-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, would my colleague from Maryland yield for a question?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. If I understood your presentation right, this is, word for word, exactly the same--this bill--as the amendment you proposed in the appropriations meeting.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes, that is exactly right.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Well, I can tell you I have read through it, and it looks like, to me, exactly the same. And we heard from our colleague from Wyoming that this was a Republican proposal, which you clarified that, actually, you introduced it but also observed that it was passed unanimously.

So I am confused. If my colleague from Wyoming liked it so much that he wanted to claim authorship and he proceeded to say, We liked it so much, we passed it unanimously, why is he objecting now to actually getting it passed?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, Senator Merkley, I didn't hear an explanation. I heard the objection. I have not heard the explanation for the 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 pointed out, extolling the virtues of this amendment and, in fact, partially taking credit for it, saying Republicans supported this and wanted it.

But, apparently, that was this morning, and now is now. And I suspect it is because when it was included in the appropriations bill, it was included in a vehicle that, as we have said, will wind its way through a long road to this process. Who knows how many people will try to take it out behind closed doors in conference.

That is why we have an opportunity right now, in the light of day, here in the U.S. Senate, to actually pass this and send it off to the House immediately. And if they passed it, it could go to the President's desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. If the Senator would yield to another question.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. This seems extremely--well--minimal. We are preserving the records. Earlier, we asked for a vote on a bill that would be a complete disclosure because we believe that disclosure is merited given a set of extraordinary circumstances--extraordinary circumstances like President Trump dangling a potential pardon in front of Ms. Maxwell, extraordinary circumstances like the FBI itself redacting Trump's name from documents, extraordinary circumstances like Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch going and personally interviewing Ms. Maxwell and not taking along the lawyers who were experts in this case, and then, just shortly after, she was transferred to a minimum security prison in Texas--in other words, rewarded in a powerful way. There is a big difference between a regular prison and a minimum security prison.

So we wanted disclosure, and I think America wants disclosure because they want to see people held accountable who have perpetrated crimes-- rape--against young girls. And yet all you are asking for is to preserve the information, that it not be deleted or put into a shredder or put into a wood chipper. Is that right? Is that what the Senator is asking for?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, that is the heart of the amendment.

Again, I will read just the first sentence:

The Attorney General shall retain, preserve, and compile any 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 be clearer. The amendment does ask for a report on other very relevant information regarding the Epstein case.

But to your fundamental point here, this is simply a directive not to destroy evidence that could be in the Epstein files.

As I said, we just learned, at least within the last 48 hours, that somewhere along the road, the FBI had redacted Donald Trump's name from the Epstein files. So we know it is in there, and we know that at some point in time, it was redacted. We want to make sure these records are not destroyed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Another question, if I might.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. If I turn the clock back to that Appropriations Committee hearing where you presented your amendment and I was present, was that not voted out of committee on a voice vote?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes, it was. It was adopted by a voice vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. So the Republicans in committee said we support the idea, but let's do it by voice vote because we don't want to have our names recorded, yea or nay; is that correct?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Again, I cannot, Senator, read the mind of any of our colleagues. It was a voice vote, but of course the objection we are seeing here on the floor of the Senate today indicates that our Republican colleagues do not want to go on record and vote, when it comes right down to it, on this proposal, making sure the records are not destroyed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Had the Senator not objected, we could have passed this bill today by voice vote, not necessarily having a recorded vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. It would have passed immediately if he had not objected to it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Because it doesn't even get to a--

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That is right. It would have gone directly to the House of Representatives.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. It would have been unanimous.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Correct.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. So even though it was passed out of committee by voice vote, and you offer a proposal simply to keep the records intact--which I must say, should never have to be asked anyway--but why would any Member of the Senate object to the principle of protecting the records?

I mean, I am confused. Don't all of us believe that when there is evidence related to a crime, it should not be put into a shredder or a wood chipper?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. It is a very fair question. And as I indicated, we didn't get an explanation for the objection. We had the objection made and no further comment from our colleagues on the Republican side.

I do think it is important that we underscore the fact for our colleagues and anybody listening that this amendment is very straightforward: Don't destroy evidence. It does also require, within 60 days, that a report be provided that provides certain relevant information regarding the Epstein case, and I am not sure why anybody would not want that information to be presented either.

I mean, this is like--oppose an effort to save the records and don't void the evidence and also voting against the idea of the Attorney General providing the U.S. Senate with answers to some fundamental questions.

Again, as we discussed this morning, the fastest and most complete way of doing it would have been to support the Senator from Oregon's motion this morning--UC request this morning. Just release all the files, right? That is what should be done. We should release the files, and we should do it now.

You don't even have to have a vote in the House to do that. The Attorney General could do what she said she was going to do and just release them on her own. That is what many of us have called for. That is what the Senator's motion this morning was all about.

But my goodness, you should be releasing them. But for goodness' sake, why not at least send a directive saying, ``Don't destroy the evidence''?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Well, I appreciate my colleague from Maryland bringing this forward. 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 who brought his legal expertise, along with our colleague from Rhode Island who put out how extraordinary it is that a Deputy Attorney General would go and sit in a prison interviewing a key witness to criminal activity and that magically, within hours thereafter, she is transferred to minimum security, and the President starts talking about the possibility of a pardon.

Americans, this is just stinking to high heaven. I will repeat the point I made earlier today. No one should be above the law. No powerful man should be able to rape young girls and be protected by friends in high places or by legions of lawyers or any other circumstances. Let the rule of law come forward in full force to hold those who have committed egregious crimes be held accountable.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I could not agree more. Our message is simple: Release the damn Epstein files, and for God's sake, don't try to destroy the evidence while we wait for those files to be released.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source