Fauci Contempt Vote

Senator Rand Paul (00:00):

... which 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.

(00:32)
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.

(00:59)
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 2020? What was said on those calls? What his agency did with and for the intelligence community? 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 Dr. Fauci. 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.

(01:54)
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-19 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 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. Senator Peters, you're recognized.

Senator Gary Peters (03:04):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The 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.

(03:54)
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 Dr. 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 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 consistently recognized and respected the constitutional rights of witnesses when they appear. 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.

(05:39)
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 whether they comply with a 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.

(06:11)
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 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.

(06:50)
This investigation has been one-sided from the beginning. The minority has been excluded from witness interviews and full access to committee records. Information has been selectively released to support conclusions that the chairman reached years ago. A process that 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.

(07:24)
This committee should not damage its future investigative authority to advance the chairman's years long campaign against 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 resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Rand Paul (07:55):

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.

Senator Maggie Hassan (08:19):

Mr. Chair? Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

Senator Rand Paul (08:22):

Senator Hassan.

Senator Maggie Hassan (08:24):

I just also want to 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.

(08:59)
The goal was clear. And I want to emphasize this. The goal was to wait for Dr. Fauci to make any kind of misstatement and then have a weaponized Department of Justice file criminal charges for that new statement that would not have been covered by the pardon, leaving Dr. Fauci little choice, but to invoke his constitutional right to not walk directly into a trap.

(09:27)
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 of vaccines coming from Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 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.

Senator Ron Johnson (10:12):

Mr. Chairman?

Senator Rand Paul (10:13):

Let's be clear. All that was required from Anthony Fauci last week was to tell the truth. He had no liability if he told the truth. Senator Johnson.

Senator Ron Johnson (10:20):

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to associate myself with and second your opening comments. I also want to strongly rebut the comments from our Democrat colleagues here, particularly when Ranking Member Peters says this has been one-sided and rushed. Rushed? When I was chairman of this committee back in 2020, I started conducting oversight. I held hearings. There was no cooperation in those hearings. As a matter of fact, I remember one when we held a hearing with Dr. Pierre Kory when he came in with all kinds of evidence on the effectiveness of ivermectin. The ranking member then denigrated him. Back then, Dr. Kory was a Democrat. He was shocked at the treatment he was given by the ranking member. 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 he could to denigrate that truth.

(11:35)
My current experience as a chairman of PSI, we've been holding hearings after hearings. My ranking member, Blumenthal, in those hearings, we had one called Voice of the Vaccine Injured. 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 said, "Hope the press doesn't cover it because there's nothing credible about this hearing." These investigations are one side, it's because one side simply doesn't want to look at the truth. They want to bury the truth. They want to memory hole it. They don't want to look at 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.

(12:36)
I think one of the revelations of those diaries, I think probably 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 have them oftentimes. They overwhelm hospitals. Something takes seriously. But a pandemic that's going to be twice that. Is that really worth destroying people's lives, shutting down businesses, destroying an economy? I argued back then that it wouldn't be.

(13:15)
It's been six years 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, Mr. Science could answer. Even though we have quotes of him saying, "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 our 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.

(14:28)
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 going to vote yes on contempt of Congress. My investigation has just begun. We've invited Dr. Fauci for a transcribed interview. Okay, he doesn't want to do it in front of the American public. Come in front of our committee. We'll go through detail and detail. You say you have nothing to hide. Good. We'll do it behind closed doors. We'll transcribe it. That's only one of the interviews we'll be conducting. So again, last week's hearing just began the accountability. There's a lot more accountability that's required. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Rand Paul (15:32):

The committee will now proceed to consideration of an original resolution.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (15:35):

Mr. Chairman?

Senator Rand Paul (15:36):

We're going to continue the debate once we get on it. There's going to 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 the committee's report concerning Dr. Anthony Fauci's refusal to answer questions required by committee subpoena.

Senator Gary Peters (15:56):

Mr. Chairman, I move the motion to be tabled.

Senator Rand Paul (16:02):

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 111 times. I will oppose this motion and urge my colleagues to do the same. The clerk will call the roll.

Senator Gary Peters (16:23):

I want to comment on the motion, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Rand Paul (16:24):

Okay.

Senator Gary Peters (16:25):

Mr. Chairman, I move to table this resolution until the chairman commits to abiding by the Senate rules, practice, and laws that address attempt of Congress. Under the Senate rules, longstanding practice, 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, must make that decision. Given that Chairman Paul has indicated he may attempt to bypass this process, which is required by Senate rules 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 and this committee's ability to conduct oversight in the future.

Senator Rand Paul (17:20):

The clerk will call the room.

Senator Maggie Hassan (17:20):

Second the motion.

Clerk (17:21):

Senator Johnson.

Senator Ron Johnson (17:21):

No.

Clerk (17:22):

Senator Lankford?

Senator James Lankford (17:24):

No.

Clerk (17:25):

Senator Scott?

Senator Scott (17:26):

No.

Clerk (17:27):

Senator Hawley?

Senator Josh Hawley (17:28):

No.

Clerk (17:29):

Senator Moreno?

Senator Bernie Moreno (17:29):

No.

Clerk (17:31):

Senator Ernst?

Senator Joni Ernst (17:33):

No.

Clerk (17:33):

Senator Moody?

Senator Ashley Moody (17:33):

No.

Clerk (17:34):

Senator Peters?

Senator Gary Peters (17:36):

Yes.

Clerk (17:37):

Senator Hassan?

Senator Maggie Hassan (17:38):

Yes.

Clerk (17:39):

Senator Blumenthal?

Senator Richard Blumenthal (17:40):

Yes.

Clerk (17:41):

Senator Fetterman?

Senator John Fetterman (17:42):

Yes.

Clerk (17:43):

Senator Kim?

Senator Andy Kim (17:44):

Yes.

Clerk (17:45):

Senator Gallego?

Speaker 1 (17:46):

Yes, by proxy.

Clerk (17:47):

Senator Slotkin.

Speaker 2 (17:48):

Yes, by proxy.

Clerk (17:49):

Senator Paul.

Senator Rand Paul (17:50):

No.

Clerk (18:00):

Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yaes are five, the nays are eight. On the vote by proxy, the yaes are two, the nays are zero. On this vote, the yaes are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agreed to.

Senator Maggie Hassan (18:11):

Mr. Chair?

Senator Rand Paul (18:12):

Senator Hassan.

Senator Maggie Hassan (18:14):

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 should be tabled until our committee can hear from independent experts about the applicability of the Fifth Amendment and other constitutional considerations raised by the chairman's actions.

Senator Rand Paul (18:38):

This motion is intended to avoid accountability. I will oppose this motion and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Senator Gary Peters (18:44):

Press the roll call.

Senator Rand Paul (18:47):

Clerk will call the roll.

Clerk (18:48):

Senator Johnson?

Senator Ron Johnson (18:49):

No.

Clerk (18:50):

Senator Lankford?

Senator James Lankford (18:51):

No.

Clerk (18:52):

Senator Scott?

Senator Scott (18:52):

Nope.

Clerk (18:53):

Senator Hawley?

Senator Josh Hawley (18:55):

No.

Clerk (18:55):

Senator Moreno?

Senator Bernie Moreno (18:56):

No.

Clerk (18:57):

Senator Ernst?

Senator Joni Ernst (18:57):

No.

Clerk (18:58):

Senator Moody?

Senator Ashley Moody (19:00):

No.

Clerk (19:00):

Senator Peters?

Senator Gary Peters (19:02):

Yes.

Clerk (19:02):

Senator Hassan?

Senator Maggie Hassan (19:03):

Yes.

Clerk (19:04):

Senator Blumenthal?

Senator Richard Blumenthal (19:05):

Yes.

Clerk (19:06):

Senator Fetterman?

Senator John Fetterman (19:07):

Aye.

Clerk (19:08):

Senator Kim?

Senator Andy Kim (19:09):

Yes.

Clerk (19:10):

Senator Gallego?

Speaker 1 (19:11):

Yes, by proxy.

Clerk (19:12):

Senator Slotkin.

Speaker 2 (19:13):

Yes, by proxy.

Clerk (19:14):

Senator Paul.

Senator Rand Paul (19:16):

No.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (19:18):

Mr. Chairman?

Senator Rand Paul (19:20):

Senator Blumenthal. Let's hear the vote first.

Clerk (19:23):

On the vote of those present, the yaes are five, the nays are eight. On the vote by proxy, the yaes are two, the nays are zero. On this vote, the yaes are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agreed to.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (19:33):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Rand Paul (19:34):

Senator Blumenthal.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (19:36):

I move to postpone consideration of this resolution until the committee has an opportunity to hear from Dr. Fauci's attorney who was forcibly removed from the hearing last week. I should point out that Dr. 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 Dr. 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 Dr. 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.

(20:48)
I would simply predict, Mr. 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.

Senator Rand Paul (21:17):

Even when the Fifth Amendment is appropriately taken where no pardon exists, the Fifth Amendment doesn't allow you to testify on the other side of the question. Basically, you are allowed not to self-incriminate, but you're not allowed to say, "Oh, I'm not going to self-incriminate, but then I'm going to 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's not going to speak," also doesn't fit in with the history of the Fifth Amendment. So I will move to table.

Senator Bernie Moreno (21:54):

Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

Senator Rand Paul (21:56):

I will oppose tabling the tabling motion.

Senator Bernie Moreno (21:59):

Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, what's the name of the attorney?

Senator Richard Blumenthal (22:05):

The attorney could be of Dr. Fauci's choice, as I recall.

Senator Bernie Moreno (22:09):

No, no, the attorney that you're speaking of. But you said you want to hear from the attorney. What's the name of the attorney you want to hear from?

Senator Rand Paul (22:15):

I think it was David Schertler.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (22:17):

Mr. Schertler.

Senator Bernie Moreno (22:19):

Okay. Could we put in a record that he's also the attorney for Senator Menendez in a bribery scandal? Also, are you asking that you think it was something he'd be prosecuted for, for answering Senator Hawley's questions about the color of the carpet?

Senator Richard Blumenthal (22:34):

We could hear, by the way, from Mr. Onorato, who also represented-

Senator Bernie Moreno (22:39):

But you think there was jeopardy in answering questions? What's the color of your tie? What's the color of the floor? What's the color of the room?

Senator Richard Blumenthal (22:46):

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 Dr. 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.

(23:27)
I think most of 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's 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 rights, 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 precedents 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.

Senator Josh Hawley (24:15):

Mr. Chairman?

Senator Rand Paul (24:16):

Yes.

Senator Josh Hawley (24:19):

Not to disagree with my fellow former Attorney General Senator Blumenthal. 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 going to 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, Dr. Fauci has full immunity. He has a full and unconditional pardon for a period of some 11 years. In that context, the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege only adheres to those instances where the witness has a reasonable fear of future prosecution, and it must be tailored to any such fear.

(25:11)
The fact that he wouldn't answer questions about the tie he was wearing or the color of the carpet or the day of the week, Senator Paul asked him about, "Did he have a folder in front of me?" 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 committee's questions on any subject, including emphatically those for which he has a part in. The United States Supreme Court has been clear for over a century, dating back to 1896, that when a witness has received immunity, he may not stand upon his privilege. Multiple courts of appeals, including the United States Supreme Court in the Kastigar case, it says that, I'm going to 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-

Senator Josh Hawley (26:00):

... 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 Dr. Fauci's 111 invocations of the Fifth Amendment, including the questions that he could have no fear of prosecution on ... he's not going to 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.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (26:31):

Mr. Chairman, I really need to answer, with your permission, that point.

Senator Rand Paul (26:38):

Senator Blumenthal.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (26:39):

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 Dr. 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 440 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.

Senator Rand Paul (27:59):

The primary question of the hearing last week was to understand why Dr. Fauci made the decision to do this funding and 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 ...

Senator Richard Blumenthal (28:17):

And Mr. Chairman, there is a ...

Senator Rand Paul (28:19):

... but then we got the Fifth Amendment. All he had to do was tell the truth. Clerk will call the roll on the Blumenthal motion. I will vote no.

Clerk (28:26):

Senator Johnson?

Senator Ron Johnson (28:27):

No.

Clerk (28:28):

Senator Lankford?

Sen. Lankford (28:29):

No.

Clerk (28:29):

Senator Scott?

Sen. Scott (28:30):

No.

Clerk (28:31):

Senator Hawley?

Senator Josh Hawley (28:32):

No.

Clerk (28:32):

Senator Moreno?

Sen. Moreno (28:32):

No.

Clerk (28:34):

Senator Ernst?

Sen. Ernst (28:35):

No.

Clerk (28:36):

Senator Moody?

Sen. Moody (28:38):

Yes.

Clerk (28:39):

Senator Peters?

Senator Gary Peters (28:40):

Yes.

Clerk (28:41):

Senator Hassan?

Sen. Hassan (28:42):

Yes.

Clerk (28:42):

Senator Blumenthal?

Senator Richard Blumenthal (28:43):

Yes.

Clerk (28:44):

Senator Fetterman?

Sen. Fetterman (28:45):

Yes.

Clerk (28:46):

Senator Kim?

Sen. Kim (28:47):

Yes.

Clerk (28:48):

Senator Gallego?

Sen. Gallego (28:50):

Yes, by proxy.

Clerk (28:51):

Senator Slotkin?

Sen. Slotkin (28:51):

Yes, by proxy.

Clerk (28:53):

And Senator Paul?

Senator Rand Paul (28:54):

No.

Clerk (28:56):

Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are five, the nays are eight, and the vote by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are zero. On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agreed to.

Senator Gary Peters (29:04):

Mr. Chairman, I move to table this resolution. I move to table consideration of this resolution until the chairman commits to abiding by the ... oops.

Senator Rand Paul (29:21):

That was your last one.

Senator Gary Peters (29:21):

That was my last one. I move to consider it until the chairman provides all members of this committee with access to all documents, transcripts and materials related to this investigation, which I have repeatedly requested since the beginning of this Congress. Senate and committee rules are clear that all members of this committee have a right to access committee documents. The chairman has publicly stated he has received over one million documents as part of this investigation and has only shared a small fraction with the minority, despite repeated requests over the past year and a half. That's why I urge my colleagues to vote for this. And I just want to reply to some of the comments made by the chair that we just didn't want to look at this information.

(30:13)
We have been asking for information for quite some period of time, over the past 18 months, and at every turn, whether it's the documents or trying to have the ability to 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 publicly, we asked for the unredacted version and the classified portion, received absolutely no response. You refused to let the minority participate in the transcribed interview that Dr. Fauci agreed to do voluntarily to a comment one of my colleagues made, we could just do it and have a transcript in private. We were open to that, Dr. Fauci was open to it, but we were declined the ability to do that. It was going to be one-sided, and when he knew it was going to be one-sided, he didn't want to come in. This committee normally always deals in a bipartisan way. We should have been there asking those questions as well.

(31:16)
I know that the chairman says that these documents were on some sort of website. We did not know about that website. 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 everybody on the dais has no record of receiving it. And yet as we continually asked 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 and we were supposedly told about it in a letter 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, okay. We'll take a look at it." We didn't.

(32:12)
We made ... 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. "Where are these records? We'd like to see records." Crickets. Nothing. No mention of it. Could have been a mention like, "Oh, well, by the way, we have this." This is over 18 months, like stonewalling for 18 months. That's not the way this committee should ever work. It didn't work when I was chair. Now-Chairman Paul, we went through an investigation. We had a detailed investigation of COVID-19. All those documents were provided. We worked with then-ranking member Paul. Under Chairman Paul, we don't get those records.

(32:52)
That's just not the way this place should work, and I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would realize that too, because things change. If we make this the new precedent, there will be a Democrat as a chair. Would you want them to do that? Would you want to be treated that way? I don't think you're going to want to be treated that way as well, and you'll scream and holler about it. We should stop it right now. Let's continue to have the kind of bipartisan investigation that has made this committee a powerful committee over the years. Right now, we're ceding all that. We're just making it highly partisan, and when you make it highly partisan, people just ignore what you do, and that's really tragic, I think, and it's sad.

(33:31)
So I would urge my colleagues to table this resolution. Let us take a look at these documents. They're on his private web or whatever he has 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 Senator Johnson was chair, we had shared information. I know he wanted shared information under Chairman Paul's chairmanship as well.

Senator Rand Paul (33:58):

Okay, we need to get to the motion.

Senator Gary Peters (33:59):

Well, let me finish, is that this ...

Senator Rand Paul (34:01):

I've let you go on and on, and we're going to get to the votes.

Senator Gary Peters (34:04):

Well, I understand that, but I don't remember ever cutting you off when you were ranking member, and I always respected your rights and I continue to respect your rights. I would just hope that you would offer that same courtesy to us, because things do change and precedent is important. And I would urge my colleagues to table this resolution 'til we have a chance to look at the information, as has been the practice of this committee for as long as this committee has been in existence.

Senator Rand Paul (34:33):

For the record, Anthony Fauci refused a voluntary private deposition, and that's why he was brought in under subpoena.

Senator Gary Peters (34:40):

Because it was going to be one-sided.

Senator Rand Paul (34:41):

Don't interrupt the chair. Don't interrupt the chair. With regard to access to records, there has been an unprecedented access to records. They have all been uploaded on a website that you were invited to join. You refused to join. You had utter disdain. You had never even asked for the password. Not one of you ever signed up. It's been up for over a year. The information is there for the taking. I've repeated it publicly over and over. Don't come to this hearing saying you weren't given the records. The records were given. The clerk will call the roll.

Clerk (35:13):

Senator Johnson.

Senator Ron Johnson (35:13):

No.

Clerk (35:16):

Senator Lankford.

Sen. Lankford (35:17):

No.

Senator Rand Paul (35:18):

But you've been talking ad nauseam.

Clerk (35:22):

Senator Hawley. Senator Moreno.

Sen. Moreno (35:23):

No.

Clerk (35:23):

Senator Ernst. Senator Moody. Senator Peters.

Senator Gary Peters (35:28):

Yes.

Clerk (35:29):

Senator Hassan.

Sen. Hassan (35:30):

Yes.

Clerk (35:30):

Senator Blumenthal.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (35:31):

Yes.

Clerk (35:32):

Senator Fetterman.

Sen. Fetterman (35:33):

Yes.

Clerk (35:35):

Senator Kim?

Sen. Kim (35:39):

Yes.

Clerk (35:39):

Senator Gallego.

Sen. Gallego (35:39):

Yes, by proxy.

Clerk (35:40):

Senator Slotkin.

Sen. Slotkin (35:41):

Yes, by proxy.

Clerk (35:42):

Senator Paul.

Senator Rand Paul (35:43):

No.

Clerk (35:44):

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.

Senator Rand Paul (35:52):

Seeing no other motions, the question is on reporting of an original resolution.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (35:57):

Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. Mr. Chairman.

Senator Rand Paul (36:00):

We will entertain more motions, but the discussion has become dilatory, and so the discussion ...

Senator Richard Blumenthal (36:06):

I have one more motion.

Senator Rand Paul (36:07):

Listen to my ruling. The discussion will be for two minutes. You will have two minutes to present your motion. Senator Blumenthal.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (36:16):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 Dr. 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.

(36:50)
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 9/11-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.

Senator Rand Paul (37:51):

The clerk will call the roll.

Clerk (37:53):

Senator Johnson.

Senator Ron Johnson (37:54):

No.

Clerk (37:54):

Senator Lankford?

Sen. Lankford (37:56):

No.

Clerk (37:57):

Senator Scott?

Sen. Scott (37:57):

Nope.

Clerk (37:58):

Senator Hawley?

Senator Josh Hawley (37:59):

No.

Clerk (37:59):

Senator Moreno.

Sen. Moreno (38:00):

Still no.

Clerk (38:01):

Senator Ernst. Senator Moody. Senator Peters?

Senator Gary Peters (38:05):

Yes.

Clerk (38:06):

Senator Hassan.

Sen. Hassan (38:07):

Yes.

Clerk (38:08):

Senator Blumenthal?

Senator Richard Blumenthal (38:08):

Yes.

Clerk (38:10):

Senator Fetterman?

Sen. Fetterman (38:11):

Yes.

Clerk (38:11):

Senator Kim?

Sen. Kim (38:12):

Yes.

Clerk (38:13):

Senator Gallego?

Sen. Gallego (38:14):

Yes, by proxy.

Clerk (38:15):

Senator Slotkin?

Sen. Slotkin (38:17):

Yes, by proxy.

Clerk (38:18):

Senator Paul?

Senator Rand Paul (38:19):

No.

Clerk (38:23):

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.

Senator Gary Peters (38:34):

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ... Mr. Chairman, without objection, I'd like to enter into the record all of the copies of emails that we sent to your staff asking to have access to information. And you will see in these emails, there's either absolutely no response or no way to understand that there's a separate place somewhere where we can get an email. Certainly I'll put these in the records without objection. Certainly I would be open to see any emails that actually told us about this. We can't find any in any of our electronic records and we'd be open to seeing that, but I would like to do this without objection.

Senator Rand Paul (39:08):

Without objection. Seeing no other motions, the question is on reporting of an original resolution regarding ...

Senator Gary Peters (39:15):

If I may. Mr. Chairman ... hmm? Go ahead.

Senator Rand Paul (39:20):

Seeing no other motions, the question is on reporting of an original resolution regarding contempt of Congress. The clerk will call the roll.

Clerk (39:25):

Senator Johnson.

Senator Ron Johnson (39:26):

Yes.

Clerk (39:27):

Senator Lankford.

Sen. Lankford (39:28):

Aye.

Clerk (39:29):

Senator Scott.

Sen. Scott (39:30):

Yes.

Clerk (39:31):

Senator Hawley.

Senator Josh Hawley (39:32):

Aye.

Clerk (39:33):

Senator Moreno.

Sen. Moreno (39:34):

On behalf of the millions of people harmed by Anthony Fauci, resoundingly yes.

Clerk (39:38):

Senator Ernst.

Sen. Ernst (39:39):

Aye.

Clerk (39:40):

Senator Moody?

Sen. Moody (39:41):

Aye.

Clerk (39:42):

Senator Peters?

Senator Gary Peters (39:43):

No.

Clerk (39:44):

Senator Hassan?

Sen. Hassan (39:45):

No.

Clerk (39:46):

Senator Blumenthal?

Senator Richard Blumenthal (39:47):

No.

Clerk (39:48):

Senator Fetterman?

Sen. Fetterman (39:50):

No.

Clerk (39:50):

Senator Kim?

Sen. Kim (39:52):

No.

Clerk (39:52):

Senator Gallego?

Sen. Gallego (39:54):

No, by proxy.

Clerk (39:55):

Senator Slotkin.

Sen. Slotkin (39:56):

No, by proxy.

Clerk (39:57):

Senator Paul.

Senator Rand Paul (40:02):

Yes.

Clerk (40:02):

Mr. 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.

Senator Gary Peters (40:13):

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to committee rules ...

Senator Rand Paul (40:16):

I have not recognized you.

Senator Gary Peters (40:19):

Mr. Chairman?

Senator Rand Paul (40:21):

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.

Senator Gary Peters (40:31):

Well, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to Committee Rule 6B and Senate Rule 26, Section 10C, I'm notifying you that I intend to file minority views regarding this resolution.

Senator Rand Paul (40:44):

The clerk will report the conclusion of the vote.

Speaker 3 (40:49):

Just did.

Senator Rand Paul (40:49):

And that it is reported favorably.

Clerk (40:50):

[Inaudible 00:40:51]

Senator Rand Paul (40:54):

The committee will now proceed to consideration of S. 4505, a bill to require the U.S. Postal Service to designate ZIP Codes for certain communities. Senator Ernst.

Sen. Ernst (41:05):

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's markup, and I do have an amendment at the desk in the nature of a substitute for S. 4505 designating single ZIP Codes. Americans deserve timely and efficient mail service, and unfortunately, far too 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-world consequences by having an outdated USPS ZIP Code. So these folks aren't minor inconveniences. They are affecting our families.

(41:56)
Now, cities can appeal to the U.S. Postal system for changing their ZIP Codes, and most often the answer is no to those communities. And unfortunately, the process is not transparent and they can only appeal these nos every 10 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 to collect their misdirected mail. This is not acceptable, and it is time for Congress to act.

(42:40)
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 1, Section 8, Clause 7 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. Let's pass this bill.

(43:15)
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 letter asking for those eight additional communities to be included.

Senator Rand Paul (43:42):

Without objection. Are there further amendments?

Senator Gary Peters (43:45):

Mr. Chairman.

Senator Rand Paul (43:48):

Do you have an amendment to offer?

Senator Gary Peters (43:50):

I'm going to comment on the amendment.

Senator Rand Paul (43:53):

A comment on the bill.

Senator Gary Peters (43:54):

On the bill.

Senator Rand Paul (43:54):

Let's go with the amendments first. Are there any amendments to be offered?

Sen. Ernst (43:58):

The substitute, yes.

Senator Rand Paul (43:59):

We will consider the bill as the substitute, with the unanimous consent that the other eight be included. Comments on the bill.

Senator Gary Peters (44:07):

Mr. Chairman.

Senator Rand Paul (44:08):

Senator Peters.

Senator Gary Peters (44:08):

So I certainly understand my frustrations with my colleagues, and certainly respect Senator Ernst immensely and have been working with her on this issue. I just want to raise the issue that under the leadership of chairs of both parties, HSGAC has avoided legislating in establishing ZIP Codes. As the Postmaster General testified to HSGAC last month, each number in a ZIP Code has a specific meaning, and any changes to these numbers actually require corresponding changes to delivery units, processing plants. It's not an easy process. It appears easy on the surface, but it isn't. The Postal Service actually estimates that these changes, which I think are the 83 communities, may cost nearly $1 billion, according to the Postal Service.

(44:55)
Passing this bill would be irresponsible, as the Postal Service continues to face financial difficulties. 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, they need to reduce cost, but this committee now wants to take action to add, according to the Postal Service estimates, $1 billion of cost, and 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 for a complicated process that there is a process within the Postal Service. We shouldn't be legislating and micromanaging the Postal Service. That's not the way a business should have to operate, and I would urge my colleagues to vote no.

Senator Rand Paul (45:37):

It's interesting that the people who lose $9 billion a year are telling us it'll cost a billion dollars to change ZIP Codes. That to me shows utter incompetence, that you can't figure out a software way of changing the ZIP Codes for less than a billion dollars. That alone argues you for being the wrong people in charge of the Post Office, and we need to address this. So I think that's a crazy notion. A billion dollars to add about 15 ZIP Codes? My goodness, what incompetence. Senator Johnson.

Senator Ron Johnson (46:07):

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately that's probably the sad fact. And I appreciate we get ... I think those eight additions are from Wisconsin cities, who have lobbied me pretty hard to do this exact same thing, and I understand. It's kind of a vanity thing. You want to have your community have its own ZIP Code. I personally have never really quite understood that, but I'll take the Postal Service at its word. It's going to cost them a lot of money, disrupt things. And so again, I understand the good intentions. I understand communities wanting to do this, but I'll be opposing this bill. Not the amendment, but the bill.

Senator Rand Paul (46:41):

Senator Ernst?

Sen. Ernst (46:43):

Yes, I understand, and for these cities, I don't believe it is a vanity project. When prescriptions are being delivered somewhere else, mail is misdirected, this is the federal government's job. And the fact that we don't want to spend money to correct what is going on in these communities, I think it speaks to the fact that we are not doing our job if we can't direct the Postal Service to actually deliver constituents' mails in a timely manner. So I do believe the Postal Service can do a much better job. We know that there's a lot of waste within that organization, but certainly we can find a way to get people's mail delivered to their communities. Thank you.

Sen. Lankford (47:30):

Mr. Chairman.

Senator Rand Paul (47:30):

Senator Lankford.

Sen. Lankford (47:32):

May I make a brief comment on this? The issue about ZIP Codes is not just about ZIP Codes for a specific community. It's also about tax revenue for that community. As more and more e-commerce is happening, a lot of that tax revenue comes back in based on a ZIP Code in a community. That matters to rural communities especially, that they have the ability to be able to get the tax revenue that actually comes into 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 to be able to maintain.

(48:05)
The Post Office also assumes in their figures that every one of these rural communities is going to have to have a physical post office, that 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 so I would challenge some of the numbers that they're going by and the assumptions that they're making in this, but I do think this is important for those rural communities.

Senator Rand Paul (48:27):

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 a matter of being a distinct community needing a distinct 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, eight, different ZIP Codes. It'll be on S. 4505, a bill to require the U.S. Postal Service to designate ZIP Codes for certain communities as modified. The clerk will call the roll.

Clerk (49:02):

Senator Johnson.

Senator Ron Johnson (49:03):

No.

Clerk (49:04):

Senator Lankford.

Sen. Lankford (49:06):

Aye.

Clerk (49:06):

Senator Scott.

Sen. Scott (49:06):

Aye.

Clerk (49:08):

Senator Hawley?

Senator Josh Hawley (49:08):

Aye.

Clerk (49:10):

Senator Moreno.

Sen. Moreno (49:10):

Aye.

Clerk (49:11):

Senator Ernst.

Sen. Ernst (49:12):

Aye.

Clerk (49:13):

Senator Moody. Senator Peters?

Senator Gary Peters (49:16):

No.

Clerk (49:18):

Senator Hassan?

Sen. Hassan (49:18):

Aye.

Clerk (49:20):

Senator Blumenthal?

Senator Richard Blumenthal (49:20):

Aye.

Clerk (49:22):

Senator Fetterman?

Sen. Fetterman (49:23):

Aye.

Clerk (49:24):

Senator Kim?

Sen. Kim (49:25):

No.

Clerk (49:26):

Senator Gallego?

Sen. Gallego (49:28):

No, by proxy.

Clerk (49:29):

Senator Slockin?

Sen. Slotkin (49:30):

No, by proxy.

Clerk (49:31):

Senator Paul?

Senator Rand Paul (49:32):

Yes.

Clerk (49:40):

Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are ten, the nays are three. On the vote by proxy and for the record only, the yeas are zero, the nays are two. On this vote, the yeas are ten, the nays are three, and the motion is agreed to.

Senator Rand Paul (49:51):

The next bill will be Senate Bill 2733, the 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 80 other federal programs doing the same thing. So this would allow an independent agency to tell us, "Hey, you already tried this 14 times. Why don't you see if your previous 14 times are working before you create a new agency?" Are there any amendments? Seeing none, the question is on final passage of S. 2733. The clerk will call the roll.

Speaker 4 (50:42):

Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, I just wanted to thank you for the work on this bill. I appreciate it.

Senator Rand Paul (50:48):

For your help also.

Clerk (50:50):

Senator Johnson.

Senator Ron Johnson (50:51):

Aye.

Clerk (50:52):

Senator Lankford.

Sen. Lankford (50:53):

Aye.

Clerk (50:53):

Senator Scott.

Sen. Scott (50:54):

Aye.

Clerk (50:55):

Senator Hawley.

Senator Josh Hawley (50:56):

Aye.

Clerk (50:57):

Senator Moreno.

Sen. Moreno (50:57):

Aye.

Clerk (50:59):

Senator Ernst?

Sen. Ernst (50:59):

Yes.

Clerk (51:00):

Senator Moody.

Sen. Moody (51:01):

Aye.

Clerk (51:02):

Senator Peters.

Senator Gary Peters (51:03):

Aye.

Clerk (51:04):

Senator Hassan.

Sen. Hassan (51:05):

Aye.

Clerk (51:05):

Senator Blumenthal. Senator Fetterman.

Sen. Fetterman (51:09):

Aye, by proxy.

Clerk (51:10):

Senator Kim.

Sen. Kim (51:11):

Aye.

Clerk (51:12):

Senator Gallego.

Sen. Gallego (51:13):

Aye, by proxy.

Clerk (51:14):

Senator Slotkin.

Sen. Slotkin (51:16):

Aye, by proxy.

Clerk (51:17):

Senator Paul.

Senator Rand Paul (51:18):

Yes.

Clerk (51:22):

Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are 12, the nays are zero. On the vote by proxy and for the record only, the yeas are three, the nays are zero. On this vote, the nays are twelve, the nays are zero, and the motion is agreed to.

Senator Rand Paul (51:32):

The committee will now proceed to consideration of S. 2732, 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. 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 ask the committee to consider the Paul A&S as the underlying bill. Without objection, are there any further amendments?

Senator Rand Paul (52:00):

... ANS is the underlying bill. Without objection, are there any further amendments?

Senator Gary Peters (52:04):

Mr. Chairman.

Senator Rand Paul (52:06):

Senator Peters?

Senator Gary Peters (52:07):

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer Peters Amendment 4. This amendment would prohibit agencies from canceling grants solely because of the political leadership of the state or local government where the grant is located. In court filings from June, the Department of Energy admitted, admitted, that it canceled over 200 grants, quote... And this is quote, "Based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state."

(52:40)
This is not about reducing fraud or improving program performance, the department wrote in court documents that the cancellations were, "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.

Senator Rand Paul (53:18):

Peter's Amendment 4, 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 any further debate, the clerk will call the roll.

Clerk (53:36):

Senator Johnson?

‍