[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 30, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4888-S4889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2557
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, nobody in our country should be above the
law--not a politician, not a celebrity, not a billionaire--no one. The
principle of ``equal justice under the law'' is so powerful that if you
walk outside these doors and you look across to the Supreme Court, you
will see them carved into the facade above the pillars: ``Equal justice
under law.''
No matter how powerful someone is, if they commit a crime, then they
need to be prosecuted, and the American people have a right to know if
information is being held related to the conduct of the crime.
So in regard to the Epstein files, there is only one right answer:
the complete and total disclosure of everything, all the details, while
protecting the names of the victims. Whatever a person's political
party is shouldn't matter. The level of power shouldn't matter. Their
net worth shouldn't matter. ``Equal justice under law'' is the vision
of our Nation. If an individual is a pedophile, if an individual has
raped a young girl, then they need to be held accountable. Let the
chips fall where they may.
Jeffrey Epstein was a monster. He groomed and abused and raped and
coordinated the rape by others of underage girls, and he trafficked
these girls to rich and powerful men.
As I speak here tonight, the Department of Justice has files
detailing a tremendous amount of information about his operation, and
in those files, as we have heard from Pam Bondi and as she has informed
the President, the President's name is among them.
Well, that doesn't mean that he was somebody who participated in a
crime. He could be listed as an associate. He could be listed as a
friend. He could be listed as somebody who attended a gathering. We
don't know. In fact, we don't know about any of the names that are in
those files as to what they did. But that is the point. As to the names
of the powerful people who associated with an individual--Jeffrey
Epstein--who was running an international sex trafficking ring--all of
that information must be disclosed. Full disclosure is the only option.
[[Page S4889]]
Every detail should be brought to light, and anyone who committed
egregious crimes should be held accountable no matter who they are.
My colleague from Oregon Senator Ron Wyden and the Senate Finance
Committee have been investigating Mr. Epstein's financial network for
years. They have been seeking disclosure.
I have a letter that Senator Wyden wrote. It reveals more than 4,700
suspicious wire transfers adding up to more than $1 billion from just
one of Mr. Epstein's bank accounts and hundreds of millions of dollars
in other bank accounts. What would that information show us about who
they went to? What questions would it lead us to ask, and what
questions would that information answer? The American public has every
right to know the questions that Senator Wyden and the Finance
Committee are asking.
Let me be clear. That work was bipartisan work, Democrats and
Republicans together calling for disclosure and accountability.
In this letter, Senator Wyden notes:
Epstein clearly had access to enormous financing to operate
his sex trafficking network, and the details on how he got
the cash to pay for it are sitting in a Treasury Department
filing cabinet.
For years, so many people across America in both parties have been
demanding the release of the Epstein files, but we heard a lot from a
few folks who are in the administration now.
December 15, 2023, Kash Patel said that Mr. Epstein's ``black book''
was ``under [the] direct control of the FBI.'' Well, Mr. Patel is now
the Director of the FBI.
On October 22, 2024, Vice--well, he wasn't Vice President yet, but
now he is Vice President--JD Vance said in a podcast:
Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. That's an
important thing.
On February 25, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was in office,
said Mr. Epstein's client list was ``sitting on my desk right now to
review.''
But, suddenly, we are hearing a different tune from people in the
administration. We are hearing: There is nothing to see here, they are
saying. Go look somewhere else, they are saying. This is not important,
they are saying.
But not everyone agrees with that. Let's take the Speaker of the
House. July 15, House Speaker Mike Johnson told CNN:
We should put everything out there and let the people
decide.
On July 16, Senator Majority Leader John Thune told FOX News:
I'm always a believer in transparency--I think more is . .
. better.
I agree with Speaker Mike Johnson. I agree with Majority Leader
John Thune. I agree that the right principle about this information is
to put everything out there.
Let us not forget that as the Senate Finance Committee is pursuing
those information about the file transfers and what they show, that,
ultimately, it is not about money itself but about what money tells us
and the case it builds for who did what, because what really matters
here is this: the victimization of young girls. That is what this is
about, the abuse of young girls, the rape of young girls. That is what
this is about. That is what transparency is about.
So whether the information in the Department of Justice files is
about flight and travel records, names of people who were involved in
various ways, names of businesses or nonprofits, other organizations,
about meetings held or communications made, whether it was by email,
whether it was by text, whether it was by phone call, any immunity
deals, any nonprosecution agreements, any plea bargains, any
settlements--whatever it is--the American people demand transparency,
just as the Speaker of the House demanded transparency, just as the
majority leader of the Senate has demanded transparency.
This bill requires ``no record shall be withheld, delayed, or
redacted on the basis of any of the following: embarrassment,
reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including any government
official, public figure, or foreign dignitary,'' regardless of who they
are, regardless of where they live.
But what the bill also says is the information released must protect
the victims and the underage witnesses, protect those who were victims
or who were underage witnesses to crimes. So information can be
redacted by those victims and underage witnesses--personally
identifiable information, depictions of abuse, or information that
would jeopardize a Federal investigation or national security.
Colleagues, the question before us is simple: Will this body follow
the lead of the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the
Senate and call for full transparency?
The administration has said the law doesn't allow us to do it, so I
am proposing a law that gives them the power to do what they have said
they would like to do--transparency.
Will we, instead, object to this law to protect perpetrators of
crimes against girls? That is the question tonight: Will we protect our
children, or will the information be withheld? Will we fail to demand
it, fail to adopt this law to ensure that it is delivered in order to
protect the powerful? That is the choice: Protect the victims, be on
their side, pursue justice, or protect the powerful?
So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S.
2557, which is at the desk. I further ask 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. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
For years, Democrats have ignored this issue. Now they can't stop
talking about it. Maybe it is because Democrats are trying to distract
from their extreme, unprecedented obstructions here in the U.S. Senate.
As of this morning, there were 147 qualified nominees awaiting
confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Many were approved by committee with
Democrat support. These aren't controversial nominees or individuals.
They are patriotic Americans patiently waiting for their opportunity to
serve their country. Some have quit their jobs; others have sold their
assets. But this Democrat Trump derangement syndrome is holding them
back.
So far this year, Democrats have allowed exactly zero--zero--nominees
to be confirmed by voice vote. This is a drastic departure from the
norms and traditions of the U.S. Senate. It is very different from how
Republicans treated Democrat nominees when we were in the minority in
2021. Or maybe it is because Democrats don't want to talk about their
dreadful poll numbers--the lowest in 35 years. It is front-page news.
Senate Republicans included a provision that addresses this very
issue in the appropriations bill that Democrats are currently holding
up. They are stopping the progress on the bill that addresses this.
Either way you cut it, this exercise is a Democrat distraction; and
therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. MERKLEY. Would my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. BARRASSO. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has the floor.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague to yield for a
question. He has chosen not to, and that is his right.
But the question I would ask is this: If the Speaker of the House is
demanding transparency, if the majority leader of the Senate is
demanding transparency, if the American people are demanding
transparency, if my colleagues who have said time and time again just
months ago there should be transparency, then why does my colleague
come here and object to transparency? What is it that they know that
they don't want the American people to know?
To withhold this information is an assault on justice, and it is
absolutely wrong. We must continue to demand that the rich and powerful
are not shielded from the full force of justice if they have
perpetrated crimes against underage children.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.