Summary
- Sen. Paul-led committee voted 8-5 to advance contempt resolution against Anthony Fauci for invoking Fifth Amendment 111 times despite pardon.
- No witnesses testified at markup, but Sen. Paul said Anthony Fauci refused to answer questions about Wuhan funding and email deletions.
- Sen. Lankford argued Anthony Fauci's refusal to answer trivial questions proved bad faith, while Sen. Blumenthal countered he reasonably feared state perjury prosecution.
- Republicans backed contempt as necessary accountability for defying subpoena, while Democrats condemned process as partisan theater violating Fifth Amendment protections and oversight precedent.
- Contempt resolution now heads for full Senate consideration with Sen. Peters filing minority views, testing whether pardon nullifies Fifth Amendment privilege claims.
Morning digest
Get hearings like this in your inbox
Transcript
Committee will come to order. Pursuant to the notice issued on July twenty ninth, two thousand twenty six, the committee will consider fifty-five pieces of legislation today. I note the presence of a quorum. Eight days ago, Doctor Anthony Fauci sat before this committee in the witness chair under subpoena. For conduct covered by the President Biden's full and unconditional pardon, reaching back to two thousand fourteen, Doctor Fauci faced no risk of federal prosecution. All he had to do was tell the truth. More than one hundred times, though, he refused. The chair ruled that Doctor Fauci's assertion of the fifth amendment privilege was unsupported in light of the pardon and the testimony he offered in his opening statement. The chair directed Anthony Fauci to answer. He refused again. That is what we are voting on today, not his opinions, not his policies, not anything he said from a podium six years ago. We are voting on whether a witness who has received the benefit of a sweeping federal pardon can be ordered by this committee to answer questions, and then defy that order without consequence. More than a million Americans died from COVID. Many of them died alone. Workers were forced to choose between a mandate and a job they needed. Businesses closed and never reopened. Children lost years of school they will never get back. Americans lost the freedom to work, to worship, and to decide what went into their own bodies. Nothing we do today can undo those losses, but silence does not honor them either. This committee and the American people have a right to know why Dr. Fauci's agency funded dangerous research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and what role he played in approving and overseeing it. Why he told his colleagues to delete emails. Why he told them to delete emails and then delete the deleted file. What was he told in January, twenty twenty? What was said on those calls? What his agency did with and for the intelligence community. And whether knowing what he knows now, he still believes that the risks were worth taking. Documents tell only part of the story. Many of these questions can be answered only by Doctor Fauci. He under- he answered none of them. There will be another pandemic. The time to determine which legislative reforms are necessary to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated is now, not later. This committee passed the bipartisan risky research review act, to strengthen oversight of dangerous life sciences research, funded by the federal government to address failures exposed by the COVID-nineteen pandemic. But Congress cannot determine what additional reforms are necessary until it fully understands what remains unanswered. Holding a witness in contempt is a serious thing, and it should be rare. But the contempt power exists for precisely this circumstance. Oversight is not a courtesy, this committee extends, or a favor a former official grants us. It is a constitutional obligation. And when voluntary cooperation ends, Congress must be able to compel compliance with its lawful demands. That is Congra- Congress's compulsory instrument. A subpoena is not an invitation. A subpoena with no consequence is not a subpoena, it's a suggestion. Seeking the truth is not a witch hunt. Accountability is not vengeance. Accountability is what stands between the American people and a repeat of the mistakes, and the very real consequences of the past. The, Senator Peters, you are recognized.
Thank you, Mr. uh, Chairman. The, uh, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee has a long and very proud history of conducting serious bipartisan oversight on behalf of the American people. Democrats and Republicans have worked together to follow the facts, compel information, and hold both democratic and Republican administrations alike accountable. That work depends on the credibility of this committee. It depends on the legitimacy of our investigations and a recognition by witnesses, courts, and the public that Congress is exercising its powers dutifully. The contempt resolution before us today puts all of that at risk. Following a one-sided investigation, and a rushed process that has repeatedly excluded the minority and other members of this committee. The chairman is now asking the committee to take a vote that could harm our ability to conduct future investigations and disregards constitutional protections long recognized by the US Senate, all without making a reliable case that there is a legal basis for holding Dr. Fauci in contempt. Let's be clear, this resolution will not provide the committee with any additional information or compel Doctor Fauci to provide answers to our inquiries. Criminal contempt is punitive. It does not compel a witness to answer questions or produce the documents we'd all like to see. What it will do is create a damaging precedent that future witnesses will use to resist legitimate constitutional, or excuse me, congressional oversight, and weaken this committee's ability to compel testimony. For decades, the Senate has maintained that a witness must appear before a committee even when that witness intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Senate committees have been able to defend that position in the courts because both Democratic and Republican chairs have considerably, have consistently recognized and respected the constitutional rights of witnesses when they appear. And when a witness refuses to voluntarily appear, that principle leaves the Senate on very strong ground to compel their appearance, and where necessary in rare instances make referrals for criminal contempt. If this committee now seeks to punish a witness for asserting their constitutional protected Fifth Amendment rights, future witnesses will argue that appearing before Congress exposes them to punishment regardless of they whether they comply with the subpoena, and invoke a constitutional protection. They will point directly to this vote, this vote, as a justification for refusing to appear at all. That would make it harder for this committee and every committee in Congress to compel testimony in future investigations. The chairman has also suggested he may attempt to refer this matter to the Department of Justice without approval of the full Senate. That would be even more dangerous and widely unprecedented move. No individual center, senator, and no committee speaks for the entire Senate as a whole. The Senate's institutional powers belong to the full body. Allowing one chairman to unilaterally assert those powers would invite future chairs in both parties to bypass the Senate whenever they cannot secure the support of their colleagues. This investigation has been one-sided from the beginning, the minority has excluded uh been has been excluded from witness interviews uh and full access to committee records, and information has been selectively released to support conclusions that the chairman reached years ago. A process that lacks lacks bipartisan participation and seeks to confirm predetermined conclusions, it does not strengthen congressional oversight. It makes our work to conduct oversight more challenging and less likely to withstand scrutiny. This committee should not damage its future investigative authority to advance the chairman's years-long campaign against a sing- a signal a single individual. 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. That matters too. So I urge my colleagues to protect this committee, protect the Senate's institutional powers and oppose this uh this uh resolution
thank you mr. chairman
despite minority statements to the contrary this investigation has been conducted with unparalleled transparency thousands and thousands of documents have been put up for review from the minority you have to request a password they've been informed of that not one democrat has requested a password to look at any of the documents so there is transparency they're just not interested in reviewing the documents
Mister Chair?
Uh, Senator Peter Ralfson.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Um,
I'll listen.
I just also wanna take a moment to address today's contempt resolution vote. 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. But that's not what we saw last week in this committee. 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, and they wanted to blame him for everything that went wrong during the pandemic.
Mm.
The goal was clear, and I want to emphasize this. The goal was to wait for Doctor 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, leaving Doctor Fauci little choice but to invoke his constitutional right to not walk directly into a trap. So who's helped by this political theater? 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. It's certainly not parents who are not seeing any action to reverse the devastated cuts to the Affordable Care Act. and Medicaid that kicked them off their health insurance. 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, Junior and his administration. 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.
Mr. Chairman?
Let let's be clear. All that was required from Anthony Fauci.
Yeah, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I wanna associate myself with in second your opening comments. Um and I also wanna strongly rebut the comments from our Dem- Democrat colleagues here. You know, particularly when ranking member Peter says this has been one-sided and rushed. Rushed?
Mm-hmm.
When I was chairman of this committee back in twenty twenty, I started conducting oversight. I held hearings. The- there was no cooperation in those hearings. As a matter of fact, I remember one when we held a hearing with Dr. Pierre Corey when he came in with uh all kinds of evidence on the effectiveness of Ivermectin. The ranking member then denigrated him. Back then, Dr. Corey was a Democrat. He - he was shocked at the treatment he was given by the right ranking member. How how many people died because they lacked early treatment with safe, effective generic drugs? Well, that hearing laid out the truth that this could be something that could help people. And we had a ranking member that did everything that he could to denigrate that truth. My current experience is as Chairman of PSI, we've been ha- holding hearings after hearings. My my ranking member, Blumenthal, in those hearings, we had one called voice of the vaccine injured. We we had parents. Come in and tell their. Heart wrenching stories. We had parents coming in telling the truth. And the ranking member. A few hours before that hearing, held a press conference and said, hope. The press doesn't cover it because there's nothing credible about this hearing. It's these investigations are. one side is because one side simply doesn't want to look at the truth. They wanna bury the truth. They wanna memory hole it. They don't wanna look at the the Fauci diaries and take a look at how contradictory what he wrote to himself how contradictory it was to what he actually told the public. I I think one of the revelations of those diaries I think probably the the most significant one that's being overlooked was early on in the pandemic, he wrote in his diaries, he thought covid would be maybe twice a bad flu season. Now, I'm not downplaying a bad flu season. We we have them oftentimes. They overwhelm hospitals. Something take seriously. But a pandemic that's gonna be twice that, is that is that really worth destroying people's lives, shutting down businesses, destroying an economy? I argued back then that it wouldn't be. It's been six years in the, since the pandemic began. We have not had a reckoning of what happened. Last Wednesday's hearing was an excellent hearing from a standpoint of legitimate questions being raised, legitimate questions the American people want answers to, legitimate questions that some of them, only Anthony Fauci, Saint Fauci, Mister Science could answer. And even though we have quotes of him saying, uh, I'm not afraid of any oversight committee, I'm happy to talk to any oversight committee, I have nothing to hide. That's not the position he took last Wednesday. What he displayed last Wednesday was contempt for Congress. Contempt for this committee, contempt for investigation. The same contempt that our ranking member, our ranking members, have shown for the diligent oversight and the exposing of the truth that I've been undertaking for six years. 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. 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. I am definitely gonna vote yes on contempt of Congress. And my investigation has just begun. We've invited Doctor Fauci for a transcribed interview. Okay, he doesn't wanna do it in front of the American public. come in front of our in front of our committee we'll go through detail and detail you say you you have nothing to hide good we'll do it behind closed doors we'll transcribe it that that's only one of the interviews we'll be conducting so again know this this this the last week's hearing just began the accountability there's a lot more accountability that's required thank you mister chairman
the committee will now proceed to consideration of an original resolution
yes mister chairman
We're gonna continue the debate once we get on it. There's gonna be time for everyone to speak. The committee will now proceed to consideration of an original resolution authorizing the President of the Senate to certify to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Columbia the committee's report concerning Doctor Anthony Fauci's refusal to answer questions required by committee subpoena.
Mr. Chairman, I'm uh move the uh motion is uh to to be tabled.
This motion to table is intended to avoid accountability, we only have one question, whether to hold a witness responsible for his contempt towards Congress. The witness had many chances to answer the questions pertinent to our investigation and he made his decision a hundred and eleven times. I will oppose this motion and urge my colleagues to do the same. The clerk will call the roll.
But, Mister, I would like a comment on the motion, Mister Chairman.
Okay.
Mister Chairman, I I move to table this resolution, uh, until the, uh, Chairman commits to abiding by the, uh, Senate rules, practice, uh, and laws that, uh, address attempt of Congress. Under the Senate rules, long-standing practice, uh, as well as the US 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. The Senate as a body, not an individual member, uh, must make that decision. Given that Chairman Paul has indicated he may attempt to bypass this process, uh, which is required by Senate rules, uh, and precedent, 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 uh and this committee's uh ability to conduct oversight uh in the future
The clerk will call the roll.
Second. Senator Johnson.
No.
Senator Langford.
No.
Senator Scott.
No.
Senator Hawley.
No.
Senator Marino.
No.
center ernst center moody center peters
yes
center hassan
yes
center blumenthal
yes
center federman
yes
center kim
yes
center gallego
yes by proxy
center slotkin
yes by proxy
center paul
um
mister chairman on the vote of those present the yeas or five the nays or eight on the vote by proxy the yeas or two the nays or zero on this vote the yeas or seven the nays or eight and the motion is not agreed to
mister chair i move
senator assen
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 this resolution
This motion is intended to avoid accountability. No. Um, I will oppose this motion and urge my colleagues to do the same. Press the roll call. Clerk, call the roll.
Senator Senator Johnson.
No.
Senator Lankford.
No.
Senator Scott.
No.
Senator Hawley.
No.
center moreno center ernst center moody center peters
yes
center hassan
yes
center blumenthal
yes
center federman
alright
center kim center gallego
yes by proxy
center slotkin
yes by proxy
center paul
no mr. chairman
uh mr. chair
center blumenthal let's hear let's hear the vote first
thank you
on the vote of those present the
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blumenthal.
Uh, I move to postpone consideration of this resolution until the committee
Mm.
has an opportunity to hear from Doctor Fauci's attorney, who was forcibly removed from the hearing last week. I should point out that doctor fauci had a well-founded fear based on facts that he was in jeopardy of prosecution for perjury in fact the chairman and others on the committee have said the quiet part out loud they've shouted it repeatedly that their objective in that proceeding was in fact to put doctor fauci behind bars he was represented by counsel who attempted to speak at this proceeding even during the darkest days of the mccarthy hearings counsel were allowed to speak we denied that opportunity to doctor fauci and we should hear from his counsel before we move on this motion so that we can hear his side of the legal argument here and i would simply predict mister chairman based on the long history of assertion of self-incrimination rights that there is virtually no chance that a court would actually approve any contempt, because he had a well-founded fear of self-incrimination, which entitled him to invoke the fifth amendment, and we should hear from his counsel. I ask for a roll call vote.
Even when the fifth amendment is appropriately taken where no pardon exists, Mr. Dick? the fifth amendment uh doesn't allow you to testify on the other side of the question basically you are uh you are allowed not to self incriminate but you are not allowed to say oh i'm not gonna self incriminate but then i'm gonna condemn the committee and the investigation so he attempted to do that in his opening statement which courts have looked poorly upon trying to have it both ways and allowing the attorney to take the positive role of saying this is what he would have said had he spoken but he is not going to speak also doesn't fit in with the history of the fifth amendment so i will move to table
mr. chairman
mr. chairman
uh i will oppose tabling the tabling motion
mr. chairman just to clarify uh what who what's the name of the attorney
yes
uh the attorney could be of doctor fauci's choice as i recall his name his name was uh
no no the attorney that you're speaking of but you said you wanna hear from the attorney who what's the name of the attorney you wanna hear from
i think it was david schertler
uh mister uh schiller ok uh uh could we put in a record uh that he is also the uh the attorney for senator menendez in a bribery scandal and also are you asking that you think it was something you'd be prosecuted for for answering senator holly s questions about the color of the carpet
we we could hear by the way from mister honorado who also represented uh
but you think there was jeopardy in answering questions what's the color of your tie what's the color of the of the floor what's the color
the
of the room
the the format of the hearing and the responses and who would be there could be determined by the committee all i'm asking is that we postpone this motion until we hear from an attorney of doctor fauci's choice representing his fifth amendment rights 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 there is also well established precedent for a witness providing a statement at the outset and then declining to answer questions afterward. I think most the prosecutors here know that if one of us as a prosecutor had said "I'm putting this witness behind bars" and then call him to a grand jury or any other proceeding there is simply no way that a court would say you can hold him in contempt because he's invoked his fifth amendment rights i mean this is sort of black letter basic constitutional right senator moreno and i think all of us in this committee really have a stake in making sure those rights are respected because if we tear down the precedence and the principles of the fifth amendment now there is no telling where the decline will wind us up and we will all reap the windfall
Mister Chairman.
Yes.
Not to uh, not to disagree with my fellow attorney, former Attorney General, Senator Blumenthal. The reason, but since Senator Moreno mentioned it. The reason that I asked Dr. Fauci what color his tie was, and what day of the week it was, and what color the carpet is. He looked by the way. I thought he was gonna answer that one. He looked very carefully at the carpet, then he decided not to answer. The reason I asked those questions was precisely to test the good faith nature of his invocation of the Fifth Amendment, because as the lawyers in the room will know, the invocation of the Fifth Amendment, particularly in a context where immunity has already been obtained, Doctor Fauci has full immunity, he has a full and unconditional pardon for a period of some eleven years. In that context, the assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege only adheres to those instances where the witness has a reasonable fear of future prosecution, and it must be tailored to any such fear. 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. Senator Paul asked him about, " Did he have a folder in front of him?" He wouldn't answer that, betrays the fact that his invocation of the fifth amendment wasn't tailored to anything. It was a predetermined, premeditated design to evade this, this committee's questions on any subject, including emphatically those for which he has a pardon. And the United States Supreme Court has been clear for over a century, dating back to eighteen ninety-six, that when a witness has received immunity, he may not stand upon his privilege. And multiple courts of appeals from the United St- including the United States Supreme Court in the Castagar case, has says that, uh, well, I'm gonna quote now, a witness " must reasonably believe that his statements could be used in criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used." The court has also said that the danger must be real and appreciable. It must not be one of imaginary and unsubstantial character. All that to say that I think it's pretty clear, given Doctor Fauci's a hundred and eleven invocations of the fifth amendment, including the questions that he had, could have no fear of prosecution on, he's not gonna get prosecuted for the color of his tie. Shows that he had no interest and no intention of answering any of our questions, and that is an abuse of the, there's no privilege for any of that, and I think there was no good faith attempt to invoke the privilege.
Mister Chairman, I, I really need to answer with your permission, that point.
Senator Blumenthal.
whether he had a reasonable fear i think is beyond question not only the chairman of the committee but three state attorneys general have said that they are conducting investigations of doctor fauci the color of his tie the color of the carpet maybe you were testing his good faith but the standard is not the response to your questions, it is whether he had a reasonable fear. And it is to be liberally construed, as you know, under the Supreme Court cases that you cited in favor of the potential defendant. President Trump invoked the fifth amendment four hundred and forty times in his deposition with the New York Attorney General. Nobody held him in contempt for doing so. 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, and my motion would simply postpone consideration of this contempt motion until we hear from him.
The the primary question of the hearing last week was to understand why uh doctor fauci made the decision to do this funding of this research in wuhan i can't understand how there could be any liability attached to a question of why that's his opinion of why he funded it there's not a crime in funding it there's a judgment question and yet we got the fifth amendment
and and mister chairman there is a serious
all he had to do was tell the truth clerk will call the roll on the blumenthal motion i will vote no
senator johnson
no
senator langford
no
senator scott senator holly
no
senator moreno
no
senator ernst
no
senator moody
no
yes
senator peters
yes
senator hassan
yes
senator blumenthal
yes
senator federman
yes
senator kim
yes
senator gallego
yes by proxy
senator slotkin
yes by proxy
senator paul
no
mr. chairman on the vote of those present the yeas or five the nays or eight on the vote by proxy the yeas or two the nays or zero on this vote the
mr. chairman uh i move to uh uh table this uh resolution i move uh to table consideration of this resolution until the chairman commits to abiding uh by the uh uh set uh whoops
that was your last one
that was my last one i move to uh consider it until the chairman provides all members of this committee uh with access to all documents transcripts and materials related to this investigation, uh, which I have repeatedly, uh, requested since, uh, the beginning of this Congress. Senate and committee rules are - are clear that, uh, all members of this committee have a right to access, uh, committee documents. The chairman has publicly stated he has received over one million documents as part of this, uh, investigation and has only shared a small fraction, uh, with the minority despite repeated request over the past year and a half. Uh, that's why I urge my colleagues, uh, to, uh, vote for this. And I just want to reply to some of the comments, uh, made by the chair that, uh, we just didn't want to look at at this, uh, information. Uh, we have been, uh, asking, uh, for information for quite some period of time over the past, uh, eighteen months and at every turn, uh, whether it's the documents or or trying to, uh, I'm not sure. have the ability to, uh, question witnesses, we have been denied. just in april of this year your staff conducted a transcribed interview of ralph barrick without even notifying my staff about the interview after you posted the transcript uh publicly we asked for the unredacted version uh uh and the classified portion
so
received absolutely no response you refused to let the minority participate in the transcribed interview that doctor fauci agreed to do voluntarily to a comment one of my colleagues made uh we could just do it uh and have a transcript uh in private uh we were open to that doctor falchi was open to it uh but we were declined uh ability to do that it was gonna be one sided and when he knew it was gonna be one sided he didn't wanna come in this this committee normally always deals in a bipartisan way we should have been there asking those questions uh as well um i know that um the uh chairman says that there are these documents were on some sort of uh website uh we did not know about that website uh we were told that there was a letter talking about the website we understand it was hard copy only we have no record of receiving it most of everybody on the dais has no record of receiving it
mmm
and yet as we continually ask for documents if there was this website which is different than what we have done as a committee we always have a shared site where all of us can take a look at documents we all have a right as members of the committee to look at those documents if this other website existed uh and we were supposedly told about it in a in a letter uh and we didn't get it we don't have any record of receiving it we didn't see it but there were numerous times where the chairman's staff when we were asking for documents could have said hey go to that website we have oh ok we'll take a look at it we didn't we we made i i don't know we have records of all these emails we have records i can go through them i don't need to maybe go through them all we got them tabbed you know where are these records we like to see records crickets nothing no no mention of it could have been a mention like oh well by the way we have this this is over eighteen months like stonewalling for eighteen months that's not the way this committee
yeah
should ever work
what's that
it it didn't work when i was chair uh now chairman paul we went through investigation we had a detailed investigation of covid-nineteen all those documents were provided we worked with it with with then ranking member paul under chairman paul we don't get those records that's just not the way this place should work and i i would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would realize that too cause things change if we make this the new precedent there will be a democrat uh as a chair would you want them to do that would you wanna be treated that way i don't think you're gonna wanna be treated that way as well and you'll scream and holler about it it should it we should stop it right now let's continue to have the kind of bipartisan investigations that has made this committee a powerful committee over the years right now we're seating all that we're just making it highly partisan and when you make it highly partisan people just ignore uh what you do and that's really tragic i think and it's sad so i i would urge my colleagues to table this resolution let us take a look at these documents uh they're on his private web or whatever he has uh set up for it we'll take a look at it but we should get back to the practice where we actually have shared information i know when uh senator uh johnson uh was uh chair uh we had shared information i know he wanted uh shared information under chairman paul's uh uh chairmanship as well
ok we we need to get to the motion uh
so but i'm well let me finish is that just
i've let you go on and on and we're gonna we're gonna get to the votes
well i understand that but uh i didn't don't remember ever cutting you off uh when you were ranking member and i've always respected uh your rights and i'll continue to respect your rights
poor member
i would just hope that you would offer that same courtesy to us uh because uh things do change and precedent is important and i would urge my colleagues to table this resolution till we have a chance to look at the the uh information
for
as has been the practice of this committee for as long as this committee has been in existence
for the record uh anthony fowchee refused a voluntary private deposition and that's why he was brought in under subpoena
because it was gonna be one sided because it was gonna be one sided
with with don't interrupt the chair don't interrupt the chair with regard to access to records there has been an unprecedented access senator johnson so no no
center langford
i'm pretty sure you're right no you've been talking i had not as i am
that's god center holly center moreno
i think for now
center ernst
uh from here to here for now
center moody center peters
yes yeah
center hassan
yes
center blumenthal
yeah we we need a proxy
center federman
yes
center kim
yes
center guyago
yes yes by proxy
center slotkin
yes by proxy
center paul
No.
Mister Chairman, on the vote that was present, the yeas are five, the nays are eight, on the vote by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are zero. On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agreed to.
Seeing no other motions, Mister Chairman. the question is on reporting of an original resolution we're not in contact with. Mister Chairman, I have I have a motion. Mister Chairman. We will we will entertain more motions, but the discussion has become dilatory, and so the discussion will be listen to my ruling, I have I have one more motion, Mister Chairman. the discussion will be for two minutes. You will have two minutes to prevent to present your motion. Senator Blumenthal.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I move to postpone consideration of this resolution until this committee has an opportunity to seek leave from the Department of Justice to obtain a court order providing Doctor Fauci with immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony on matters raised during the committee's hearing, the immunity from prosecution could be limited to perjury. It is standard procedure, and again we need to hear from his counsel as to whether it would be satisfactory, to provide immunity. If this committee is really interested in serious answers to the serious questions, it will seek to provide him with this very limited immunity to appear before this committee. There is a need for a serious inquiry to answer questions arising from the pandemic. We need to know where covid originated, how it spread. What could have been done better? We need to hear not only from Dr. Fauci, but from others in the course of a bipartisan, nonpartisan inquiry, perhaps through a commission where, again, Dr. Fauci could testify, a nine eleven type commission. But this kind of show trial is no way to elicit the important information that the country needs to know 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
the clerk will call the roll
senator johnson
no
senator lankford senator scott
no
senator holly
no
senator moreno
still not
senator ernst center moody center peters senator bryant i'm sorry
yes
center hassan yes center blumenthal
yeah
center federman center
yes
center kim center gallego
yes by proxy
center slotkin
yes by proxy
center paul
no
mr. chairman on the vote of those present the yeas are five the nays are eight on the vote by proxy the yeas are two the nays are zero on this vote the yeas are seven the nays are eight and the motion is not agreed to
mr. chairman i'd like to um uh mr. chairman without objection i'd like to enter in the record uh all of the copies of emails uh that we sent to your staff uh asking to have access uh to information uh you will see in these uh emails uh there is uh either absolutely no response or or no way to understand that there is a separate email or a separate place somewhere where we can get an email uh certainly i'll put these in the records without objection certainly would be opening open to see any emails that actually told us
Without objection. Seeing no other motions, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, the question is on reporting of an original resolution recording. pres- Mr. Chairman, pursue it to committee one six B. If I may. Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. Seeing no other motions, the question is on reporting of an original resolution regarding contempt of Congress the clerk will call the roll.
Senator Johnson.
Yes.
Senator Lankford.
All right.
senator scott
yes
senator holly
aye
senator moreno
on behalf of the millions of people harmed by anthony fauci resoundingly yes
senator ertz
aye
senator moody
aye
senator peters
no
senator hassin
no
senator blumenthal senator federman
no
senator kim
no
senator gallego
no by proxy
senator slotkin
no by proxy
senator paul
yes
mister chairman on the vote of those present the yeas are eight the nays are five on the vote by proxy and for the record only the yeas are zero the nays are two on this vote the yeas are eight the nays are five and the motion is agreed to
mister chairman uh uh pursue pursue a new rule
i have i have been recognized
mister chairman
ok
we've had ample remarks on this the chair will limit remarks to two minutes i will give you another chance to state your opinion which has been amply stated. You have two minutes.
Well, Mister Chairman, pursuant to Committee Rule six B and Senate Rule twenty-six, section ten C, I'm notifying you that I intend to uh file minority views regarding uh this resolution.
The clerk will report the conclusion of the vote.
Just did.
And that it is reported favorably.
I'm just gonna be very pleased.
The com- The committee will now proceed to consideration of S four five O five, a bill to require the US Postal Service to designate zip codes for certain communities. Um, uh, Senator Ernst.
Yes. Thank you, Mister Chairman, for holding today's mark-up, and I do have an amendment at the desk in the nature of a substitute for S four five O five, designating single zip codes. Um, Americans deserve timely and efficient mail service and unfortunately, far many of our communities aren't having their needs met by the United States Postal Service. We have delayed tax refunds, we have voter registration confusion, there are misdirected prescription deliveries, and it's time we change this because our families are facing real word world consequences by having an outdated USPS zip code. Um, so, these folks aren't minor inconveniences. They are affecting our families. Now, cities can appeal to the US postal system for changing their zip codes, and most often the answer is no, uh, to those communities. And unfortunately, the process is not transparent and they can only appeal these no's every ten years. And so we have communities like Urbandale, Iowa, where families, our medical centers, and our schools are not receiving their mail, or have to send someone to a post office a community over, uh, to collect their misdirected mail. This is not acceptable and it is time for Congress to act. Um, a lot of folks will say that Congress shouldn't be involved in this, but we should be, because this is one place where the Constitution couldn't be clearer. Article one, section eight, clause seven says Congress has the power to establish post offices and post roads. In other words, fixing postal problems is one of the jobs that we are actually supposed to do. The USPS has not been doing its job and so it's time for Congress to step in and fix these zip code boundaries. Um, let's pass this bill. Uh, the substitute actually adds eight additional communities into the bill, this bill passed by voice vote in the House of Representatives. So I am asking and urging all of my colleagues to support my amendment to the underlying bill and I would like to submit for the record the uh letter asking for those eight additional communities to be included.
Without objection, are there further amendments?
Mister Chairman.
Uh, do you have an amendment to offer?
I got a comment on the amendment.
There, a comment on the bill.
Or the bill, on the bill.
Are, let's let's go with the amendments first. Are there any amendments to be offered?
The substitute, yes.
We will consider the bill as a substitute with the unanimous consent that the other eight be included.
Thank you.
Uh, comments on the bill?
Mister Chairman.
Senator Peters.
So I certainly understand my frustrations uh of with my colleagues uh and certainly respect Senator Ernst uh immensely. uh been working with her on this issue. I just want to raise the issue that under the leadership of chairs of of both parties, uh Hisgac has avoided uh legislating and established uh and establishing zip codes. Um as the Postmaster General testified uh to Hisgac last month, each number in a zip code has a specific meaning, uh and any changes to these numbers actually require corresponding changes to delivery units processing plants it's not a easy process it appears easy on the surface Uh, but it isn't. The Postal Service actually estimates that these changes, which I think are the eighty-three communities, uh, may cost nearly one billion dollars, according to the Postal Service. Passing this bill would be irresponsible as the Postal Service continues to face financial difficulties. Uh, we, I certainly heard from my colleagues in this panel, we all agree that the Post Office needs to become solvent, it needs to be more efficient, we need to reduce cost, but this committee now wants to take action to add according to the postal service estimates one billion dollars of cost uh and uh while they face serious financial problems they're not even contributing to their employees' pension plans right now and we're asking them to incur additional cost uh for a complicated process uh that there is a process within the postal service we shouldn't be legislating and micro-managing the postal service that's not the way a business should have to operate. Just one second. And I would urge my colleagues to vote no. Just one second.
It it's interesting that the people who lose nine billion dollars a year are telling us it'll cost
uh mr. chairman unfortunately it's part of the sad fact uh mr. chairman unfortunately it's part of the sad fact and uh and uh you know i i appreciate we get i think those uh those eight additions are from wisconsin cities who have lobbied me pretty hard to to do this exact same thing and i understand it's kind of a vanity thing you wanna have your community have its own zip code i'm i personally have never really quite understood that but you know i'll i'll take the postal services words gonna cost them a lot of money disrupt things and uh so again i i understand the good intentions i understand the community is wanting to do this but i'll i'll be opposing this bill not not the amendment but the bill Senator Clark.
Yes, uh, I understand, and and, uh, for these cities I don't believe it is a vanity, uh, project. Uh, when prescriptions are being delivered somewhere else, um, mail is misdirected, this is the federal government's job. And the fact that we don't wanna spend money, uh, to correct what is going on in these communities, I think it speaks to the fact that that we are not doing our job if we can't direct the postal service. to actually deliver constituents' mails in a timely manner. I can't believe you. Um, so I do believe the postal, uh, the postal service can do a much better job. We know that there's a lot of waste within that organization, We need to modify it. but certainly we can find a way to get people's mail delivered to their communities. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leifert.
Uh, may I make a brief comment on this? The the issue about zip codes is not just about, uh, zip codes for a specific community, it's also about tax revenue for that community. uh as more and more e-commerce is happening uh a lot of that tax revenue comes back in based on a zip code in a community uh that matters to rural communities especially that they have the ability to be able to get the tax revenue that actually comes in to that rural community the oklahoma zip codes that are included in this are exactly that issue where the tax revenue is going to the wrong town based on e-commerce and it's incredibly important for those small rural communities be able to maintain the post office also assumes in their figures that every one of these rural communities is gonna have to have a physical post office, and it's included in this large billion dollar number. I've said over and over again, they're not asking for a post office, they're asking for their revenue to actually be directed to the right place on it. And uh, so I would challenge some of the numbers that they're gonna bend the assumptions that they're making in this. But I do think this is important for those rural communities.
And the only thing I would add to that is that what happens is a town grows, another town grows, sometimes separated by several miles. You have two distinct towns but they have one zip code. and it becomes confusing where the mail goes to. And there is, there is a matter of uh, you know, being a distinct community needing a distinct um zip code. Let's go ahead and vote on it. This will be on the modified bill, modified by the amendment Senator Ernst added a few uh eight different zip codes. It'll be on S four four five zero five, a bill to require the US Postal Service to designate zip codes for certain communities, as modified. The clerk will call the roll.
Senator Johnson.
No.
center langford
aye
center scott
aye
center holly
aye
center marino
aye
center ernst
aye
center moody center peters
no
center hassan
aye
center blumenthal
aye
center federman
aye
center kim
no
center gallego
no by proxy
center slotkin
no by proxy
Senator Paul.
Yes.
Ten. That's not right. Ten three.
Mister Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are ten, the nays are three. On the vote by proxying for the record only the yeas are zero, the nays are two. And this vote the yeas are ten, the nays are three, and the motion is agreed to.
The next bill will be Senate Bill two seven three three, Duplication Scoring Act. This bill requires the Government Accountability Office to review each committee reported bill or joint resolution and determine whether it is at risk of duplicating or overlapping with an existing program, helping us to stop waste in government before it happens. For years we've had a CBO score on how much something costs. People come up with great ideas, great charitable notions and intentions, but they sometimes aren't careful to look and find out that we already have eighty other federal programs doing the same thing. So this would allow uh an independent agency to tell us hey you already tried this fourteen times why don't you see if your previous fourteen times are working before you create a new agency um are there any amendments seeing none the question is on final passage of s two seven three three the clerk will call the roll
mr. chair mr. chair mr. chair i just wanted to thank you for the work on this bill i appreciate it
s senator johnson
aye
senator Lankford
aye
senator scott
aye
senator holly
aye
center mourinho
aye
center ernst
yes
center moody
aye
center peters
aye
center hassan
aye
center blumenthal
aye
center federman
aye by proxy
center kim
aye
center gallego
aye by proxy
center slotkin
aye by proxy
center paul
yes
mister chairman on the vote that was present the yeas are twelve the nays are zero on the vote
The committee will now proceed to consideration of S two seven three two, bonuses for cost cutters act. This bill incentivizes federal employees to report waste, fraud and abuse to the Inspector General, Chief Financial Officer of the representative agencies. Uh, in private business you're often given a bonus for saving money for your employer. I think if we brought this private business incentive, into the government it would be a good idea. I asked the committee to consider the Paul A and S as the underlying bill. Without objection, are there any further amendments?
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Peters.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to uh offer Peter's uh amendment uh four. Uh, this amendment would prohibit agencies from cancelling grants solely, solely because of the political leadership of the state or local government where the grant uh is located. So. In court filings from June, the uh Department of Energy uh admitted admitted Twenty twenty-eight.
Yeah, definitely.
that it canceled over two hundred grants quote, and this is quote, "based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state." End of quote. Uh, this is not about reducing fraud or improving program performance. The department wrote in court documents that the cancellations were quote again not based on any programmatic statutory cost reduction or performance-based factor." It was just plain old simple political retaliation. Agencies should fairly award grants to carry out programs that Congress has authorized, not punish the president's political opponent of the day, whoever that may be. So I'd urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment.
peter's amendment four i support the senator's intent unfortunately as written i believe the amendment would prohibit the federal government from making decisions about how to best use taxpayer dollars it's also not germane to the bill i urge a no vote without uh any further debate the clerk will call the roll
senator johnson
no
senator lankford senator scott
no
senator holly senator moreno senator ernst senator moody senator peters
aye
senator hasson
aye
senator blumenthal
aye
senator federman
aye by proxy
senator kim
aye
senator geico
aye by proxy
senator slotkin
aye by proxy
senator paul
yes
yes one two three four five six
that's not the amendment that you voted yes i think it is amendment i'm sorry i'm i'm i'm was uh not considering the question Appropriate question, no.
I appreciate your sentiment though.
Four four four eight three zero. Mister Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are four, the nays are eight, on the vote by proxy, the yeas are three, the nays are zero, on this vote the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
Mister Chairman, I'd like to uh offer uh Peter's number nine. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to uh offer uh Peter's number nine. Uh, this amendment would prohibit the president and the Vice President from participating in matters that would benefit them personally, financially. Uh, this is the most basic, uh, minimum requirement that I think we can all ask for, that the leaders of our country do not profit from the positions they have been elected to deal with. At a time when Americans are facing rising cost, we should know that our highest ranking federal officials are working to lower prices, and not just look in for ways to line their pockets. For far too long this has been a glaring loophole in the law. We already require our rank-and-file federal workers not to use their public office for their own benefit, as we should. It's also time that we also require the President and the Vice President to do so as well. And I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
The Constitution, you know, already prohibits the President from enriching themselves and accepting awards. Unfortunately for folks like Anthony Fauci, those rules don't apply and he was able to make a an extra million dollars from a foreign entity while he was uh in office so i think the it's an issue worth looking at but it's not germane to this bill and i think we need to uh do further study before this brings up i'll vote no clerk will call the roll
senator johnson
no
senator lankford
no
senator scott
no
senator hawley
no
senator moreno
no
senator ernst senator moody senator peters
aye
senator hassin
aye
senator blumenthal
aye
senator federman
aye by proxy
senator kim senator gallego
aye by proxy
senator slotkin
aye by proxy
senator paul
no
mr. chairman on the vote that was present the yeas are four the nays are eight on the vote by proxy the yeas are three the nays are zero on this vote the yeas are seven the nays are eight and the amendment is not agreed to
Are there further amendments?
Uh, Mr. President, I have, uh, or, uh, Mr. Chairman rather, uh, amendment number twelve, Peter's number twelve, I'd like to offer. Uh, this amendment, uh, would require the disclosure of all donors, uh, for the east wing construction project and the state ballroom, uh, at the White House. Uh, the administration has financed a portion of this project with, uh, opaque private donations, allowing wealthy special interest, uh, basically by influence uh and access only some of the hundreds of millions that have been donated are actually tied to specific donors we don't know who the other folks are and the public certainly has a right to know exactly who is funding this project how much they are contributing and what if anything they have been promised uh in return uh this is not a vote about whether you like the ballroom or not this is just saying let's be fully transparent to the american people common sense transparency plain and simple, and I would urge uh my colleagues to join me in supporting this.
If we wish to have disclosure, I think there are dozens and dozens if not hundreds of entities funded by George Soros that people would like to know, uh, you know, which fund- which things he's funding, which things he's not. I think there's a whole issue here, and it's - it's worth discussion, but it would be uh deleterious to this bill to uh just have this discussion here and make it one-sided where we want the president's donors to be listed. not any of the people on the left that are giving billions and billions to left wing causes so i will vote no clerk will call the roll
senator johnson
no
senator lankford senator scott
no
senator holly senator moreno
no
senator ernst senator moody senator peters senator hassan
aye
senator blumenthal
aye
senator federman
aye by proxy
senator kim senator gallego
aye by proxy
senator slotkin
aye by proxy
senator paul
no
mister chairman on the vote of those present the yeas are four the nays are eight and the vote by proxy the yeas are three the yeas are three the nays are zero and this vote the yeas are seven the nays are eight and the amendment is not agreed to
are there further amendments
mister chairman
seeing none
mister chairman
senator kim
uh mister chairman at the request of senator gallego who couldn't be here today i'd like to call out gallego amendment number two on monday president trump launched truth api to begin selling early access to his own social media posts subscribers reportedly pay up to one hundred thousand dollars a month one point two million a year for a head start on the president's own words words that move markets and he owns half the company selling that access let's call this what it is insider trading with a presidential seal on it american democracy cannot survive if presidential access is sold to the highest bidder this arrangement raises serious concerns about market's fairness investor protection and public trust and it warrants immediate condemnation by this committee this amendment does two things first it makes clear the president vice president and senior officials cannot sell or profit from non-public information gained through their office that's not radical it's the same standard we hold for every federal employee Second, it demands transparency. Americans have a right to know who is willing to give top dollar for access to the president. National security requires that we know when foreign nations are paying to gain favor, intel, or private insight. For the sake of all of us, access to non-public info- government information cannot be for sale. And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I think the debate is worth having, you know, particularly when we have ethical rules on congress we keep placing more and more should these be placed on the executive branch. This particular amendment though targets uh the president and one of his groups. And I think really law should be more general in the sense that if we think the executive branch should be included in ethics, that we look at it in a general way and not uh in a punitive way towards one individual. So all vote no. Clerk will call the roll.
Senator Johnson. Senator Lankford. Senator Scott. Senator Hawley. center marino
yeah
center ernst yeah oh yeah center moody center peters
aye
center hassan aye center blumenthal
aye
center federman
aye redwoods
center kim
aye
center gallego
aye redwoods
center slotkin
aye redwoods
center paul eight zero yeah mister chairman on the vote that was present the yeas or four the nays or eight on the vote by proxy the yeas or three the nays or zero on this vote the yeas or four oh sorry the yeas or seven the nays or eight and the amendment is not agreed to
leave the clerk with a vote of the kind yes mister ch- mister chairman mister chairman if i may speak on the bill briefly senator peters
Mr. Chairman, this uh bill would basically create a backdoor authority for the executive branch to unilaterally cancel funding without Congress's uh approval. It changes an existing program that already, already allows bonuses to be paid to employees who identify waste, fraud, and abuse. We already have that law. Passing this bill would be a gift, however, to President Trump and Russ Vogt by supercharging their efforts to cancel funding that Congress has authorized. i've spent my career fighting waste fraud and abuse but giving the president authority to override congress and our spending decisions will forever harm congress's ability to serve the american people as an independent branch of government i would urge my colleagues to vote against the bill
one of the stories i always remember is when senator johnson was chairman he became chairman and he discovered a whole room full of like printer cartridges you remember the story they didn't fit anything and there was like a hundred thousand dollars worth in a room when someone finds that or avoids some sort of waste like that we need to give them an incentive to report it and let us know before we have tens of thousands of dollars of printer cartridges that aren't being used this is just a common sense good government bill I recommend a yes vote
we're doing
clerk will call the roll
senator johnson
i
senator langford
i
senator scott
i
senator hawley
i
senator moreno
i
senator ertz Senator Moody.
Senator Moody.
Senator Moody. Senator Peters. Senator Moody. That's interesting. Okay.
No.
Senator Hassan. No. Senator Blumenthal. Senator Fetterman.
No, by proxy.
Senator Kim. No. Senator Gallego.
No, by proxy.
Senator Slotkin.
No, by proxy.
Senator Paul. Yes. That's more. Mister Chairman, on the vote those present, the yeas are eight, the nays are four, and the vote by proxy for the record only the yeas are zero, the nays are
We will now consider S one sixty four midnight rules relief act of twenty twenty five. Senator Johnson.
Mr. Chairman, this uh, you know, every president, both parties oftentimes uh issue rules as they're walking out the door, the end of their term. And so we passed the congressional review act to address that, to be able to overturn those uh midnight rules. Uh, th- this uh bill simply allows congress to include a number of rules in one congressional review act so you can overturn them uh quickly there there was by the way mistakenly a a substitute amendment uh offered or entered the that would have uh sunset the bill i don't want a sunset the bill i think what's good for the goose is good for the for the gando so if this passed it should uh it should apply to uh members of both of you know both parties so again that's the basic bill it's good government
There's a further debate.
Like to, Mister Chairman,
Under Peter's.
like to offer a, like to offer a Peter's Amendment ten. Uh, this amendment would prohibit the, uh, President and Vice President from earning significant income outside of their official salary. Uh, this is just basically a common sense amendment, and it already applies, let's be clear, it already applies to all other federal employees. Public officials are paid to work in the public interest, uh, not to run a side hustle. uh push uh questionable crypto schemes or hawk uh their merchandise uh last year for example the president made at least two point two billion in outside income including hundreds of millions from the sale of crypto products uh that makes the president a major player in the crypto industry
and then
while also being its top regulator and its top policy maker the conflict of interest uh could not be more stark at a time when americans are facing rising costs and are struggling to
I think it's a complicated issue and we should uh discuss it further to try to figure out the best way to do this in a non-partisan way. At this point I will uh pose it because it's not germane to the bill.
I agree.
Clerk will call the roll on the amendment.
Senator Johnson.
No.
Senator Lankford.
No.
center scott
no
center holly
no
center moreno
no no
center ernst
no by proxy
center moody center peters
aye
center hassan
aye
center blumenthal
aye
center federman
aye by proxy
center kim
aye by proxy
center gallego
aye by proxy
center slotkin
aye by proxy
center paul
no
Mister Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are three, the nays are seven. On the vote by proxy, the yeas are four, the nays are one. On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the amendment is not agreed to.
If there are no further amendments, uh, the clerk will call the roll on
Mister Chairman, I'd like to speak on the bill.
Senator Peters.
This, uh, bill would allow Congress to overturn an unlimited a number of rules all at once under fast-track congressional procedures. Members of Congress should be able to give due consideration to each regulatory repeal that they vote on, and not be forced, uh, to vote on a bundle of, uh, unrelated, uh, rules. The bill would also supercharge, uh, President Trump's, uh, agenda, which has already rolled back environmental protections, protections for clean water, uh, consumer safeguards, as well as worker safety standards. I would urge my colleagues to vote now.
Truth of the matter is Congress almost never votes on regulations. Thousands and thousands of regulations,
No, I I obviously urge a yes vote.
Senator. Senator Johnson.
Aye.
Senator Lankford.
Aye.
Senator Scott. Senator Hawley.
Aye.
Senator Marino. center ernts
i vote proxym ok
i vote proxym
yeah
center moody center peters
no
center hassan
no
center blumenthal ernts
hmm
center federman
no by proxym
center kim
no by proxym
center gallego
no by proxym
center sloven
no by proxym
center paul
yes
Mister Chairman, on the vote those present, the yeas are seven, the nays are three. On the vote by proxy and for the record only the yeas are one, the nays are four. On this vote the yeas are seven, the nays are three, and the motion is agreed to.
Senate will proj proceed to S two five two, guidance out of darkness, the good act.
Yeah.
Senator Johnson.
Yeah, Mister Chairman, I I first introduced this bill in two thousand eighteen when I was chair of this committee. Uh, then ranking member Peter supported it. Uh, it is passed out of the House Oversight Committee by a vote of forty one to zero. It passed uh the house by voice vote. And it's it's just pretty simple, you know, common sense uh it's been frustrating this, it's taken this long to hopefully get this thing passed. Now if the house is passed or we if we pass it as is, get signed a law. It just says that when when uh agencies, departments issue what they call guidance, that they publish it. So so that businesses and Americans actually know what the rules and the laws they're supposed to live by are. Right now they're not required to they have to publish rules, but not guidances. So this is just, you know, guidance out of darkness. Uh, it's the the minimum we can do when government continues to expand and, you know, influence so much of our lives, at least let the American people and businesses know what rules and guidances are out there so we can try and comply with them. RGS vote.
There's a further debate.
Mister Chairman.
Senator Peters.
Mister Chairman, I I would like to uh offer Peter's amendment uh number nine. Uh, in the vein of transparency, uh, that this, uh, bill supports, uh, I, uh, offer this amendment that would require the President to disclose presidential emergency action documents to, uh, members of Congress. No, we're not doing that. The President prepares, I'm not doing that. I'm not doing that. uh, these plans in case of emergency and are supposed to be shared with Congress. I'm not doing that. I'm not doing that. Yeah, but you wanna
Just
However, administrations of both parties, uh, have refused to disclose them despite numerous bipartisan requests. This is a problem with both parties, both administrations. Congress has made these numerous requests. 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. Uh, in these plans, po- past presidents prepared options to suspend habeas corpus, detain quote " dangerous persons" that they would uh define as dangerous, within the United States, censor the news media and halt international travel. Actually, Chairman Paul and I worked together to get the administrations to disclose these plans to Congress on several occasions, and I hope that we can work together today uh for this common sense transparency step and would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Yeah, m- Mister Chairman,
Senator Johnson.
so as as good in his idea his as his amendment might be, the house has already passed the good act. It it's required, it's needed. You know, Americans need to know what government expects of them. If that's an idea, uh, that should be passed, it ought to pass on its own merits. If if we add it to this bill, the good actor's gonna die. It it won't have have another chance. We've been waiting since two thousand eighteen. The ranking member, ranking member, Peters, supported this bill back in two thousand nineteen. It's been languishing ever since. We have a real chance of passing it into law. And so I'll oppose any amendment that modifies this bill and basically acts as a poison pill so it doesn't get passed. So I'll oppose the amendment and if you if you wanna work with uh Senator Paul to to pass your idea that's great, but uh it should not be attached to this bill and I urge a a no vote on the amendment.
I will oppose the amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
No, ok I'm sorry.
Senator Johnson.
No.
Senator Lankford.
No.
Senator Scott.
Nope.
Senator Hawley. Senator Marano.
No.
Senator Ernst.
No, by proxy.
Senator Moody. Senator Peters.
Aye.
Senator Hassan.
Aye.
Senator Blumenthal. Senator Fetterman.
Aye, by proxy.
Senator Kim.
Senator Hassan's aye, by proxy. Aye, by proxy.
Senator Gallego.
Aye, by proxy.
Senator Slotkin.
Aye, by proxy.
Senator Paul.
No.
Mister Chairman, on the vote that was present, the yeas or three, the nays or seven. On the vote by proxy, the yeas or four, the nays or one, on this vote, the yeas are seven the nays are eight and the amendment is not agreed to
are there further amendments
yeah miss mr. chairman
senator johnson
the the there is a uh substitute amendment that just has a technical edit to the format of the guidance documents 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
is there any further debate the clerk will call the roll
senator johnson
aye
senator lankford
aye
senator scott
aye
center holly
five minutes uh
center moreno center ernst
i buy proxy
center moody center peters
this is uh the uh
this is on the substitute
subject subject segment so subject segment
subject aye
center hassan
ah
center blumenthal
aye
center federman
aye oh by proxy
center kim
aye by proxy
center gallego
aye by proxy
center slotkin
aye by proxy
center paul
aye
mr. roe
five mr. chairman the votes those present the yeas are ten the nays are zero on the vote by proxy the yeas are five the nays are zero on this vote the yeas are fifteen the nays are zero and the amendment is agreed to
are there further amendments oh
mr. chairman i'd like to uh offer uh amendment uh eighteen uh we've already passed an amendment so if it has to go back to the house uh then it's gotta go back to the house already uh we just did that in the second one that was the argument against the first amendment but we are sending it back to the house now Uh, this amendment would require, uh, any agency settlement agreement to be made, uh, public. Agencies can use settlement agreements to reign in corporations and individuals, uh, who have, uh, broken the law.
That's right.
For example, the Department of Justice uses settlement agreements to provide compensation for victims of contaminated water at Camp Lejeune uh and uh and an authority I helped pass, uh, into law. However, too often these settlement agreements, uh, are not made public. uh which undermines trust uh that uh the government is uh fairly uh enforcing the law. This is especially true as President Trump directed the Department of Justice to settle a suit with himself to create the now infamous uh weaponization uh fund. Making these settlement agreements public would ensure that agencies enforce the law without favor to political allies, and that those who seek to break the law clearly understand the consequences Senator Johnson.
Mr. Chairman, wh- while it is true that this will have to go back to the house to be passed, they agree with this this technical amendment. So it doesn't really change the the basic uh bill. As I said, the house bill passed by a voice vote, I'm quite sure that this substitute amendment will also pass by a voice vote. We start adding additional things, it puts the whole thing in in doubt. So again, I I oppose any amendments that change the substance of the bill. as senator peterswood so i'll
this this
pull this no pull this amendment
this amendment is non germane to the bill so i will uh oppose it the clerk will call the roll
senator johnson
no
senator lankford
no
senator scott
no
senator holly
no
senator marino senator ernst
no by proxym
senator moody senator peters
aye
senator hassan
aye
senator blumenthal
aye
senator federman
aye by proxym
senator kim
aye by proxy
senator gallego
aye by proxy
senator slotkin
aye by proxy
senator paul
no
three seven mr. chairman on the vote that is present the a's are three the nays are seven on the vote by proxy the a's are four the nays are one on this vote the a's are seven the nays are eight and the amendment is not agreed to
are there further amendments seeing no further amendments the question is on the final passage of s two five two as modified the clerk will call the roll
senator johnson senator lankford
alright
senator scott
fine
center holly
aye
center moreno moody's aye center ernie
same same team we're gonna go with that
i by prox
i by prox
i
i by prox
center moody aye center peters
aye
center hassan aye center blumenthal aye center federman
i by proxy
center kim
i by proxy
center gallego
i by proxy
center slotkin
i by proxy
center paul
yes
mister chairman on the vote of those present the yeas or the ten the nays or the zero on the vote by proxy and for the record only the yeas or the five the nays or the zero on this vote the yeas or the ten the nays or the zero and the motion is agreed to
we now turn to s three one seven five community involvement in zone improvement plans the zip zip act of twenty twenty five senator langford
i encourage passage and i'm gonna just not make an opening statement so we can get on with this how about that
without further debate
that ought to bring unanimous consent
yes without objection uh other amendments to be offered without further debate the clerk will call the roll
aye aye senator mann
hi
wait wait uh i'm gonna have to modify that yes
will call it again
yes
Let let's um let's abort this vote and start over.
Okay. Great.
Um apparently there is a a Langford substitute amendment, and so uh
Right, it's long.
do we have to vote on it or not?
It's modified. No, we just need to
We just need to announce that it's been modified and agreed to, and so the vote will actually be on the S three one seven five as modified by the Langford amendment. Without objection the vote will be on the modified version. Clerk will call the roll.
Senator Johnson.
Aye.
center langford
still i
center scott
aye
center holly
aye
center moreno
aye
center ernst center moody
aye
center peters
aye
center hassan
aye
center bluebell center federman
aye by proxym
center kim
aye by proxym
center gallego
aye by proxym
center slotkin
aye by proxym
center paul
aye here first i follow up yes sir so
mister chairman on the vote that was present the yeas or the ten the nays or the zero on the vote by proxying for the record only the yeas or the five the nays or the zero on this vote the yeas or the ten the nays or the zero and the motion is agreed to and we're actually gonna be extracting the summaries
yeah just it there's there's something mmm
just
man i'm not gonna tell what some of the reasons we're gonna be using i'll just be eyed by proxies alright next we'll consider hr five two three five skills based federal contracting act of twenty twenty five that's yeah i actually use that one too yeah that's where you get the top five is there further debate i don't know are there further amendments hearing none the clerk will call the roll
senator johnson
aye by proxying pardon me uh what is this about
we wanna make it
senator jo- aye senator lankford aye senator scott aye senator holly aye senator moreno senator ertz
aye by proxying
aye by proxying
senator moody senator peters aye senator hassan
aye
senator blumenthal center federman
aye by proxy
center kim
aye by proxy
center gallego
aye by proxy
center slotkin
aye by proxy
center 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 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 now turn to s one seven three five permitting transparency an accountability act senator scott
thank you chairman so the building from the committee is is pretty simple i did it when i was governor and and maybe senator haslam did when she was governor we get all these questions and so you 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 theme applications because people are constantly calling so we all can track where a package is from from a warehouse to the front door so this just
that's great
it doesn't add any money it doesn't change any standards it just says we're gonna 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 eh we're uh we're probably all getting questions in 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
asking unanimous consent that we uh consider the vote to be on the scott substitute amendment without objection are there any other amendments
mister 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 agencies have halted projects uh that were already under construction or even uh completed uh by pausing the permitting process 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, throwing its timeline into chaos, costing millions of dollars, and jeopardizing union construction jobs. Permit applicants deserve to know why their permits are being delayed, especially if it's because of the agency, uh, issuing that particular permit. I would urge my colleagues, uh, to support the amendment.
mr. chairman
uh senator scott
um it's not necessary the agency can already the way this would work the agency can put that information up and any agency if they if they wanna stop getting questions all the time that's what they would do so it's not necessary
i will oppose the amendment the clerk will call a roll
senator johnson
no by proxy
no by proxying
senator lankford
no
senator scott
nope
senator hawley senator moreno
no
senator ernst
no by proxy
no by proxy
senator moody senator peters
aye
senator hassin
aye
senator blumenthal
aye
senator federman
aye by proxy
senator kim
aye by proxy
senator gallego
aye by proxy
senator slotkin
aye by proxy
senator paul
no
three six
three six
mister chairman on the vote of those present the yeas are three the nays are six on the vote by proxy the yeas are four the nays are two and this vote the yeas are seven the nays are eight and the amendment is not agreed to
oh
are there further amendments Hearing none, the vote w-
Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a brief comment.
Senator Peters.
I I first thought I'd just like to thank uh my colleague Senator uh Scott uh for his leadership uh on this bill. And uh I agree with him that the permitting process uh certainly needs uh more transparency and accountability it's a huge, huge problem. But I also believe that this bill is drafted needs some changes uh to strengthen that transparency uh and hold the agencies accountable when permits are delayed. uh i hope to continue to work with senator scott on this bill uh but it's currently drafted i can't support it but i hope we can work together and and refine it uh and uh i look forward to working with you in the future
the vote will be on s one seven three five as amended by the scott substitute the clerk will call the roll
senator johnson aye
aye by proxym
senator linkford
aye
senator scott
aye
senator hawley
aye
senator moreno
aye
senator ernst
aye by proxym
senator moody center peters
no
center hassan
no
center blumenthal center federman
no by proxy
center kim
no by proxy
center gallego
no by proxy
center slotkin
aye by proxy
center paul
yes
mr. chairman on the vote of those present the a's are six the nays are three on the vote by proxy and for the record only the a's are three the nays are three on this vote the a's are
We will next consider S five one six three, no bonuses for bad service act. Senator Hawley.
Thank you, Mister Chairman, I'd like to ask the committee to consider the Hawley substitute amendment as the underlying bill, without objection.
Without objection.
Um, thank you, Mister Chairman, I'd like to thank Senator Blumenthal for uh his great partnership on this issue, and also your help, Mister Chairman. This is a very simple bill, and I just wanna show the committee one picture, I think we've got it here. The bill just says that the Postmaster General cannot be paid a bonus while areas of our states are not getting the mail. I think we've got a picture of Missouri. Let's see. Do we have it, guys? Here it is. Here it is. This is the mail, this is a pile of mail in St. Louis, Missouri. This is not AI. This is real. I wish it were AI. This is real. This is from April of this year, an entire massive pile of mail left to rot People not getting their prescriptions, not getting their bank statements, not getting their social security checks, not getting their Medicaid and Medicare statements. All of it just left there. The Postmaster General, when I asked him about this when he was in front of our committee, months after this had happened, months after we had requested help from the Post Office, he didn't know anything about it. And meanwhile, that Postmaster General last year got paid three hundred and five thousand dollars in bonuses to bonuses that's not his salary mind you bonuses here's the numbers. Postmaster Generals over the last decade, over two million dollars in bonuses. I just think that we ought to say, until the mail starts getting delivered in our states, the Postmaster General does not need to be getting a bonus. Certainly not millions of dollars in bonuses. All this Bill would do is say you've got to deliver the mail at least ninety-five percent of the time before you can start getting a bonus, and exercise some basic financial due diligence over the postal service. That's all it is. I thank you again, uh, Senator Blumenthal and, uh, other folks who are cosponsoring and ask for a yes vote.
mister chairman
uh senator blumenthal
yeah i thank you mister chairman i'd like to thank senator hawley for his leadership on this bipartisan measure which is admittedly only one step and some may regard it as a small step toward greater accountability for the post master general and the post office service in general americans are really very dissatisfied i think that's an understatement with the quality of service to be providing bonuses at this point after questions about that quality of service i think is really a travesty and uh this is one step i'm glad we're gonna take it today
for years i've been asking the same question you know with a nine billion dollar annual deficit why are we paying bonuses and years ago i remember the response was well you know to get talent you you gotta pay for talent and i said well how much talent does it take to lose nine billion dollars a year 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 but i i do support the concept of this incentives work nobody in the private world gets paid for not doing a good job however the only thing i would add is um much of the post office's problems is because of congress and the constraints there are at least 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. We do need to consider those. The post office is out of money. They come asking for more money. It's a big problem. 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. Um, we would be better off actually contracting out the whole thing. Uh, call up UPS, call up uh FedEx and say, you know, do you want first first class mail? probably wouldn't take with all the mandates if you gave it to them and they could contract it you probably get reasonable bids and good delivery on time uh with a smile but you'd have to get rid of some of the mandates did you have a comment you wanted a further call without further comment i would say we call the roll
no i
oh you wanna you have something else to have amendment
yes yes petersman yeah petersman is next
ok senator peters
yes mr. chairman uh i'd like to offer uh peters number one Um, this this amendment would repeal the President's illegal March twenty twenty-six executive order on elections, and would forbid the Postal Service from using any of its funds for its uh implementation. The President executive order seeks to basically transform the Postal Service into an election administration agency controlled by President Trump. If this executive order were to be implemented, it would give the Postal Service and the White House the the authority to decide who can and who cannot vote by mail. For generations, the Postal Service has played a nonpartisan role in our elections. It simply delivers ballots. We should all be willing to protect this nonpartisan role. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
You know, one interesting thing, my, one of my kids lived in an apartment years ago and he got like eight ballots, all with different names. Is there not an obligation to the post office to figure out who who lives there and whether the
senator johnson
no by proxy
senator linkford
no no
senator scott
no
senator hawley senator moreno
no
no by proxy
senator ernst
no by proxy
center moody center peters
aye
center hassan
aye
center blumenthal
aye
center federman
aye by proxy
center kim
aye by proxy
center gallego
aye by proxy
center slotkin
aye by proxy
center paul
no
mister chairman on the vote that was present the yeas are three the nays are five on the vote by proxy the yeas are four the nays are three on this vote the yeas are seven the nays are eight and the amendment is not agreed to
Are there further amendments? Seeing no further amendments to questions on the final passage of S five one six three, as modified, the clerk will call the roll.
Senator Johnson.
No by proxy. Yep.
There's no.
No by proxy.
No by proxy.
Yes.
Senator Lankford.
Aye.
Senator Scott.
Aye.
Senator Hawley.
Aye.
Senator Marino.
Yes. Yes by proxy.
Yes by proxy.
Senator Ernst.
Yes by proxy.
Senator Moody. center peters
aye
center haasen
yes
aye
center blumenthal
aye
center federman
aye
by proxy
by proxy
center kim
aye by proxy
center gallego
no by proxy
center slotkin
aye by proxy
center paul
just a second we wanna make a quick statement on this just real quick um
Mister Chairman, on the vote that's present, the yeas are nine, the nays are zero. On the vote by proxy and for the record only, the yeas are four, the nays are two. On this vote, the yeas are nine, the nays are zero, and the motion is agreed to.
Senator Peters.
Mister Mister Chairman, just a quick to uh the the the uh sponsor uh Senator Hawley. Uh I voted yes uh for this to to move it forward. Uh appreciate what you're doing, but I do believe that there are some corrections that we'd like to work, so I won't support it going to the floor uh without some uh further discussion but look forward to working with you as we always do.
We will next go to Senate Bill two five four two, Federal Building Threat Notification Act. Senator Peters.
Mr. Chairman, I I would like to uh offer my substitute as uh the underlying bill by the UC.
Without objection.
Uh this uh bipartisan bill will insure
As modified.
as as modified by UC as modified
Without objection.
Uh this uh bipartisan bill will insure that Federal Productive Service is able to work with agencies uh in over nine thousand facilities that they protect. to keep building tenants safe uh and informed uh in a crisis. In January of twenty twenty five a man fired gunshots in front of the Patrick uh McNamara Federal Building in downtown Detroit. Uh while fortunately no one was injured, uh and the shooter was apprehended, it took hours for workers to in the building to learn about the incident. This bill requires uh the FPS director to develop and implement guidance for emergency communications regarding law enforcement related events such as active shooter threats, that occur in and around uh federal buildings. Federal workers should be able to feel safe in the workplace uh knowing that systems are in place to alert them in a timely matter and would uh urge adoption.
Mm-hmm.
This vote will be by voice. Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. Next will be Senate Bill three two one one, recognizing The the measure is reported favorably. The next bill is Senate Bill three two one one, recognizing the role of Direct Support Professionals Act. Senator Hassan.
Uh, thank you, Mister Chair. First of all, uh, I move by unanimous consent, uh, the Hassan substitute amendment.
Without objection.
Thank you. Uh, Chairman Paul and Ranking Member Peters, I want to thank you both for the committee's consideration today of this bill. 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. 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 I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Is there further debate? The vote the vote will be a voice vote on three two one one as modified. All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Aye. all those opposed say no the the the ayes appear to have it um the uh measure is reported favorably the next bill will be senate bill four zero seven nine providing emotional uh assistance with relief and love
relief and love
this is senator were we not doing that one
no we are um
ok
set set senator scott
ok um chairman i i call up a minute uh stop for a minute The amendments tend to improve the bill, it'll always be in support of law enforcement, their well-being. But our nation's forty trillion dollars in debt, in support we are responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. CBO estimates this bill will cost millions. I believe it can be implemented without adding to our national debt. So I I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which basically it pays for from uh existing funds.
OK. Uh, further debate?
Mister Chairman.
Senator Peters?
Mister Chairman, I'm uh uh gonna speak uh uh against this uh amendment uh for senator uh gallego who could not be uh with us uh here today uh uh while i understand the intent uh behind this amendment the companion bill has passed uh the house uh unanimously dhs already has billions of dollars uh from two reconciliation bills congress doesn't need to appropriate additional funding for this program at all the bill has minimal cost it's intended to improve the well-being of front-line dhs uh law enforcement officers while also rescuing dogs uh from shelters. If we avoid making unnecessary changes, we can move this quickly and advance the house-pass version on the floor, and expand mental health resources for DHS uh personnel uh when this is uh signed into law. We'd love to move this forward. Uh, I urge uh with along with Senator Gallego to uh folks to oppose this amendment.
I will support the amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
Senator Johnson.
Um. Aye by proxy.
Senator Lankford.
Aye.
Senator Scott.
Aye.
Senator Hawley.
Aye.
Senator Marino.
Aye.
Senator Ernst.
Aye.
Aye by proxy.
Senator Moody. Senator Peters.
No.
Senator Hassan.
No.
Senator Blumenthal. Senator Fetterman.
No by proxy.
Senator Kim.
No by proxy.
Senator Gallego.
No by proxy.
Senator Slotkin.
No by proxy.
Senator Paul.
Aye. Aye.
Aye. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
Mister Chairman, on the vote that was present, the yeas are six, the nays are three, on the vote by proxy the yeas are two, the nays are four, on this vote the yeas are eight, the nays are seven, and the amendment is agreed to.
Um. Can we uh agree to vote it on voice on this? The um vote will be on S four O seven nine. The amendment passed as amended, excuse me. That's modified. Uh as modified uh All all those in favor will say aye.
Aye.
Aye. Those opposed, no. Uh the aye's appear to have it. The um
No, it's reported
The measure is is reported favorably. We will next go to S three two nine six, improving access to workers' compensation for injured federal workers of twenty twenty five. Are there any amendments? is there a debate
is there a substitute
we did no that one doesn't any objection to voice vote um we'll move forward with the voice vote without objection uh all those in favor say aye
aye aye
all those opposed say no the ayes appear to have it the um bill will be reported favorably
mr. chair was there a substitute amendment considered there
i don't believe there is on that on the collins
a lot of ok
i don't
oh on the collins sorry i was in the wrong place
i don't those on the collins
yep got it thank you
the the next one will be uh s three eight eight promoting resilient buildings act uh cornyn
that one has an a substitute
and this one does have a substitute without without objection we will offer uh the substitute amendment as the underlying bill is there further debate amendments um all those in favor say aye
mmm
aye all those opposed no The ayes appear to have it. The act will be reported favorably. Substitute. The next bill is S three two two six bring our heroes home act by Senator Crapo. This one has a substitute. Without uh without objection it will be considered as modified by the substitute. Are there amendments? Is there further debate? by voice vote the uh those in favor of s three two two six as modified will answer aye
aye sorry aye
those opposed no the eyes appear to have it
this is this is the report that we have
the bill is reported favorably is there a bill number here or what
these are all the possible names so we'll just
we're we're just gonna do them together
may mr. chairman
yes
um
sir blumenthal
i i i'm not sure whether we have uh voted on this on the on the last measure that um the on-bank consideration of post post office
that's that's what we're getting to now
ok
uh this will be uh on long i hope the debate will not be too extensive and this will be on naming of the post offices these will all be together Do we have to list anything or s- or
Just everyth- all of them listed in the notice. Just a second.
Um, ask for unanimous consent that the post office naming bill is listed on August fifth, twenty twenty six, updated agenda be considered en bloc, without objection. Are there any amendments? Seeing no amendments, the question is on final passage of postal naming measures en bloc, the clerk will call the roll.
En bloc. En bloc. In point.
I said en bloc. no uh voice voice from back
yeah
oh uh all those in favor will say aye
aye
aye those opposed no the ayes appear to have it
mr. chairman
the the the the postal naming bill is is approved and sent forward
mis- mister chairman uh i would like uh to be recorded as a no on s uh twenty three ninety four
without objection
and mister chairman i would also like to be recorded as a no on s twenty three ninety four
without objection
Mr. Chairman, I I too would like to be recorded as an ONS twenty three ninety four.
Without objection.
Thank you.
I recognize uh Senator Moreno for brief remarks.
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to uh thank you for your work and and commitment on placing the American Glove Act of twenty twenty six on the agenda for the next mark-up. It's important that we uh make certain that that we are never left to be dependent on the Chinese Communist Party for critical PPE. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This concludes the August sixth, six, twenty twenty-six mark-up. This business meeting is now adjourned.
Morning digest
Start every morning briefed on yesterday’s hearings
A free weekday email covering yesterday’s hearings and transcripts newly unlocked in the archive.
