[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 134 (Saturday, August 2, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5502-S5505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California 
and the Senator from Rhode Island. They have well described, I think, 
all the inappropriate actions that have been taken by the Justice 
Department, including recently with respect to the Deputy Attorney 
General, who had been Donald Trump's personal lawyer, conducting the 
secret interview with the Epstein associate Maxwell.
  This is an important conversation to continue here on the Senate 
floor. We were here earlier this morning, where

[[Page S5503]]

we discussed the very, very troubling and disturbing case of Jeffrey 
Epstein and the horrifying abuse of young women and girls.
  Those who were so terribly abused and mistreated deserve to have the 
full truth. They deserve to have all the facts come out, as do their 
loved ones, as do the American people so the American people can have 
some kind of confidence that the Department of Justice is presenting 
the American people with the truth because we need transparency in 
order to ensure full accountability.
  It used to be the case that Donald Trump and his Attorney General Pam 
Bondi and others in this administration said they wanted to get to the 
bottom of this. In fact, they said they wanted to release the Epstein 
files. But as we got closer to actually doing that, they suddenly 
decided that they did not want the public to know and that they didn't 
want Epstein's victims to know. So now they have decided not to be 
forthcoming.
  The obvious question is, What are they hiding? And that is why we 
took to the floor earlier today to say: Release the damn Epstein files.
  We have learned just in the last 48 hours that at some point along 
the way, the FBI redacted Trump's name from the Epstein files. We have 
learned that his name was very likely in those files. We also know that 
the Trump administration asked the FBI to do a search of his name in 
the files. We now know that his name was redacted from those files at 
some point along the way by the FBI.
  As my colleagues from Rhode Island and California were just 
discussing, we have also witnessed in just the last week or two the 
highly inappropriate action of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to 
conduct a secret interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was Jeffrey 
Epstein's partner in these crimes.
  When he was asked at his confirmation hearing before the Senate about 
whether he had a continuing duty of loyalty and confidentiality to 
Donald Trump, his response was yes, as the former personal attorney of 
Donald Trump, he had an ongoing duty of loyalty and confidentiality.
  Clearly, that duty of loyalty and confidentiality to Donald Trump 
puts him in direct conflict with the interests of the truth and the 
people of the United States when it comes to President Trump. So it was 
highly inappropriate that he held that interview.
  As the Senator from California just pointed out, he excluded from 
that interview lawyers who had been working on this case for a long 
time. It is also a fact by at least many reports that he, Todd Blanche, 
has a very close, personal relationship with the lawyer for Ms. 
Maxwell.
  So this thing stinks to high heaven, and one thing they should do is 
immediately release the transcripts of this secret interview that was 
just conducted. Release the transcripts.
  According to all reports, they gave Ghislaine Maxwell immunity--
proffered immunity for the purpose of her testimony; nothing she said 
in that interview could be used against her. So release the interview 
transcript to the American people, because Donald Trump's personal 
attorney should not be the one in the room conducting an interview with 
somebody who might have testimony that directly incriminates Donald 
Trump.
  We have also seen just in recent days the question floated about 
whether the President of the United States would pardon Ghislaine 
Maxwell. When President Trump was asked about that possibility, he 
acknowledged he had that power.
  As I said on this floor this morning, President Trump should 
immediately, today, announce that he will not use his pardon power to 
pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for being a 
coconspirator in the abuse of young women and girls.
  What is clearly happening in plain view is very dangerous to our 
system of justice.
  What is clearly happening is the possibility that Ghislaine Maxwell 
and her lawyers are seeking a pardon in exchange for her giving the 
kind of testimony that would please President Trump.
  One of the families of one of the victims, a family from Virginia who 
lost their loved one to suicide in April, has said: President Trump, do 
not pardon Ghislaine Maxwell.
  And my understanding is that is clearly the sentiment of the other 
victims and their families. So the President should, today, announce 
that he will never do that.
  Now, earlier this morning, Senator Merkley offered a resolution and 
asked unanimous consent on it to release the Epstein files. And we 
should do that immediately. That should be done immediately.
  Senator Durbin and I wrote to the Attorney General last week urging 
her to do what she said she was going to do, which is release the 
files. But that was objected to on the Republican side.
  And I see Senator Barrasso on the floor. And when he objected to 
Senator Merkley this morning, this is what he said. He said:

       Senate Republicans included a 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 U.S. Senate Floor, yet Senate Democrats came to the 
     floor and objected to what was in this bill.

  Well, first of all, I should clarify the fact that it was not Senate 
Republicans who included that provision in the appropriations bill to 
require that the Justice Department retain all the records 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 
Republicans. In fact, it was my amendment in the Senate Appropriations 
Committee on that very issue.
  I am glad it did pass unanimously, and momentarily I am going to ask 
for unanimous consent on the exact same provision that was adopted 
unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee, word for word.
  Now, it is true that that bill did not move forward here in the 
Senate. And I am not going to go on for the hours that would be 
required to talk about the provisions in the Commerce-Science-Justice 
bill. Suffice it to say that there was another issue that we discussed 
for about an hour the other night regarding the fact that the Trump 
administration decided to seize, rescind, steal--whatever you want to 
call it--$1.4 billion that had been set aside for a secure FBI 
Headquarters, and they decided to snatch that money away from 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 disagreement that led to the fact that that bill did 
not proceed at this time. We also know--and Senator Barrasso knows as 
well--that the appropriations bills take a very long time to wind their 
way through the Senate and the House, go through conference. And so, 
really, there is no reason to delay the provision in that bill that was 
unanimously adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee and which 
Senator Barrasso said this morning Republicans included.
  Well, if it was included in that bill, we should do it right now. We 
should get it done right now. And I am just going to, in closing, read 
this resolution because it is pretty straightforward. It says:

       IN GENERAL.--The Attorney General shall retain, preserve, 
     and compile any records or evidence related to--(1) any 
     investigation, prosecution, or incarceration of Jeffrey 
     Epstein; and (2) any service provided to victims identified 
     in such an investigation.

  Pretty straightforward. Retain the records. Don't destroy any 
evidence.
  It also called for a report.

       Not later 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 on Appropriations of the Senate a report that 
     includes information on the history of the Jeffrey Epstein 
     case, which shall include--(1) information regarding the 2008 
     non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the 
     Department of Justice; (2) information on victims and 
     testimony by victims, including notification of victims under 
     section 3771 of title 18, United States Code . . . the 
     ``Crime Victims Rights Act''; (3) information on any 
     investigation of a coconspirator; (4) information on any 
     internal review or misconduct findings by the Department of 
     Justice related to any investigation related to Jeffrey 
     Epstein; (5) the current status of any investigation into the 
     financial and trafficking networks of Jeffrey Epstein; (6) an 
     intelligence assessment of the financial ties and clients of 
     Jeffrey Epstein and any connections between Jeffrey Epstein 
     and the United States Government or foreign governments; and 
     (7) information on oversight failures at the Metropolitan 
     Correctional Center in New York, New York.


[[Page S5504]]


  Finally--

       (c) PRIVACY PROTECTION.--The Attorney General may redact 
     the names and personally identifiable information of any 
     victim from the report submitted to Congress under subsection 
     (b), as necessary to protect privacy.

  That is it. I wanted to read it to all the Members of the Senate so 
everyone knows exactly what they are voting for. It is straightforward: 
President Trump, Attorney General Bondi, do not destroy the evidence of 
the Epstein files, and within 60 days present this Senate with answers 
to questions regarding the case.
  That is what this amendment does. It is exactly the same as the 
amendment that passed unanimously, with Republican and Democratic 
support, out of the Appropriations Committee, the same provision that 
Senator Barrasso this 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 legislative session and 
notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill at the desk; further, 
that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority whip.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, just briefly because, as I made clear, 
this was the very provision that Senator Barrasso this morning said 
that Republicans have supported, and he indicated that this was 
something that they wanted to see move forward.
  Well, that was this morning, and now it is 6 this evening, and I 
don't know what changed. But the language is the same as what Senator 
Barrasso talked about this morning. It is the same as what the 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 part of an appropriations bill that is going 
to wind its way through this place for weeks or months--when it is time 
to actually get it done, Republicans are opposing the idea of 
transparency. I find that quite shameful.
  I understand my colleague from Oregon Senator Merkley is interested 
in making some points and maybe asking some questions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, would my colleague from Maryland yield 
for a question?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will.
  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.
  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.
  Mr. MERKLEY. If the Senator would yield to another question.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes.
  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.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Another question, if I might.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  Mr. MERKLEY. It would have been unanimous.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Correct.
  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

[[Page S5505]]

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''?
  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.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.