Transcription
The clerk will call the role. Uh, no, no, no, no, no, no. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I I think I'd just like to be recognized. I know Senator Durban and Senator White House, who outranked me on this committee, have asked to be recognized as well. I don't want to pick a fight with Mr. Booker either, but I made a motion. Is my motion in order, Mr. Chairman?
Yeah, your motion is in order. We have a vote, Mr. Chairman. Pretty please. We have a vote. Yes. Call the role. I I but but we we clarify without a discussion on the second degree amendment.
Don't call the role yet without discussion or debate on the you on the motion. Go ahead, sir. I don't want to jump over the ranking member of the I I'm I'm reading that Cornin second degree, and he said a lot of really important things about immigration that are worthy to be discussed, and I'm happy to vote on an immigration bill. Uh, I disagree with the death penalty. I I I will vote my conscience on this, but I want to draw everybody's attention to the first two lines of your second degree. They have nothing to do about immigration. They have nothing to do with the death penalty. I I've never seen this before. His first two lines are to strike my amendment in its entirety. So what we have right here is hidden behind real issues on immigration is really just trying to not vote on the important points that we brought up about transparency and accountability on the Jeffrey Epstein files. This is not an amendment to my amendment. This is an attempt to strike what I have a whole list of prominent Republicans, elected leaders who want the same thing I want, which is just to have transparency on this matter.
Can we vote? I've heard some of the comments. If I can finish, Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. I have heard public statements by my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I've heard comments from Republicans on the House side and Democrats on the House side that we want transparency and accountability on a matter of public safety. Senator Corman said that Jeffrey Epstein's dead yet, but his victims are not. There are women who have horrific stories of vile violence that was committed against them. We have Pam Bondi, our attorney general, who said that there is evidence, truckloads of it, as to these crimes, potential co-conspirators, potential others involved. How can we not want to just know what happened? Why are we trying to simply turn away from the highest law enforcements in the officers in the land, from our FBI director to our attorney general, who spoke towards crimes committed and others involved in those crimes? Why are we considering an amendment that is hiding behind real immigration issues, but the real intent is to strike a simple request for transparency, for accountability that Republican voices all across the spectrum have been demanding from this president and this attorney general? So if Senator Corman is going to offer an amendment, I'm going to offer a third degree that simply strikes his first two lines. I'll vote on your immigration stuff that you so strongly stated was the importance of this. But you hid the fact that you put here what the real intention of your amendment. It has nothing to do with immigration. It says it right here in the first two lines. The real effort was just to not have accountability and transparency. What are you afraid of?
Mr. Chairman, may I respond? Yeah, you may respond. I trust the Senate confirmed attorney general of the United States to make the proper legal analysis to determine what of the Jeffrey Epstein files can be released. She was confirmed by the United States Senate as chief law enforcement officer of the United States. I trust her to make the right legal determination. But I would ask my colleague from New Jersey, you claim you care about the victims. Do you care about Tammy Nobles? Do you care about Marie Vega, the Angel Moms who lost their loved ones, their children to the acts of an illegal alien who never should have been here in the first place? Do you care about them?
Can I respond to the senator's question? Sir, I I've known you for 14 years. You and I both care about victims of crime. And to suggest otherwise is stunning to me. If I may finish, sir, I allow you a question. I I saw I didn't make an accusation. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, answer the question. I should have an allowed a time to respond to the senator's question. I did not interrupt him, and now he's interrupting me.
It is another violation of the decorum of this place. Go ahead, Senator. Senator Corman, both you and I have spent our lives. I know your record. I know your history. I know what you've done. I would never ever question whether you care about the victims of a heinous crime. Mr. Chairman, please. You ask me if I care. Absolutely. Thank you. No, I'm not finished yet. Well, thank you for answering the question. Well, I'm going to answer the question in full. You are not sincere. Let me explain. I I Sir, he has put an amendment in. Would you allow me trying to use the horrific nature? Would you allow me as sponsor of this bill to certainly I I will not pick a fight with Chuck Grassley in the same way that Chuck Grassley won't pick a fight with me. The reason for his amendment is because your amendment says that this bill that we're working on will not go into effect until we get all these records. And this bill is an opioid bill to solve help solve some of the drug problems in this country, and we ought to get it passed because it's a bipartisan bill and it's uh very badly needed.
Sir, I've May I respond? Yes. So, I I've said at the top of my comments my frustrations. I've we've said it to your staff, we've said it to others that when funds like this have been made available so far in the first six months, they're clawing back funds from my state, and that's unfair. And I would like to deal with those. We could deal with them. And given that I am sticking to an amendment that is not controversial.
The o I I I know it's not controversial, sir, because I've seen polling literally on Republican channels that the overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats want transparency and accountability that the overwhelming majority of Americans has seen that one of these two things is lies. Is there truckloads full of evidence as to victims of crime not having justice? Have we been lied to? Who is who are we trying to protect? What are they trying to hide? This is not controversial. We have Republican leaders in Congress calling for the same thing that this amendment calls for. And so for an a a second degree to be offered to mine where you're using horrific crimes to hide the real intention of this. If this amendment is so important, just strike the first two lines. That strikes my entire my entire amendment. The intention of this is clear. It's to not give the American people accountability, transparency, and truth. That's what we as the judiciary committee should be seeking. So I offer a third degree amendment preserving every noble thing that the senator from Texas said he wanted.
You can't offer a third degree amendment. I can't offer a a third degree. Then I then I ask that we strike the true intention of his amendment. The first two lines. At this stage, you can't offer a third degree amendment. If there's some way for you to do that, I don't know what it is.
Yes. May respond. Yes. Briefly. Then we'll have we'll have a roll call vote because I know you folks want to get votes on your amendment. I asked you to withdraw them, and you aren't withdrawing them. So, I just want to ask a question, Mr. Chairman. In your opinion, with the addition of these amendments to the underlying bipartisan bill, does it jeopardize our ability to pass this underlying bill, anti-opioid bill, out of committee and across the Senate floor and get it enacted into law? Would these amendments jeopardize that?
I see them jeopardized in ways even beyond what you said. So, because if we passed the legislation with this stuff on, it wouldn't go into effect anyway. Who knows how far down the road when the president signs the bill, I want it to be effective. That's what I that's what I thought, and I appreciate your answering the question. I think the debate that Senator Booker and I have is not something that's going to be resolved today, and um, so it will continue. So I think regardless of how we act on the underlying bill, that debate will continue. And neither he nor I are giving anything up in terms of our ability to continue to debate this topic. But I'm willing to withdraw my amendment if Senator Booker's willing to withdraw his amendment in the interest of passing this bipartisan anti-opioid bill out of the committee and through the Senate and seeing it enacted into law and hopefully hopefully saving some lives in the process.
Senator Booker. Mr. Grassley, sir, I have asked for someone who addressed my New Jersey concerns for months now. There was an incident in which you got a special carve-out for your state when they froze funds. But I I I have got no justice for New Jersey. So, if you want to postpone this and and and address my New Jersey concerns about the resources we are not getting, and I know you would do that with me in good faith, I I would be happy in our next meeting, but right now, I am sticking with my amendment.
It'd be it'd be faster to address your concerns for New Jersey if you'd asked me to help you with the administration to get something done so you can get your money. Uh, and uh Sir, I I I've got no qu I'm not familiar. Then if you uh do it through the legislative process, tell me that. Let me make a let me make a conversation with the White House on your issue. But I'm going to stick with my amendment until I get satisfaction on it.
The clerk will call the role. What are we voting on? I have no idea. On my amendment? No, we're voting. The second degree. Call the role on the Corman amendment. Mr. Grassley. Aye. Mr. Cornyn. Aye. Mr. Lee. Aye. Mr. Cruz. Aye. Mr. Hirono. Aye. Mr. Tillis. Aye. Mr. Kennedy. Aye, by proxy. Mrs. Blackburn. Aye, by proxy. Mr. Smith. No. I proxy. Mrs. Moody. Mr. Durbin. No. On concealing the Epstein files. Mr. Whitehouse. No. Mr. No, by proxy. Mr. No, by proxy. Mr. I vote no because I vote no on concealing the Epstein files. By proxy. Okay. Mr. Booker. I vote no on this effort to conceal the Epstein files. Mr. Mr. No. I'd like the Epstein files. No one concealing the Epstein files. I on this vote the eyes are 12, the noes are 10. Okay. The Cornyn amendment is adopted. Uh, now we will go to uh uh uh the uh.
The clerk will call the role. Mr. Mr. Chairman, point of order. So his second degree, which had nothing to do with immigration, which was to conceal the Epstein file. Senator Cornyn's effort to conceal the Epstein files right here on one and two has now violated my amendment. There is no amendment anymore. It passed. That's right. That's and Cornyn is saying yes, I passed. I did something to stop the American public from seeing the Epstein files. It renders my amendment moot. That was the intention of Senator Cornyn's amendment that he just passed, which was to conceal.
I have to respond. Nothing we are voting on today is going to change any of the debate about the Epstein files. So your letter addresses. That debate will continue. That is not true. If you don't acknowledge that, I just uh have to I uh I really uh question whether your amendment is actually in good faith or not, because nothing's going to change that. But Mr. Chairman, my second degree amendment passed, which included a striking the Senator Booker's amendment. I believe we've committee spoken. May May I respond? He directly referenced me. May I respond? Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. So you Mr. Cornyn claims that nothing about this would end debate. We're not seeking to end debate. We're seeking to pass legislation out of this committee that would force the disclosure and the transparency and the truth being made public. We had a chance today that Senator Cornyn blocked to make the truth known to the American public. We had the power today, the possibility today to force out the truth regarding the Epstein files and the lies and the obfuscation that is happening by this administration. What Senator Cornyn did today was to block the truth about what's happening with the Department of Justice and the Epstein file. It is that on its plain truth, no matter how much he wants to try to dodge that truth.
Mr. Chairman, I have to respond well quickly because I will respond quickly. Thank you. What Senator Booker Joe is trying to do is to kill this underlying bipartisan bill that will hopefully save hundreds, maybe thousands of lives because of the opioid crisis. It's already taken tens of thousands of lives in this country over recent years because of the Biden open border policies. So, I'm simply trying to preserve this bipartisan legislation again that will save lives. The debate that he and I are having over the Epstein files, I doubt will be resolved today based on any amendments either he or I offer. So that's the reason for my amendment because I want to save lives from the opioid crisis, and I believe his amendment is a distraction from that and actually will jeopardize seeing this bipartisan legislation enacted into law.
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman. May I respond? I No, I'm calling on Grassley. I thought you were going back and forth, sir. I didn't know that. I'll be real quick. So, if Senator Booker's problem is with the bill itself, which it seems to be, uh, I understand that. Hopefully, we can work out a way to get money to your state you think does justice for New Jersey. I got that. That makes perfect sense. But the Epstein amendment presented some other way is not going away. What we're trying to do with this bill is really good, and there's no end to this way of doing business here. If this is a headline about Cornyn blocks transparency of Epstein, then that would be sad because she's responding to your amendment that would make the bill quite frankly fail. I want to help Senator Booker with your problem. But what you're doing, I don't think is helpful to the bill. I don't think it's helpful to the committee. I don't think it's helpful to your problem.
Senator Graham, there's not been a time in my career where you said you want to help me that you didn't. So, I'm going to take you up on that, and I'm going to withdraw, and I'm going to withdraw my amendment. You're a good man. And I will try to deliver with Senator Grassley the best I can. Mr. Chairman, I would also also ask leave to withdraw my amendment and vote on the underlying bill.