>> A total disgrace, but so let me get back, should we get back to post office stuff now? >> Absolutely. >> That's a good. >> The US Postal Service is now part of this bigger story of this president desperate to federalize our elections. He has tried every which way to say that if he and his party don't win in these November elections they were rigged, he said it in the State of the Union. You are being used as part of a much bigger story that this president is trying to play out where he does not believe elections that he loses are valid elections. He's willing to do just about anything to show that he's actually a big winner no matter what he does. And I just ask you as a professional, as someone who's done serious things in your life, please push back on being a pawn in this authoritarian playbook. The Postal Service is one of the most important institutions in our country. Don't taint it with the obsession of this one man. Please push back. >> You know, one of the things about politics that's different in the business is there's a lot of people who love to talk, talk, talk here. When I came in, it was interesting, I had this, my team put together this very fancy binder, it was about post office reform. But the hearing has turned into a mail-in balloting conversation and principles of the Constitution, which is very, very heartwarming to somebody who swore an oath to the Constitution when I became a U.S. citizen when I was 18. So are you familiar by any chance, don't expect you to, but just in case, there was a bill that the Democrats brought up during the Biden administration. And as you know, bills are numbered. So bill number one is the first one they do. And then I think we're now in bill number 5,000. But it's called HR1. And then there was also S1. So meaning it was the number one priority of Democrats in the House and Democrats in the Senate. Do you remember what that bill is about? >> I don't. >> You wouldn't. No, I wouldn't expect you to. I was like, you're a business guy that pays attention to all this stuff. It was called the For the People Act. The Democrats have phenomenal false advertising. So what the For the People did is it basically nationalized our elections. So this bill that they had that was their number one priority was about nationalizing the elections. So I know that we live in a world where there's supreme hypocrisy, but the idea that Democrat witness after Democrat witness, instead of talking about how to fix the post office, we're talking about the scandalous idea that somehow states' rights were being violated. And yet three years ago, they wanted to take over the entire election system for the United States of America, not to give it more voter integrity, but to diminish voter integrity, universal mail out ballots, unsolicited ballots that would go out, automatic voter registration, regardless of whether there's a test to see that person is a citizen. And then, and Mr. Chairman, you were here, you'll remember, they couldn't get it passed because of course here you have to get 60 votes, right? We have to get 60 votes. So what did the Democrats advocate for? What did they fight for to get this passed? They want to get rid of the filibuster. They want to get rid of the filibuster so that they could pass the nationalized elections. Three years later, all of them are testifying to say, it's outrageous. President Trump's trying to nationalize our election. He's not. He's trying to get rid of voter fraud. How dare you guys talk about getting rid of the filibuster? If it wasn't for Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, that would have happened. They would have made DC and Puerto Rico a state. They would have packed our Supreme Court, but now all of a sudden they dug up from their bottom desk drawer, the United States constitution, and they're appalled as they're here talking to you. It's a total disgrace. But somebody get back, should we get back to post office stuff now? Absolutely. That's a good idea. Let's talk about the post office. If the post office inspector were to look at unsolicited mail and mail out ballots where you go to an apartment complex and one unit is receiving six ballots, that's a problem, right? If there's only one human being that lives in that apartment and that one human being is receiving six ballots, none of which are in their name because they've been turned over movement. You wouldn't just suggest, and my Democrat colleagues have left Elvis has left the building here, but you would not suggest that that one person receive ballots that they didn't ask for that aren't even in their name. You would then go, wow, this is a problem, correct? That's what our postal inspection service is there for, is to look for those type of situations. And, you know, we don't open mail. We don't stop the delivery of mail, but we can certainly go to other agencies from a law enforcement point of view. Yeah, and say, hey, this is a problem. We're seeing this potentially illegal activity. Yeah. No, I totally understand. You know, I just want to give a quick anecdote. I was asked by the government to go down to where I was born, Columbia, South America, and monitor the election down there. They don't allow mail-in balloting. And I asked the registrar, I said, well, why don't you allow people to vote by mail? There's some people who can't get to the polling locations, et cetera. And obviously we're in Columbia, so we're speaking Spanish. He turned to his aide and said, I don't think the senator is saying the right words. I'm not understanding his question. So I repeated it and he looked at me quizzically and he said, well, if you just mailed somebody a ballot without knowing who they were or who's receiving it, that would open the door to massive fraud. You'd have to be totally and completely insane to run an election that way. This is a country with the GDP of the size of L.A., lecturing the United States of America on why our elections should be run better, and I think we should look at that as a moment of opportunity.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
