senator Paul. [54:44] Yes. [54:51] Say again? [54:52] Amendment vote. [54:53] You voted yes. [54:54] I'm sorry. [54:55] I was not considering the appropriate question. [54:59] No. [55:01] Appreciate your sentiment. [55:05] 0. [55:06] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are 4, the nays are 8. [55:09] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are 3, the nays are 0. [55:11] On this vote, the yeas are 7, the nays are 8, and the amendment is not agreed to. [55:17] Are there further amendments? [55:18] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer Peter's number 9. [55:21] This amendment would prohibit the president and the vice president from participating in [55:28] matters that would benefit them personally, financially. [55:34] This is the most basic minimum requirement that I think we can all ask for, that the leaders [55:39] of our country do not profit from the positions they have been elected to deal with. [55:46] At a time when Americans are facing rising costs, we should know that our highest-ranking [55:50] federal officials are working to lower prices and not just looking for ways to line their [55:55] pockets. [55:56] For far too long, this has been a glaring loophole in the law. [56:00] We already require our rank-and-file federal workers not to use their public office for [56:05] their own benefit, as we should. [56:07] It's also time that we also require the president and the vice president to do so as well, and [56:12] I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. [56:13] The Constitution already prohibits the president from enriching themselves and accepting awards. [56:21] Unfortunately for folks like Anthony Fauci, those rules don't apply, and he was able to make [56:27] an extra million dollars from a foreign entity while he was in office. [56:31] So I think it's an issue worth looking at, but it's not germane to this bill, and I think [56:36] we need to do further study. [56:38] Before this brings up, I'll vote no. [56:41] Clerk will call the roll. [56:42] Senator Johnson. [56:43] No. [56:44] Senator Lankford. [56:46] No. [56:47] Senator Scott. [56:49] Senator Hawley. [56:50] Senator Moreno. [56:51] Senator Ernst. [56:53] Senator Moody. [56:54] Senator Peters. [56:56] Aye. [56:57] Senator Hassan. [56:59] Aye. [57:00] Senator Blumenthal. [57:01] Senator Fetterman. [57:02] Aye. [57:03] Senator Kim. [57:05] Aye. [57:06] Senator Gallego. [57:07] Senator Paul. [57:08] Senator Paul. [57:13] No. [57:14] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are four, the nays are eight. [57:16] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are three, the nays are zero. [57:18] On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed [57:21] to. [57:22] Are there further amendments? [57:23] Mr. President, I have, or Mr. Chairman, rather, amendment number 12, Peters number 12, [57:28] I'd like to offer. [57:30] This amendment would require the disclosure of all donors for the east wing construction project [57:37] and the state ballroom at the White House. [57:40] The administration has financed a portion of this project with opaque private donations, [57:46] allowing wealthy special interests to basically buy influence and access. [57:53] Only some of the hundreds of millions that have been donated are actually tied to specific [57:58] donors. [57:59] We don't know who the other folks are. [58:01] The public certainly has a right to know exactly who is funding this project, how much they [58:05] are contributing, and what, if anything, they have been promised in return. [58:10] This is not a vote about whether you like the ballroom or not. [58:13] This is just saying let's be fully transparent to the American people, common sense transparency, [58:18] plain and simple. [58:19] And I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this. [58:24] If we wish to have disclosure, I think there are dozens and dozens, if not hundreds of entities [58:29] funded by George Soros that people would like to know, you know, which fund, which things [58:34] he's funding, which things he's not. [58:36] I think there's a whole issue here, and it's worth discussion, but it would be deleterious [58:42] to this bill to have this discussion here and make it one-sided, where we want the president's [58:47] donors to be listed, but not any of the people on the left that are giving billions and billions [58:52] to left-wing causes. [58:53] So I will vote no. [58:56] Clerk will call the roll. [58:57] Senator Johnson. [58:58] No. [59:00] Senator Lankford. [59:01] Senator Scott. [59:03] Senator Hawley. [59:05] Senator Moreno. [59:07] Senator Ernst. [59:08] Senator Moody. [59:10] Senator Peters. [59:11] Aye. [59:12] Senator Hassan. [59:14] Aye. [59:16] Senator Blumenthal. [59:17] Senator Federman. [59:18] Aye, by proxy. [59:20] Senator Kim. [59:21] Senator Slotkin. [59:22] Aye, by proxy. [59:23] Senator Paul. [59:24] No. [59:25] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are four, the nays are eight. [59:29] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are three, the nays are zero, the yeas are seven, the [59:33] nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. [59:36] Are there further amendments? [59:37] Mr. Chairman. [59:38] Seeing none. [59:39] Mr. Chairman. [59:40] Senator Kim. [59:41] Mr. Chairman, at the request of Senator Gallego, who couldn't be here today, I'd like to call [59:46] up Gallego Amendment 2. [59:49] On Monday, President Trump launched Truth API to begin selling early access to his own social [59:55] media posts. [59:57] Subscribers reportedly pay up to $100,000 a month, $1.2 million a year, for a head start [1:00:04] on the president's own words, words that move markets, and he owns half the company selling [1:00:10] that access. [1:00:11] Let's call this what it is, insider trading with a presidential seal on it. [1:00:16] American democracy cannot survive if presidential access is sold to the highest bidder. [1:00:21] This arrangement raises serious concerns about markets fairness, investor protection, and [1:00:26] public trust, and it warrants immediate condemnation by this committee. [1:00:31] This amendment does two things. [1:00:32] First, it makes clear the president, vice president, and senior officials cannot sell or profit from [1:00:38] non-public information gained through their office. [1:00:42] That's not radical. [1:00:43] It's the same standard we hold for every federal employee. [1:00:47] Second, it demands transparency. [1:00:49] Americans have a right to know who is willing to give top dollar for access to the president. [1:00:54] National security requires that we know when foreign nations are paying to gain favor, [1:00:59] intel, or private insight. [1:01:01] For the sake of all of us, access to non-public government information cannot be for sale. [1:01:06] And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. [1:01:08] I think the debate is worth having, particularly when we have ethical rules on Congress, we [1:01:14] keep placing more and more should these be placed on the executive branch. [1:01:19] This particular amendment, though, targets the president and one of his groups. [1:01:23] And I think really laws should be more general in the sense that if we think the executive branch [1:01:28] should be included in ethics, that we look at it in a general way and not in a punitive [1:01:33] way towards one individual. [1:01:34] So I'll vote no. [1:01:36] Clark will call the roll. [1:01:37] Senator Johnson. [1:01:38] Senator Lankford. [1:01:39] Senator Scott. [1:01:41] Senator Hawley. [1:01:42] Senator Marino. [1:01:44] Senator Ernst. [1:01:46] Senator Moody. [1:01:47] Senator Peters. [1:01:49] Senator Hassan. [1:01:51] Senator Blumenthal. [1:01:52] Senator Fetterman. [1:01:54] Senator Kim. [1:01:57] Senator Gallego. [1:01:59] Senator Slocken. [1:02:01] Senator Paul. [1:02:02] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are four, the nays are eight. [1:02:13] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are three. [1:02:14] The nays are zero on this vote. [1:02:16] The yeas are four. [1:02:17] I'm sorry. [1:02:18] The yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. [1:02:28] Mr. Chairman. [1:02:29] Mr. Chairman. [1:02:34] Mr. Chairman, if I may speak on the bill briefly. [1:02:35] Senator Peters. [1:02:37] Mr. Chairman, this bill would basically create a backdoor authority for the executive [1:02:42] branch to unilaterally cancel funding without Congress's approval. [1:02:46] It changes an existing program that already, already allows bonuses to be paid to employees [1:02:53] who identify waste, fraud, and abuse. [1:02:55] We already have that law. [1:02:56] Passing this bill would be a gift, however, to President Trump and Russ Vogt by supercharging [1:03:02] their efforts to cancel funding that Congress has authorized. [1:03:05] I've spent my career fighting waste, fraud, and abuse, but giving the president authority [1:03:11] to override Congress and our spending decisions will forever harm Congress's ability to serve [1:03:18] the American people as an independent branch of government. [1:03:21] I would urge my colleagues to vote against the bill. [1:03:24] One of the stories I always remember is when Senator Johnson was chairman, he became chairman, [1:03:29] and he discovered a whole room full of, like, printer cartridges. [1:03:32] Remember the story? [1:03:33] They didn't fit anything, and there was, like, $100,000 worth in a room. [1:03:37] When someone finds that or avoids some sort of waste like that, we need to give them an incentive [1:03:42] to report it and let us know before we have tens of thousands of dollars of printer cartridges [1:03:47] that aren't being used. [1:03:48] This is just a common sense good government bill. [1:03:50] I recommend a yes vote. [1:03:53] Clerk will call the roll. [1:03:54] Senator Johnson. [1:03:55] Aye. [1:03:56] Senator Lankford. [1:03:57] Aye. [1:03:59] Senator Scott. [1:04:00] Aye. [1:04:02] Senator Hawley. [1:04:03] Aye. [1:04:05] Senator Moreno. [1:04:06] Aye. [1:04:09] Senator Ernst. [1:04:10] Aye. [1:04:11] Senator Moody. [1:04:13] Senator Peters. [1:04:14] No. [1:04:15] Senator Hassan. [1:04:17] No. [1:04:18] Senator Blumenthal. [1:04:19] Senator Fetterman. [1:04:20] No. [1:04:21] By proxy. [1:04:26] Senator Schlotkin. [1:04:27] Senator Paul. [1:04:28] Yes. [1:04:29] Senator Movey. [1:04:30] Senator. [1:04:31] Mr. [1:04:43] Senator. [1:04:44] Every president, both parties, oftentimes issue rules as they're walking out the door at the end of their term. [1:04:51] And so we passed the Congressional Review Act to address that, to be able to overturn those midnight rules. [1:04:59] This bill simply allows Congress to include a number of rules in one Congressional Review Act so you can overturn them quickly. [1:05:09] There was, by the way, mistakenly a substitute amendment offered or entered that would have sunset the bill. [1:05:15] I don't want to sunset the bill. I think what's good for the goose is good for the gandos. [1:05:19] So if this passed, it should apply to members of both parties. [1:05:25] So, again, that's the basic bill. It's good government. [1:05:30] There's a further debate. [1:05:32] I'd like to offer Peter's Amendment 10. [1:05:37] This amendment would prohibit the president and vice president from earning significant income outside of their official salary. [1:05:45] This is just basically a common sense amendment, and it already applies. [1:05:48] Let's be clear, it already applies to all other federal employees. [1:05:53] Public officials are paid to work in the public interest, not to run a side hustle, push questionable crypto schemes, or hawk their merchandise. [1:06:04] Last year, for example, the president made at least $2.2 billion in outside income, including hundreds of millions from the sale of crypto products. [1:06:12] That makes the president a major player in the crypto industry, while also being its top regulator and its top policymaker. [1:06:21] The conflict of interest could not be more stark. [1:06:24] At a time when Americans are facing rising costs and are struggling to make ends meet, [1:06:29] we should know that our highest federal officials are working in the public interest and not for their own financial interests, [1:06:36] and would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. [1:06:39] I think it's a complicated issue, and we should discuss it further to try to figure out the best way to do this in a nonpartisan way. [1:06:46] At this point, I will oppose it because it's not germane to the bill. [1:06:52] I agree. [1:06:53] Clerk will call the roll on the amendment. [1:06:55] Senator Johnson. [1:06:56] No. [1:06:57] Senator Lankford. [1:06:58] No. [1:06:58] Senator Scott. [1:06:59] No. [1:07:00] Senator Hawley. [1:07:02] Senator Moreno. [1:07:02] Senator Ernst. [1:07:05] No, by proxy. [1:07:06] Senator Moody. [1:07:07] Senator Peters. [1:07:09] Aye. [1:07:10] Senator Hassan. [1:07:11] Aye. [1:07:11] Senator Blumenthal. [1:07:12] Senator Fetterman. [1:07:15] Aye, by proxy. [1:07:16] Senator Kim. [1:07:17] Aye, by proxy. [1:07:18] Senator Gallego. [1:07:18] Aye, by proxy. [1:07:19] Senator Slotkin. [1:07:20] Aye, by proxy. [1:07:21] Senator Paul. [1:07:22] No. [1:07:27] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are three, the nays are seven. [1:07:31] On the vote, by proxy, the yeas are four, the nays are one. [1:07:33] On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. [1:07:36] If there are no further amendments, the clerk will call the roll on. [1:07:41] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak on the bill. [1:07:43] Senator Peters. [1:07:44] This bill would allow Congress to overturn an unlimited number of rules all at once under [1:07:50] fast-track congressional procedures. [1:07:53] Members of Congress should be able to give due consideration to each regulatory repeal [1:07:57] that they vote on, and not be forced to vote on a bundle of unrelated rules. [1:08:04] The bill would also supercharge President Trump's agenda, which has already rolled back [1:08:09] environmental protections, protections for clean water, consumer safeguards, as well [1:08:14] as worker safety standards. [1:08:15] I would urge my colleagues to vote no. [1:08:17] Truth of the matter is Congress almost never votes on regulations. [1:08:21] Thousands and thousands of regulations every year are put forward, and we have no vote [1:08:25] on them. [1:08:26] This is one of the greatest defects of Congress. [1:08:28] I think the bill is a good step in the right direction where we actually would vote on more [1:08:32] regulations. [1:08:33] Do you have the last word, Senator Johnson? [1:08:35] No, I obviously urge a yes vote. [1:08:37] Okay, and the clerk will call the roll on the bill. [1:08:40] Senate 164, final passage. [1:08:42] Senator Johnson. [1:08:43] Aye. [1:08:44] Senator Lankford. [1:08:45] Aye. [1:08:46] Senator Scott. [1:08:47] Aye. [1:08:47] Senator Hawley. [1:08:48] Aye. [1:08:49] Senator Moreno. [1:08:51] Senator Ernst. [1:08:52] Aye. [1:08:52] Aye. [1:08:52] Aye. [1:08:53] How about proxy? [1:08:54] Senator Moody. [1:08:55] Senator Peters. [1:08:56] No. [1:08:57] Senator Hassan. [1:08:58] No. [1:08:58] Senator Blumenthal. [1:09:00] Senator Fetterman. [1:09:02] No, by proxy. [1:09:03] Senator Kim. [1:09:03] No, by proxy. [1:09:05] Senator Gallego. [1:09:06] No, by proxy. [1:09:06] Senator Slotkin. [1:09:08] No, by proxy. [1:09:08] Senator Paul. [1:09:10] Yes. [1:09:18] Mr. Chairman, on the vote, those present, the yeas are seven, the nays are three. [1:09:21] On the vote, by proxy, and for the record, only the yeas are one, the nays are four. [1:09:24] On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are three, and the motion is agreed to. [1:09:28] The Senate will proceed to S-252, Guidance Out of Darkness, the Good Act. [1:09:34] Senator Johnson. [1:09:35] Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I first introduced this bill in 2018 when I was chair of this committee. [1:09:40] Then-ranking member Peters supported it. [1:09:43] It is passed out of the House Oversight Committee by a vote of 41 to zero. [1:09:48] It passed the House by voice vote. [1:09:50] And it's just pretty simple, you know, common sense. [1:09:54] It's been frustrating. [1:09:56] This has taken this long to hopefully get this thing passed. [1:09:58] Now, if the House has passed it, we pass it as is, we get signed into law. [1:10:02] It just says that when agencies and departments issue what they call guidance, that they publish it. [1:10:09] So that businesses and Americans actually know what the rules and laws they're supposed to live by are. [1:10:17] Right now, they're not required to have to publish rules, but not guidances. [1:10:20] So this is just, you know, guidance out of darkness. [1:10:22] It's the minimum we can do when government continues to expand and, you know, influence so much of our lives. [1:10:29] At least let the American people and businesses know what rules and guidances are out there so we can try and comply with them. [1:10:36] RGS vote. [1:10:37] There's a further debate. [1:10:40] Mr. Chairman. [1:10:41] Senator Peters. [1:10:42] Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer Peters Amendment No. 9. [1:10:46] In the vein of transparency that this bill supports, I offer this amendment that would require the President to disclose Presidential Emergency Action Documents to members of Congress. [1:11:00] The President prepares these plans in case of emergency and are supposed to be shared with Congress. [1:11:06] However, administrations of both parties have refused to disclose them despite numerous bipartisan requests. [1:11:14] This is a problem with both parties, both administrations. [1:11:18] Congress has made these numerous requests. [1:11:20] The few plans that have been declassified over the years raise concerns that presidents would push the limits of their authority during an emergency in ways that violate constitutional rights. [1:11:30] In these plans, past presidents prepared options to suspend habeas corpus, detain, quote, dangerous persons that they would define as dangerous within the United States, censor the news media, and halt international travel. [1:11:46] Actually, Chairman Paul and I worked together to get the administrations to disclose these plans to Congress on several occasions. [1:11:54] And I hope that we can work together today for this common-sense transparency step and would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. [1:12:02] Mr. Chairman, Senator Johnson. [1:12:04] As good an idea as his amendment might be, the House has already passed the Good Act. [1:12:12] It's required. [1:12:13] It's needed. [1:12:14] You know, Americans need to know what government expects of them. [1:12:17] If that's an idea that should be passed, it ought to pass on its own merits. [1:12:23] If we add it to this bill, the Good Act is going to die. [1:12:27] It won't have another chance. [1:12:28] We've been waiting since 2018. [1:12:31] The ranking member, Peters, supported this bill back in 2019. [1:12:35] It's been languishing ever since. [1:12:37] We have a real chance of passing it into law. [1:12:40] And so I'll oppose any amendment that modifies this bill and basically acts as a poison pill so it doesn't get passed. [1:12:46] So I'll oppose the amendment and if you want to work with Senator Paul to pass your idea, that's great. [1:12:52] But it should not be attached to this bill and I urge a no vote on the amendment. [1:12:56] I will oppose the amendment. [1:12:57] The clerk will call the roll. [1:12:58] No, okay, I'm sorry. [1:12:59] Senator Johnson. [1:13:00] No. [1:13:01] Senator Lankford. [1:13:02] No. [1:13:03] Senator Scott. [1:13:03] No. [1:13:04] Senator Hawley. [1:13:05] Senator Moreno. [1:13:06] No. [1:13:07] Senator Ernst. [1:13:09] No, by proxy. [1:13:10] Senator Moody. [1:13:11] Senator Peters. [1:13:13] Senator Hassan. [1:13:14] Senator Blumenthal. [1:13:17] Senator Fetterman. [1:13:18] Aye, by proxy. [1:13:19] Senator Kim. [1:13:23] Aye, by proxy. [1:13:23] Senator Gallego. [1:13:25] Aye, by proxy. [1:13:26] Senator Slocken. [1:13:26] Aye, by proxy. [1:13:27] Senator Paul. [1:13:28] No. [1:13:30] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are three, the nays are seven. [1:13:34] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are four, the nays are one. [1:13:36] On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. [1:13:40] Other further amendments? [1:13:41] Mr. Chairman. [1:13:42] Senator Johnson. [1:13:43] There is a substitute amendment that just has a technical edit to the format of the guidance documents. [1:13:48] It provides a rule of construction that non-compliance impacts the validity of any guidance document that a guidance document is subject to congressional review. [1:13:57] Is there any further debate? [1:13:58] The clerk will call the roll. [1:14:00] Senator Johnson. [1:14:01] Aye. [1:14:02] Senator Lankford. [1:14:03] Aye. [1:14:04] Senator Scott. [1:14:05] Aye. [1:14:06] Senator Hawley. [1:14:07] Aye. [1:14:08] Senator Moreno. [1:14:09] Senator Ernst. [1:14:11] Aye, by proxy. [1:14:12] Senator Moody. [1:14:14] Senator Peters. [1:14:16] This is on the substitute amendment. [1:14:20] Aye. [1:14:20] Senator Hassan. [1:14:23] Aye. [1:14:24] Senator Blumenthal. [1:14:25] Senator Fetterman. [1:14:27] Aye. [1:14:28] By proxy. [1:14:29] Senator Kim. [1:14:30] Aye, by proxy. [1:14:31] Senator Gallego. [1:14:32] Aye, by proxy. [1:14:33] Senator Slocken. [1:14:34] Aye, by proxy. [1:14:35] Senator Paul. [1:14:36] Aye. [1:14:36] Mr. Rowe. [1:14:39] Mr. Chairman, on the votes present, the yeas are ten, the nays are zero. [1:14:43] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are five, the nays are zero. [1:14:45] On this vote, the yeas are 15, the nays are zero, and the amendment is agreed to. [1:14:49] Are there further amendments? [1:14:50] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer amendment 18. [1:14:54] We've already passed an amendment, so if it has to go back to the House, then it's got [1:14:58] to go back to the House already. [1:14:59] We just did that in the second one. [1:15:00] That was the argument against the first amendment, but we are sending it back to the House now. [1:15:04] This amendment would require any agency settlement agreement to be made public. [1:15:10] Agencies can use settlement agreements to rein in corporations and individuals who have [1:15:16] broken the law. [1:15:17] For example, the Department of Justice uses settlement agreements to provide compensation [1:15:21] for victims of contaminated water at Camp Lejeune and an authority I helped pass into law. [1:15:29] However, too often, these settlement agreements are not made public, which undermines trust [1:15:34] that the government is fairly enforcing the law. [1:15:40] This is especially true as President Trump directed the Department of Justice to settle a suit [1:15:46] with himself to create the now infamous Weaponization Fund. [1:15:52] Making these settlement agreements public would ensure that agencies enforce the law without [1:15:56] favor to political allies and that those who seek to break the law clearly understand the [1:16:02] consequences of them breaking the law. [1:16:05] I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. [1:16:06] Mr. Chairman, while it is true that this will have to go back to the House to be passed, [1:16:12] they agree with this technical amendment. [1:16:15] So it doesn't really change the basic bill. [1:16:18] As I said, the House bill passed by voice vote. [1:16:21] I'm quite sure that this substitute amendment will also pass by voice vote. [1:16:25] We start adding additional things, it puts the whole thing in doubt. [1:16:28] So again, I oppose any amendments that change the substance of the bill as Senator Peters would. [1:16:32] So this amendment is non germane to the bill, so I will oppose it. [1:16:37] The clerk will call the roll. [1:16:39] Senator Johnson. [1:16:39] No. [1:16:40] Senator Lankford. [1:16:41] No. [1:16:41] Senator Scott. [1:16:42] No. [1:16:43] Senator Hawley. [1:16:44] No. [1:16:44] Senator Marino. [1:16:45] No. [1:16:45] Senator Ernst. [1:16:49] No, by proxy. [1:16:50] Senator Moody. [1:16:51] Senator Peters. [1:16:52] Aye. [1:16:53] Senator Hassan. [1:16:54] Aye. [1:16:55] Senator Blumenthal. [1:16:56] Aye. [1:16:56] Senator Ketterman. [1:16:57] Aye, by proxy. [1:16:58] Senator Kim. [1:16:59] Aye, by proxy. [1:17:00] Senator Gallego. [1:17:01] Aye, by proxy. [1:17:02] Senator Slotkin. [1:17:03] Aye, by proxy. [1:17:03] Senator Paul. [1:17:04] No. [1:17:04] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are three, the nays are seven. [1:17:09] On the vote, by proxy, the yeas are four, the nays are one. [1:17:11] On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. [1:17:16] Are there further amendments? [1:17:18] Seeing no further amendments, the questions on the final passage of S252 as modified. [1:17:23] The clerk will call the roll. [1:17:24] Senator Johnson. [1:17:25] Aye. [1:17:26] Senator Lankford. [1:17:26] Aye. [1:17:27] Senator Scott. [1:17:28] Aye. [1:17:28] Senator Hawley. [1:17:29] Aye. [1:17:30] Senator Marino. [1:17:31] Aye. [1:17:31] Senator Ernst. [1:17:33] Aye. [1:17:35] Aye, by proxy. [1:17:36] Senator Moody. [1:17:37] Senator Peters. [1:17:38] Aye. [1:17:39] Senator Hassan. [1:17:40] Aye. [1:17:41] Senator Blumenthal. [1:17:42] Senator Fetterman. [1:17:44] Aye, by proxy. [1:17:46] Senator Kim. [1:17:47] Aye, by proxy. [1:17:48] Senator Gallego. [1:17:49] Aye, by proxy. [1:17:50] Senator Slotkin. [1:17:50] Aye, by proxy. [1:17:51] Senator Paul. [1:17:52] Yes. [1:17:57] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are ten, the nays are zero. [1:18:00] On the vote, by proxy, and for the record, only the yeas are five, the nays are zero. [1:18:03] On this vote, the yeas are ten, the nays are zero, and the motion is agreed to. [1:18:06] We now turn to S3175, Community Involvement in Zone Improvement Plans, the SIP-ZIP Act of [1:18:15] 2025. [1:18:16] Senator Lankford. [1:18:18] I encourage passage, and I'm going to just not make an opening statement so we can get [1:18:24] on with this. [1:18:25] How about that? [1:18:25] Without further debate. [1:18:27] That ought to bring unanimous consent. [1:18:29] Yes. [1:18:30] Without objection. [1:18:32] Are there amendments to be offered? [1:18:34] Without further debate, the clerk will call the roll. [1:18:39] Senator Johnson. [1:18:40] Aye. [1:18:40] Senator Lankford. [1:18:42] Aye. [1:18:42] Senator Scott. [1:18:43] Aye. [1:18:44] Senator Hawley. [1:18:45] Aye. [1:18:46] Senator Moreno. [1:18:48] Senator Ernst. [1:18:48] We'll call it again. [1:18:53] Let's abort this vote and start over. [1:18:57] Apparently, there's a Lankford Substitute Amendment, and so do we have to vote on it or not? [1:19:04] We just need to announce that it's been modified and agreed to, and so the vote will actually [1:19:10] be on the S3175 as modified by the Lankford Amendment. [1:19:16] Without objection, the vote will be on the modified version. [1:19:19] Clerk will call the roll. [1:19:20] Senator Johnson. [1:19:21] Aye. [1:19:22] Senator Lankford. [1:19:23] Still aye. [1:19:24] Senator Scott. [1:19:25] Aye. [1:19:26] Senator Hawley. [1:19:26] Aye. [1:19:27] Senator Moreno. [1:19:28] Senator Ernst. [1:19:30] Aye, by proxy. [1:19:31] Senator Moody. [1:19:33] Senator Peters. [1:19:34] Aye. [1:19:35] Senator Hassan. [1:19:36] Aye. [1:19:36] Senator Blumenthal. [1:19:38] Senator Fetterman. [1:19:40] Aye, by proxy. [1:19:41] Senator Kim. [1:19:42] Aye, by proxy. [1:19:42] Senator Gallego. [1:19:43] Aye, by proxy. [1:19:44] Senator Slotkin. [1:19:46] Aye, by proxy. [1:19:46] Senator Paul. [1:19:48] Aye. [1:19:49] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are 10, the nays are 0. [1:19:54] On the vote, by proxy, and for the record only, the yeas are 5, the nays are 0. [1:19:57] On this vote, the yeas are 10, the nays are 0, and the motion is agreed to. [1:20:07] All right. [1:20:11] Next, we'll consider H.R. 5-2-3-5, Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025. [1:20:18] Is there further debate? [1:20:21] Are there further amendments? [1:20:23] Hearing none, the Clerk will call the roll. [1:20:24] Senator Johnson. Aye, by proxy. Aye. Senator Lankford. Aye. Senator Scott. Aye. Senator Hawley. Aye. Senator Marino. Aye. Senator Ernst. Aye, by proxy. Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Aye. Senator Hassan. Aye. Senator Blumenthal. Senator Fetterman. Aye, by proxy. Senator Kim. Aye, by proxy. Senator Gallego. Aye, by proxy. Senator Slocken. Aye, by proxy. Senator Paul. Aye. Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are ten, the nays are zero. On the vote by proxy and for the record [1:21:08] only the yeas are five, the nays are zero. On this vote, the yeas are ten, the nays are zero, and the motion is agreed to. We will now turn to S1735, Permitting Transparency and Accountability Act. Senator Scott. Mr. Chairman. So the bill in front of the committee is pretty simple. I did it when I was governor and maybe Senator Hassan did it when she was governor. We get all these questions and so you figure out how you can use the internet to just put the process up so when people are getting a permit, they can just see where the process is. We did it with all of our FEMA applications because people are [1:21:39] constantly calling. So we all can track where it package is from, from the warehouse to the front door. So this just, it doesn't add any money. It doesn't change any standards. It just says we're going to give everybody information if you're applying for a permit. It's a secure, it'll be a secure website. So it's, it's really simple. And we're, we're probably all getting questions at our offices because you can't get an answer from the federal government. We have to call so it'll just be, everybody will know what's going on. So I hope everybody will vote for it. [1:22:06] I ask unanimous consent that we, uh, consider the vote to be on the Scott substitute amendment without objection. Are there any other amendments? Mr. Chairman, uh, I would like to, uh, offer, uh, Peter's, uh, number nine. Uh, this amendment would require that agencies report if they have placed a pause, uh, moratorium or a stop work order, uh, on the, uh, permit. Under this administration, [1:22:30] agencies have halted projects, uh, that were already under construction or even, uh, completed, uh, by pausing the permitting process. [1:22:40] This causes not only tremendous confusion, but it also costs millions of dollars in wasted resources. For example, the Trump administration paused permitting on a wind project in Rhode Island, [1:22:52] throwing its timeline into chaos, costing millions of dollars and jeopardizing union construction jobs. [1:23:01] Permit applicants deserve to know why their permits are being delayed, especially if it's because of the agency, uh, issuing that particular permit. [1:23:10] I would urge my colleagues, uh, to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senator Scott. Um, it's not necessary. [1:23:16] Um, it's not necessary. The agency can already, the way this would work, the agency can put that information up. [1:23:20] And any agency, if they, if they want to stop getting questions all the time, that's what they would do. [1:23:25] So it's not necessary. I will oppose the amendment. The clerk will call the roll. [1:23:30] Senator Johnson. No, by proxy. Senator Lankford. No. Senator Scott. Nope. Senator Hawley. No. Senator Marino. No. Senator Ernst. No. [1:23:41] Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Aye. Senator Hassan. Aye. Senator Blumenthal. Senator Fetterman. Aye, by proxy. [1:23:52] Senator Kim. Aye, by proxy. Senator Gallego. Aye, by proxy. Senator Slotkin. Aye, by proxy. [1:23:57] Senator Paul. No. Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are three, the nays are six. [1:24:03] On the vote, by proxy, the yeas are four, the nays are two. In this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. [1:24:08] Are there further amendments? Hearing none. Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to make a brief comment. [1:24:14] Senator Peters. First of all, I'd just like to thank my colleague, Senator Scott, for his leadership on this bill. [1:24:21] And I agree with him that the permitting process certainly needs more transparency and accountability. It's a huge, huge problem. [1:24:29] But I also believe that this bill is drafted, needs some changes to strengthen that transparency and hold agencies accountable when permits are delayed. [1:24:38] I hope to continue to work with Senator Scott on this bill. But it's currently drafted. I can't support it. [1:24:43] But I hope we can work together and refine it. And I look forward to working with you in the future. [1:24:49] The vote will be on S1735 as amended by the Scott substitute. The clerk will call the roll. [1:24:54] Senator Johnson. Aye. [1:24:56] Aye, by proxy. [1:24:58] Senator Lankford. Aye. [1:24:59] Senator Scott. Aye. [1:25:00] Senator Hawley. Aye. [1:25:01] Senator Moreno. Aye. [1:25:03] Senator Ernst. [1:25:04] Aye, by proxy. [1:25:06] Senator Moody. [1:25:07] Senator Peters. [1:25:08] No. [1:25:09] Senator Hassan. [1:25:11] No. [1:25:13] Senator Blumenthal. [1:25:15] Senator Fetterman. [1:25:16] No, by proxy. [1:25:17] Senator Kim. [1:25:18] No, by proxy. [1:25:19] Senator Gallego. [1:25:20] No, by proxy. [1:25:21] Senator Slotkin. [1:25:22] Aye, by proxy. [1:25:24] Senator Paul. [1:25:25] Yes. [1:25:30] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are six, the nays are three. On the [1:25:33] vote by proxy, and for the record, only the yeas are three, the nays are three. On this [1:25:36] vote, the yeas are six, the nays are three, and the motion is agreed to. [1:25:41] We will next consider S5163, No Bonuses for Bad Service Act. [1:25:46] Senator Hawley. [1:25:47] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the committee to consider the Hawley Substitute Amendment [1:25:50] as the underlying bill without objection. [1:25:52] Without objection. [1:25:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank Senator Blumenthal for his great partnership on this issue. [1:25:58] And also your help, Mr. Chairman. [1:25:59] This is a very simple bill, and I just want to show the committee one picture. I think [1:26:03] we've got it here. The bill just says that the Postmaster General cannot be paid a bonus [1:26:08] while areas of our states are not getting the mail. [1:26:12] I think we've got a picture of Missouri. Let's see. Do we have it, guys? Here it is. [1:26:16] Here it is. This is the mail. This is a pile of mail in St. Louis, Missouri. [1:26:21] This is not AI. This is real. I wish it were AI. This is real. This is from April of this year. [1:26:27] An entire massive pile of mail left to rot. People not getting their prescriptions, not getting their bank statements, [1:26:34] not getting their Social Security checks, not getting their Medicaid and Medicare statements. [1:26:37] All of it just left there. The Postmaster General, when I asked him about this when he was in front of our committee, [1:26:42] months after this had happened, months after we had requested help from the Post Office, he didn't know anything about it. [1:26:47] And meanwhile, that Postmaster General last year got paid $305,000 in bonuses. [1:26:52] Bonuses. That's not his salary, mind you. Bonuses. Here's the numbers. [1:26:56] Postmaster Generals over the last decade, over $2 million in bonuses. [1:27:00] I just think that we ought to say, until the mail starts getting delivered in our states, [1:27:04] the Postmaster General does not need to be getting a bonus. Certainly not millions of dollars in bonuses. [1:27:10] All this bill would do is say you've got to deliver the mail at least 95% of the time before you can start getting a bonus [1:27:20] and exercise some basic financial due diligence over the Postal Service. That's all it is. [1:27:25] I thank you again, Senator Blumenthal and other folks who are co-sponsoring and ask for a yes vote. [1:27:30] Mr. Chairman? [1:27:31] Senator Blumenthal? [1:27:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank Senator Hawley for his leadership on this bipartisan measure, [1:27:38] which is admittedly only one step, and some may regard it as a small step, [1:27:44] toward greater accountability for the Postmaster General and the Post Office Service in general. [1:27:50] Americans are really very dissatisfied. I think that's an understatement with the quality of service. [1:27:58] To be providing bonuses at this point after questions about that quality of service, I think, is really a travesty. [1:28:07] And this is one step I'm glad we're going to take it today. [1:28:12] For years, I've been asking the same question, you know, with a $9 billion annual deficit, why are we paying bonuses? [1:28:19] And years ago, I remember the response was, well, you know, to get talent, you've got to pay for talent. [1:28:24] And I said, well, how much talent does it take to lose $9 billion a year? [1:28:29] I'd go one step further and say let's start paying bonuses when we actually have a, you know, balanced budget or they're in the black. [1:28:35] But I do support the concept of this. Incentives work. [1:28:39] Nobody in the private world gets paid for not doing a good job. [1:28:42] However, the only thing I would add is much of the Post Office's problems is because of Congress and the constraints. [1:28:49] There are at least a half a dozen mandates that we put on them that make it virtually impossible, not to deliver the mail on time, but make it virtually impossible to run in the black. [1:28:58] We do need to consider those. The Post Office is out of money. They come asking for more money. It's a big problem. [1:29:04] But we on this dais need to be open to looking at the mandates because they'll never make they'll never break even with all the mandates we put on them. [1:29:12] We would be better off actually contracting out the whole thing, call up UPS, call up FedEx and say, you know, do you want first first class mail? [1:29:22] They probably wouldn't take it with all the mandates if you gave it to them and they could contract it. [1:29:26] You probably get reasonable bids and good delivery on time with a smile, but you'd have to get rid of some of the mandates. [1:29:33] Did you have a comment you want to further call without further comment? I would say we call the roll. [1:29:38] Oh, you want to you have something else of amendment? [1:29:41] Okay, Senator Peters. [1:29:45] Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to offer Peters number one. [1:29:50] This this amendment would repeal the president's illegal March 2026 executive order on elections and would forbid the Postal Service from using any of its funds for its implementation. [1:30:03] The president executive order seeks to basically transform the Postal Service into an election administration agency controlled by President Trump. [1:30:13] If this executive order were to be implemented, it would give the Postal Service and the White House the authority to decide who can and who cannot vote by mail. [1:30:23] For generations, the Postal Service has played a nonpartisan role in our elections. [1:30:29] It simply delivers ballots. [1:30:31] We should all be willing to protect this nonpartisan role. [1:30:35] I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. [1:30:37] You know, one interesting thing, one of my kids lived in an apartment years ago and he got like eight ballots, all with different names. [1:30:44] Is there not an obligation to the Post Office to figure out who lives there and whether the mail is accurate, particularly when it's going to be a legally binding document that people might turn in? [1:30:53] So I think the Post Office does have an obligation not to aid and abet fraud in our elections. [1:31:00] So I will vote no on this amendment. [1:31:02] Further debate, the clerk will call the roll. [1:31:04] Senator Johnson. [1:31:07] No, by proxy. [1:31:08] Senator Lankford. [1:31:09] Senator Scott. [1:31:10] No. [1:31:11] Senator Hawley. [1:31:12] Senator Moreno. [1:31:13] No, by proxy. [1:31:15] Senator Ernst. [1:31:16] No, by proxy. [1:31:17] Senator Moody. [1:31:18] Senator Peters. [1:31:20] Aye. [1:31:21] Senator Hassan. [1:31:22] Aye. [1:31:23] Senator Blumenthal. [1:31:24] Senator Fetterman. [1:31:25] Aye, by proxy. [1:31:26] Senator Kim. [1:31:27] Aye, by proxy. [1:31:28] Senator Gallego. [1:31:29] Aye, by proxy. [1:31:30] Senator Slotkin. [1:31:31] Aye, by proxy. [1:31:33] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are three, the nays are five. [1:31:36] On the vote by proxy, the yeas are four, the nays are three. [1:31:39] On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to. [1:31:45] Are there further amendments? [1:31:46] Seeing no further amendments, the question is on the final passage of S5163 as modified. [1:31:52] The clerk will call the roll. [1:31:54] Senator Johnson. [1:31:55] No. [1:31:58] No, by proxy. [1:31:59] Senator Lankford. [1:32:00] Aye. [1:32:02] Senator Scott. [1:32:03] Aye. [1:32:05] Senator Hawley. [1:32:06] Aye. [1:32:08] Yes, by proxy. [1:32:09] Senator Ernst. [1:32:10] Yes, by proxy. [1:32:11] Senator Moody. [1:32:12] Senator Peters. [1:32:14] Aye. [1:32:15] Senator Hassan. [1:32:16] Aye. [1:32:22] Senator Blumenthal. [1:32:25] Senator Fetterman. [1:32:26] Aye. [1:32:29] By proxy. [1:32:30] Senator Kim. [1:32:31] Aye, by proxy. [1:32:32] Senator Gallego. [1:32:33] No, by proxy. [1:32:34] Senator Slotkin. [1:32:35] Aye, by proxy. [1:32:37] Senator Paul. [1:32:38] Aye. [1:32:44] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are nine, the nays are zero. [1:32:46] On the vote by proxy, and for the record only, the yeas are four, the nays are two. [1:32:49] On this vote, the yeas are nine, the nays are zero, and the motion is agreed to. [1:32:53] Senator Peters. [1:32:54] Mr. Chairman, just a quick to the sponsor, Senator Hawley. [1:32:58] I voted yes for this to move it forward. [1:33:01] I appreciate what you're doing. [1:33:02] But I do believe that there's some corrections that we'd like to work. [1:33:05] So I won't support it going to the floor without some further discussion. [1:33:09] But look forward to working with you as we always do. [1:33:11] We will next go to Senate Bill 2542, Federal Building Threat Notification Act. [1:33:19] Senator Peters. [1:33:20] Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer my substitute as the underlying bill by the UC. [1:33:25] Without objection. [1:33:26] This bipartisan bill will ensure, as modified. [1:33:30] Without objection. [1:33:31] This bipartisan bill will ensure that Federal Productive Service is able to work with agencies [1:33:36] in over 9,000 facilities that they protect to keep building tenants safe and informed in a crisis. [1:33:43] In January of 2025, a man fired gunshots in front of the Patrick McNamara Federal Building in downtown Detroit. [1:33:50] While fortunately no one was injured and the shooter was apprehended, [1:33:54] it took hours for workers in the building to learn about the incident. [1:33:58] This bill requires the FPS director to develop and implement guidance for emergency communications regarding law enforcement related events, [1:34:06] such as active shooter threats that occur in and around Federal buildings. [1:34:10] Federal workers should be able to feel safe in the workplace, [1:34:13] knowing that systems are in place to alert them in a timely manner and would urge adoption. [1:34:18] This vote will be by voice. [1:34:23] Those in favor say aye. [1:34:24] Aye. [1:34:25] Those opposed, no. [1:34:27] The ayes appear to have it. [1:34:28] Next will be Senate Bill 3211, recognizing the measure is reported favorably. [1:34:42] The next bill is Senate Bill 3211, recognizing the role of Direct Support Professionals Act. [1:34:48] Senator Hassan. [1:34:49] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:34:50] First of all, I move by unanimous consent the Hassan Substitute Amendment. [1:34:55] Without objection. [1:34:56] Thank you. [1:34:57] Chairman Paul and Ranking Member Peters, I want to thank you both for the committee's consideration today of this bill. [1:35:03] Direct Support Professionals provide critical support services for people who experience disabilities, and they help ensure that people with disabilities can live independently and fully participate in their communities. [1:35:14] This bill will help the federal government more accurately track the direct support professional workforce so that we can better understand and address what are critical workforce shortages. [1:35:25] I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. [1:35:28] Is there further debate? [1:35:29] No. [1:35:30] The vote will be a voice vote on 3211 as modified. [1:35:34] All those in favor say aye. [1:35:35] Aye. [1:35:36] All those opposed say no. [1:35:38] The ayes appear to have it. [1:35:41] The measure is reported favorably. [1:35:45] The next bill will be Senate Bill 4079, providing emotional assistance with relief and love. [1:35:52] This is Senator. [1:35:54] Well, we're not doing that one. [1:35:56] Senator Scott. [1:35:59] The amendments tend to improve the bill. [1:36:07] It will always be supportive of law enforcement and their well-being. [1:36:09] But our nation is $40 trillion in debt. [1:36:11] It's important that we are responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. [1:36:14] CBO estimates this bill will cost millions. [1:36:17] I believe it can be implemented without adding to our national debt. [1:36:20] So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which basically it pays for from existing funds. [1:36:26] Okay. [1:36:28] Further debate? [1:36:29] Mr. Chairman. [1:36:30] Senator Peters. [1:36:31] Mr. Chairman, I'm going to speak against this amendment for Senator Gallego, who could not be with us here today. [1:36:40] While I understand the intent behind this amendment, the companion bill has passed the House unanimously. [1:36:47] DHS already has billions of dollars from two reconciliation bills. [1:36:52] Congress doesn't need to appropriate additional funding for this program at all. [1:36:56] The bill has minimal cost. [1:36:58] It's intended to improve the well-being of frontline DHS law enforcement officers while also rescuing dogs from shelters. [1:37:06] If we avoid making unnecessary changes, we can move this quickly and advance the House passed version on the floor [1:37:12] and expand mental health resources for DHS personnel when this is signed into law. [1:37:18] We'd love to move this forward. [1:37:20] I urge, along with Senator Gallego, folks to oppose this amendment. [1:37:25] I will support the amendment. [1:37:26] The clerk will call the roll. [1:37:27] Senator Johnson. [1:37:28] Aye, by proxy. [1:37:31] Senator Lankford. [1:37:32] Senator Scott. [1:37:34] Senator Hawley. [1:37:35] Senator Marino. [1:37:37] Senator Ernst. [1:37:38] Aye, by proxy. [1:37:40] Senator Moody. [1:37:41] Senator Peters. [1:37:42] No. [1:37:43] Senator Hassan. [1:37:44] No. [1:37:45] Senator Blumenthal. [1:37:46] No. [1:37:47] Senator Fetterman. [1:37:48] No, by proxy. [1:37:49] Senator Kim. [1:37:50] No, by proxy. [1:37:51] Senator Gallego. [1:37:52] No, by proxy. [1:37:53] Senator Slocken. [1:37:54] No, by proxy. [1:37:58] Senator Paul. [1:38:03] Aye. [1:38:04] Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are six, the nays are three. [1:38:05] On the vote, by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are four. [1:38:07] On this vote, the yeas are eight, the nays are seven, and the amendment is agreed to. [1:38:13] Can we agree to vote in voice on this? [1:38:18] The vote will be on S-4079, the amendment passed, as amended, excuse me. [1:38:25] As modified. [1:38:26] As modified. [1:38:27] All those in favor will say aye. [1:38:29] Aye. [1:38:30] Those opposed, no. [1:38:33] The ayes appear to have it. [1:38:35] The measure is reported favorably. [1:38:42] We will next go to S-3296, Improving Access to Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal Workers of 2025. [1:38:50] Are there any amendments? [1:38:57] Is there debate? [1:38:58] Is there a substitute? [1:39:00] We did. [1:39:01] Yeah, that would be an objection to a voice vote. [1:39:03] We'll move forward with a voice vote without objection. [1:39:06] All those in favor say aye. [1:39:07] Aye. [1:39:08] Aye. [1:39:09] All those opposed say no. [1:39:10] The ayes appear to have it. [1:39:13] The bill will be reported favorably. [1:39:16] Mr. Chair, was there a substitute amendment considered there? [1:39:19] I don't believe there is on that, on the Collins. [1:39:21] Okay. [1:39:23] I don't. [1:39:24] Oh, on the Collins. [1:39:25] Sorry, I was in the wrong place. [1:39:26] That was on the Collins. [1:39:27] Got it. [1:39:28] Thank you. [1:39:29] The next one will be S-388, Promoting Resilient Buildings Act, Cornyn. [1:39:33] A substitute. [1:39:35] And this one does have a substitute. [1:39:38] Without objection, we will offer the substitute amendment as the underlying bill. [1:39:43] Is there further debate? [1:39:48] Amendments? [1:39:50] Voice vote. [1:39:51] All those in favor will say aye. [1:39:53] Aye. [1:39:55] All those opposed, no. [1:39:56] The ayes appear to have it. [1:39:57] The act will be reported favorably. [1:40:00] The next bill is S-3226, Bring Our Heroes Home Act, by Senator Crapo. [1:40:11] This one has a substitute. [1:40:13] Without objection, it will be considered as modified by the substitute. [1:40:18] Are there amendments? [1:40:23] Is there further debate? [1:40:24] By voice vote, those in favor of S-3226 as modified will answer aye. [1:40:33] Those opposed, no. [1:40:36] The ayes appear to have it. [1:40:37] The bill is reported favorably. [1:40:46] Is there a bill number here? [1:40:49] We're just going to do them together. [1:40:53] Mr. Chairman? [1:40:54] Yes. [1:40:55] Senator Blumenthal. [1:40:56] Senator Blumenthal. [1:40:57] I'm not sure whether we have voted on this. [1:41:03] On the last measure, is that the en banc consideration of post office? [1:41:10] That's what we're getting to now. [1:41:12] This will be en blanc. [1:41:15] I hope the debate will not be too extensive. [1:41:18] And this will be on naming of the post offices. [1:41:21] These will all be together. [1:41:22] Do we have to list anything or ask for unanimous consent that the post office naming bills listed [1:41:33] on August 5th, 2026, updated agenda be considered en blanc without objection. [1:41:39] Are there any amendments? [1:41:42] Seeing no amendments, the question is on final passage of postal naming measures en blanc. [1:41:46] The clerk will call the roll. [1:41:49] I said en blanc. [1:41:51] All those in favor will say aye. [1:41:56] Aye. [1:41:57] Those opposed, no. [1:41:59] The ayes appear to have it. [1:42:01] Mr. Chairman. [1:42:02] The postal naming bill is approved and sent forward. [1:42:06] Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as a no on S-2394. [1:42:11] Without objection. [1:42:13] Mr. Chairman, I would also like to be recorded as a no on S-2394. [1:42:18] Without objection. [1:42:19] Mr. Chairman, I too would like to be recorded as a no on S-2394. [1:42:21] Without objection. [1:42:22] Thank you. [1:42:23] I recognize Senator Moreno for brief remarks. [1:42:24] Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank you for your work and commitment on placing the [1:42:29] American Glove Act of 2026 on the agenda for the next markup. [1:42:34] It's important that we make certain that we are never left to be dependent on the Chinese Communist Party for critical PPE. [1:42:46] So thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:42:47] Mr. Chairman. [1:42:49] This concludes the August 6th, 2026 markup. [1:42:52] This business meeting is now adjourned. [1:42:54] I'll see you all, Georgia. [1:42:55] And coninner. [1:42:56] I'm John Jack . [1:42:57] It's all confined that is Wednesday. [1:42:59] I wish his assets were right... [1:43:00] But I'd like to say all your strange things. [1:43:01] I mean, it's chasing people or have no you may be notified when we should give back like you. [1:43:03] Both of us are adjourned. [1:43:04] I'm the only one here. [1:43:05] That's all right. [1:43:06] Goodbye, back in front of the Muk gave to theterminivos Ave Road. [1:43:07] From The Engine Home gonna jump around. [1:43:09] And then we'll be friends withiber Jab i Kor Dave Marks in the ini.