[0:00]land and uh they have the senator from Maryland is recognized. >> Uh thank you Mr. President. Uh they have well described I think all the inappropriate actions uh that have been
[0:11]taken by the justice department including recently with respect to the deputy attorney general who had been Donald Trump's personal lawyer
[0:19]conducting the secret uh interview uh with uh the Epstein associate Maxwell. And this is an important conversation to
[0:30]continue here on the Senate floor. Um we were here earlier this morning uh where we discussed the very very troubling and
[0:39]disturbing case of Jeffrey Epstein and the horrifying abuse of young women and girls. Those who were so terribly
[0:50]abused and treated deserve to have the full truth. They deserve to have all the facts come out as do their loved ones as
[1:01]do the American people. So the American people can have some kind of confidence that the Department of Justice is presenting the American people uh with
[1:12]the truth because we need transparency in order to ensure full accountability. It used to be the case that Donald Trump
[1:22]and his attorney general Pam Bondi and others in this administration said they wanted to get to the bottom of it. In fact, they said they wanted to release
[1:32]the Epstein files. But as we got closer to actually doing that, they suddenly decided that they did not
[1:42]want the public to know and that they didn't want Epstein's victims to know. And so now they've decided not to be
[1:52]forthcoming. The obvious question is what are they hiding? And that is why we took to the floor earlier today to say release the
[2:02]damn Epstein files. We've learned just in the last 48 hours that at some point
[2:10]along the way, the FBI redacted Trump's name from the Epstein files. We had learned that his name was very likely in those files and we also know
[2:22]that the Trump administration asked the FBI to do a search of his name in the files. We now know that his name was
[2:30]redacted from those files at some point along the way by the FBI. As my colleagues from
[2:41]Rhode Island and California were just discussing, we've also witnessed in just the last week or two the highly inappropriate action of the Deputy
[2:52]Attorney General Todd Blanch to conduct a secret interview with Gelain Maxwell,
[3:00]who was Jeffrey Epstein's partner in these crimes. And when he was asked at his confirmation hearing before the Senate
[3:12]about whether he had a continuing duty of loyalty and confidentiality to Donald Trump,
[3:20]his response was yes. As the former personal attorney of Donald Trump, he had an ongoing
[3:29]duty of loyalty and confidentiality. Clearly, that duty of loyalty and confidentiality to Donald Trump puts him
[3:39]in direct conflict with the interests of the truth and the people of the United States when it comes to President Trump.
[3:48]So, it was highly inappropriate that he held that interview. As a senator from California just pointed out, he excluded from that interview
[3:59]lawyers that had been working on this case for a long time. It is also a fact by at least many reports that he Todd Blanch has a very close personal
[4:10]relationship with the lawyer for Ms. Maxwell. And so this thing stinks to high heaven. And one thing they should do is
[4:22]immediately release the transcripts of this secret interview that was just conducted. Release the transcripts. According to
[4:32]all reports, they gave Gelain Maxwell immunity, proper immunity for the purpose of her
[4:43]testimony. Nothing she said in that interview could be used against her. So release the interview transcript to the American people
[4:53]because Donald Trump's personal attorney should not be the one in the room conducting an interview with somebody who might have testimony
[5:04]that directly incriminates Donald Trump. We've also seen just in
[5:14]recent days The question floated about whether the president of the United States would pardon Gelain Maxwell.
[5:25]When President Trump was asked about that possibility, he he acknowledged he had that power. As I said on this floor this morning, President Trump should
[5:35]immediately today announce that he will not use his pardon power
[5:43]to pardon Gelain Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for being a co-conspirator
[5:52]in the abuse of young women and girls. What is clearly happening in plain view
[6:02]is very dangerous to our system of justice. What is clearly happening is the possibility
[6:11]that Gelain Maxwell and her lawyers are seeking a pardon in exchange for her giving the kind of testimony that would please President
[6:22]Trump. One of the families of the victim of one
[6:30]of the victims, a family from Virginia who lost their loved one to suicide in April has said,
[6:42]"President Trump, do not pardon Gelain Maxwell." And my understanding is that is clearly the sentiment sentiment of the other
[6:52]victims and their families. And so the president should today announce that he will never do that.
[7:02]Now earlier this morning, Senator Mkeley offered a resolution and asked unanimous consent on it to release the Epstein files.
[7:14]And we should do that immediately. That should be done immediately. Senator Durban and I wrote to the attorney general last week urging her to do what she said she was going to do,
[7:24]which is release the files. But that was objected to on the Republican side. And I see uh Senator Baraso on the
[7:35]floor. And when he objected to Senator Mkeley this morning, this is what he said. He said, "Senate Republicans included a
[7:44]provision to address this very issue in an appropriation bill that Democrats blocked earlier this week. This issue would have been addressed here on the
[7:56]United States Senate floor. Yet, Senate Democrats came to the floor and objected to what was in this bill."
[8:05]Well, first of all, Mr. President, I should clarify the fact that it was not Senate Republicans who included that provision
[8:15]in the appropriations bill to require that the Justice Department retain all the records
[8:25]with regard to the Epstein files and that they answer certain questions regarding those files and provide those responses to Congress. It wasn't Senate
[8:36]Republicans. In fact, it was my amendment in the Senate Appropriations Committee on that very issue. I'm glad it did pass unanimously. And momentarily, I'm going to ask for
[8:48]unanimous consent on the exact same provision that was adopted unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee, word
[8:59]for word. Now, it is true that that bill did not move forward here in the Senate, and I'm not going to go on for the hours that
[9:10]would be required to talk about the provisions and the commerce science justice bill. Suffice it to say that there was another
[9:21]issue that we discussed for about an hour the other night regarding the fact that the Trump administration decided to seize, resend, steal, whatever you want
[9:33]to call it, $1.4 billion dollar that had been set aside for a secure FBI headquarters. And they decided to snatch that money away from
[9:45]the selected site and put it to another site. And my view is that wherever the FBI builds that new headquarters, it should be a secure site. So that was a
[9:55]a disagreement that led to the fact that that bill did not proceed at this time. We also know, and Senator Baraso knows well, that the appropriations bills take a very long time to wind their way
[10:06]through the Senate and the House, go through conference. And so really, there's no reason to delay the provision in that bill that was
[10:17]unanimously adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee in which which Senator Baraso said this morning, Republicans included. Well, if it was included in that bill,
[10:32]we should do it right now. We should get it done right now. And I'm just going to in closing read this resolution because it's pretty
[10:42]straightforward, Mr. President. It says, "In general, the attorney general shall retain, preserve, and compile any records or evidence related
[10:51]to any investigation, prosecution, or incarceration of Jeffrey Epstein and any service provided to victims identified
[11:01]in such investigation." Pretty straightforward. Retain the records. Don't destroy any evidence. It also called for a report not later
[11:13]than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act. The attorney general shall submit to the subcommittee on commerce, justice, science, and related agencies of the committee of appropriations of the Senate a report that includes
[11:24]information on the history of the Jeffrey Epstein case, which shall include one, information regarding the 2008 nonprosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the Department of
[11:34]Justice. Two, information on victims and testimony by victims, including notification of victims under section 3771
[11:42]of title 18 of the US code, the crime victim's rights act. Three, information on any investigation of a co-conspirator.
[11:52]Four, information on any internal review of misconduct findings by the Department of Justice related to any investigation related to Jeffrey Epstein. Five, the current status of any investigation into
[12:04]the financial and trafficking networks of Jeffrey Epstein. Six, an intelligence assessment of the financial ties and clients of Jeffrey Epstein and any connections between Jeffrey Epstein and
[12:15]the United States government or foreign governments. And seven, information on the oversight failures at the Metropolitan Correction Center in New York, New York. Finally, section C,
[12:26]privacy protections. The attorney general may redact the names and person personally identified information of any victim from the report submitted to Congress under subsection B as necessary
[12:37]to protect privacy. That's it. I want to read it to all the members of the Senate so everyone knows exactly what they are voting for. It's straightforward. President Trump, Attorney General Bondi,
[12:51]do not destroy the evidence of the Epstein files and within 60 days present
[12:59]this Senate with answers to questions regarding the case. That's what this amendment does. It's exactly the same as
[13:11]the amendment that passed unanimously with Republican and Democratic support out of the Appropriations Committee. The same provision that Senator Baraso this
[13:20]morning said was a Republican proposal. So, I hope all the Republicans will join us in supporting this measure. And with that, Mr. President, as if in
[13:32]legislative session and notwithstanding rule 22, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill at the desk. Further, that the bill be considered
[13:43]read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. >> Is there an objection? >> Uh, Mr. President, >> majority whip. >> I object.
[13:54]>> Objection is heard. >> Senator from >> If I could just briefly, Mr. President, >> the senator from Maryland has the floor.
[14:05]>> Thank you, Mr. I just briefly because um as I made clear, this was the very provision that Senator Barasa this morning
[14:15]said that Republicans had supported and he indicated that this was something that they wanted to see move forward. Well, that was this morning. Now it's
[14:26]six o'clock this evening. I don't know what changed. But the language is the same as what Senator Baraso talked about this morning. It's
[14:38]the same as what Senate Appropriations Committee passed on a bipartisan basis. All of a sudden, when it comes time to actually get it done on the Senate floor, not just as a part of an
[14:49]appropriations bill that's going to wind its way through this place for weeks or months. when it's time to actually get it done. Republicans are opposing the idea of
[15:00]transparency. I find that quite shameful. Uh I understand my colleague from Oregon, Senator Mkeley, uh is interested in
[15:12]making some points and maybe asking some questions. >> Mr. >> I yield the floor. >> Senator Senator from Oregon. >> Would my colleague from Maryland yield to a question?
[15:21]>> I will. So if I understood your presentation right, this is word for word exactly the same this bill as the
[15:33]amendment you proposed in the appropriations meeting. >> Yes, that is exactly right. >> Well, I tell you I read through it and it looks like to me exactly this the
[15:44]same. And we heard from our colleague from Wyoming that this was a Republican proposal which you've clarified that
[15:53]actually you introduced it but also observe that it was passed unanimously. So, I'm confused
[16:02]if my colleague from Wyoming liked it so much that he wanted to claim authorship and he prop proceeded to say, "We liked
[16:13]it so much, we passed it unanimously, why is he objecting now to actually getting it passed?"
[16:23]>> Well, uh, Senator Mkeley, I didn't hear an explanation. I heard the objection. I've not heard the explanation for the
[16:33]objection and I think it may be difficult to provide an explanation given the fact that the senator from Wyoming was here on the floor of the Senate earlier as you and I have both
[16:45]pointed out uh extolling the virtues of this amendment and in fact partially taking credit for
[16:54]it uh saying Republicans supported this and wanted it But apparently that was this morning and now is now. And I
[17:05]suspect it's because when it was included in the appropriations bill, it's included in a vehicle that, as we've said, will wind its way through a long road of this
[17:15]process. Who knows how many people will try to take it out behind closed doors in conference. And that's why we had an opportunity right now in the light of day here in the United States Senate to
[17:26]actually pass this and send it off to the House immediately. And if they passed it, it could go to the president's desk. >> And if you'd yield to another question.
[17:38]>> Yes. >> This seems extremely well minimal that we're preserving the
[17:47]records. Earlier, we asked for a vote on a bill that would be complete disclosure because we believe that disclosure is
[17:57]merited given a set of extraordinary circumstances. Extraordinary circumstances like President Trump dangling a potential
[18:06]pardon in front of Ms. Maxwell. extraordinary circumstances like the FBI itself redacting Trump's name from
[18:18]documents. Extraordinary circumstances like the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch going and personally interviewing Ms. Maxwell
[18:29]and not taking along the lawyers who were experts in this case. And then just shortly after she's transferred to a minimum
[18:37]security prison in Texas. In other words, rewarded in a powerful way. Big difference between a regular prison and
[18:46]a min. So we wanted disclosure. And I think America wants disclosure because they want to see people held accountable
[18:55]who perpetrated crimes, rape against young girls. And yet all you're asking for is to
[19:04]preserve the information that it not be deleted or put into a shredder or put into a wood chipper. Is that right? Is that is that what you're
[19:16]asking for? >> Well, that's the heart of the amendment. And again, I will read just the first sentence. The attorney general shall retain, preserve, and compile any
[19:26]records or evidence related to any investigation, prosecution, or incarceration of Jeffrey Epstein and any service provided to victims identified in such an investigation. It could not
[19:37]be clear. The amendment does ask for a report on other very relevant information regarding the Epstein case,
[19:48]but to your fundamental point here, this is simply a directive not to destroy evidence
[19:58]that could be in the Epstein files. As I said, we just learned, at least within the last 48 hours, that somewhere along
[20:06]the road, the FBI had redacted Donald Trump's name from the Epstein file. So, we we know it's in there, and we know
[20:16]that at some point in time it was redacted. We want to make sure these records are not destroyed. >> Another question, if I might. >> Yes. If I turn the clock back to that
[20:28]appropriations committee hearing where you presented your amendment and I was present, was that not voted out of committee on a voice vote? >> Uh, yes, it was. It was adopted by a
[20:39]voice vote. >> So, the Republicans in committee said, "We support the idea,
[20:48]but let's do it by voice vote because we don't want to have our names recorded yay or nay." Is that correct? >> Again, I cannot Senator read the mind of
[21:00]any of our our colleagues. It was a voice vote. But of course, the objection we're seeing here on the floor of the Senate today
[21:10]indicates that our Republican colleagues do not want to go on record and vote when it comes right down to it uh on
[21:22]this proposal and making sure that the records are not destroyed. Had the senator from Wyoming
[21:31]not objected, we could have passed this bill today by voice vote, not necessarily having a recorded vote. >> It would have passed immediately
[21:42]um if he had not objected to it. In other words, >> because it doesn't even get to an >> That's right. It would have gone directly to the House of Representatives. Correct. So even though
[21:53]it was passed out of committee by voice vote and you offered a proposal simply to keep the records intact, which I must say should never have to be asked
[22:05]anyway, but why would any member of the Senate object to the principle of protecting the records? I mean, I'm
[22:16]confused. Don't all of us believe that when there is evidence related to a crime, it should not be put into a a shredder or a wood chipper?
[22:27]>> It's a very fair question and uh as I indicated, we didn't get an explanation for the objection. Um we had the
[22:36]objection made and no further comment uh from our colleagues on the Republican side. And I do think it's important that we underscore the fact for our
[22:47]colleagues and anybody listening that this amendment is very straightforward. Don't destroy evidence. It does also require in 60 days that a report be
[22:57]provided that provides certain relevant information regarding the Epstein case. And I'm not sure why anybody would not
[23:07]want that information to be presented either. I mean, this is like oppose an effort to save the records.
[23:19]You don't avoid the evidence and also voting against the idea of the attorney general providing the United States Senate with answers to some fundamental
[23:29]questions. Again, as we discussed this morning, the fastest and most complete way of doing it would have been to support the Center for Oregon's motion
[23:40]this morning. You see request this morning, just to release all the files, right? That's what should be done. We should release the files and they should do it now. You don't even have to have a vote in the House to do that. The
[23:51]attorney general could do what she said she was going to do and just release them on her own. That's what many of us have called for. That's what the senator's um motion this morning was all
[24:02]about. But my goodness, you should be releasing them, but for goodness sakes, why not why not at least
[24:12]send a directive saying don't destroy the evidence? >> Well, I appreciate my colleague from Maryland bringing this this forward. Uh
[24:23]it seems like the absolute minimum we should do now is protect the evidence for the future. Certainly it should be released as both of us have spoken to. I really appreciate my colleague from California
[24:35]uh who brought his legal expertise along with our colleague from Rhode Island who pointed out how extraordinary it is that a deputy attorney general would go and
[24:46]sit in a prison interviewing a key witness to criminal activity and that magically within hours thereafter she's
[24:57]transferred to minimum security and the president starts talking about the poss possibility of a pardon. Americans, this is just stinking to high heaven. And
[25:08]I'll repeat the point I made earlier today is no one should be above the law. No powerful man should be able to rape
[25:19]young girls and be protected by friends in high places or by legions of lawyers or any other circumstances. Let the rule
[25:29]of law come forward in full force to hold those who have committed egregious crimes be held accountable.
[25:40]>> I could not agree more, Mr. President. Our message is simple. Release the damn Epstein files and for God's sakes, don't try to destroy the evidence while we
[25:50]wait for those files to be released. And I yield the floor.