[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 134 (Saturday, August 2, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5482-S5484]
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 ever be 
above the law, certainly not powerful people who believe that they can 
perpetrate crimes on victims and get away with it because they have so 
much wealth and so many lawyers and so many friends in high places.
  If you go outside the doors of the Senate Chamber, to my right, and 
you continue straight ahead and you go out the second set of doors to 
the steps of the Capitol, you are looking straight across at the 
Supreme Court. And while scaffolding is up right now, making it hard to 
see the words, the words that are engraved above those pillars are 
those words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Powerful words. A powerful 
vision that all Americans are subject to the law.
  There is no special get-out-of-jail-free card under that vision for 
the powerful, but all too often the combination of reams of well-paid 
lawyers and a whole lot of friends ready to help you, the powerful 
commit crimes and get away with it.
  We should aspire to the vision that is there above the Supreme Court, 
that vision of ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' that no politician, no 
celebrity, no megamillionaire or billionaire can buy their way out of 
justice when they commit crimes and particularly not crimes that 
involve life-altering damage, crimes in which people are killed, crimes 
in which people are mutilated, crimes in which people are raped.
  No matter how powerful someone is, they need to be prosecuted when 
they commit these crimes. And the American people have a right to know 
what information the government is suppressing to protect these 
individuals. So this brings us to the conversation of the Epstein 
files. There is only one right answer, complete and total disclosure. 
That is the only pathway to justice.
  We have a lot of suspicions across this country about what is 
contained in those files hidden in the Department of Justice, those 
files that are hidden in the Department of the Treasury.
  My colleague Senator Wyden, on the Finance Committee, has been 
working on this for years. I heard an objection from across the aisle, 
Why are you interested now? Well, Senator Wyden has been leading the 
search to understand what went on. There is a billion dollars

[[Page S5483]]

of money that was transferred, thousands of transfers that were ignored 
by key banks that would have painted a portrait of a criminal empire in 
motion. And yet, somehow, none of those transfers triggered the 
attention that they merited.
  So here is what we know: We know that Epstein ran a massive network 
of sex trafficking, sex trafficking of young girls to powerful men. 
Now, we don't know who they are, in terms of those powerful men, and 
there may be many names in the files--the Epstein files--that involve 
people who had nothing to do with those crimes. They may simply be 
friends in a network; they may be business associates in some other 
legitimate way; but some of them may well be these powerful men who 
raped young girls.
  So those folks who were not part of that shouldn't be objecting to 
the release of the files because the files would simply show that they 
had nothing to do with those crimes against young women. But the folks 
who were the perpetrators, whose names might be in that file, right 
now, I can guarantee you, they are working the system of every high 
friend across this country, every megamillionaire and billionaire who 
participated in these violent acts on the innocent young, and they are 
trying to make sure this information never comes out. So far, they have 
succeeded, and that is wrong.
  Several of my colleagues are preparing to speak to this, and Senator 
Durbin--I am looking to see that he is here, yes, he is--is going to 
speak to it next. My colleague from across the aisle is here to respond 
to a request to hear and vote on a bill that will tell the Department 
of Justice, you must release these files; transparency must happen.
  Now, why did I write this bill? I wrote this bill because the 
Attorney General said we don't have legal permission to release the 
information. So let's give her the legal permission to release this 
information. In fact, let's pass a law right now, today, here in the 
Senate, that says you not only have permission to release the Epstein 
files, but we are passing a law saying you must release the Epstein 
files, with the names of the victims redacted to protect them.
  So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged and 
the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of S. 2557; further, that 
the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  I recognize the majority whip.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Senate Republicans included a provision to address this very issue in 
an appropriations 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 having appropriations and dealing with the funding of the 
Government of the United States.
  And the shutdown Democrats, who want to shut down the government, did 
exactly that. They objected to the appropriations bill that addressed 
this very item. That is what happened. And what is really happening 
today, we are here on a Saturday morning in August, on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate, and why are we here?
  We are here because Democrats are still trying to distract from the 
unprecedented obstruction of President Trump's well-qualified nominees. 
As of this morning, there are still 154 qualified nominees awaiting 
confirmation in the U.S. Senate.

  Many have been approved in committee with Democrat support, 
bipartisan support, in many cases, strong bipartisan support. These are 
not controversial individuals but patriotic Americans patiently waiting 
for their opportunity to serve our Nation.
  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 the traditions of the U.S. Senate. It is very different from 
how Republicans treated Democrat nominees when we were in the minority 
in 2021. We continued to work with the other side to reach a fair 
agreement to end this blockade.
  I am hopeful that an agreement is within reach, and I objected to 
this exact legislation 4 days ago. Nothing has changed since Senator 
Merkley brought this to the floor 4 days ago, other than we continue to 
be here with an obstruction--a historic obstruction by the Democrats of 
President Trump's qualified nominees, and therefore I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, my colleague has come to the floor and 
said that there is a provision in a bill, but will he yield for a 
question about that provision?
  He will not because he has just left the floor because he doesn't 
want to answer the question. But I invite him to come back because the 
provision he is talking about does not require the release of the 
Epstein files--not at all. And so he has come to the floor, and he said 
Democrats blocked a provision, and he won't tell you what I am telling 
you right now, that provision does not require the release of the 
Epstein files. So it is misrepresenting the situation.
  And you saw him change the topic. Why change the topic from this 
topic? Americans have been very clear that they want these files 
released. This is the bill that will do it.
  And I yield to my colleague from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his 
leadership on this bill, which I am proud to cosponsor. I want to 
respond to my friend and colleague from the State of Wyoming and say 
when he goes back in time looking at the votes on nominees, don't 
overlook the JD Vance precedent. JD Vance, then-Senator for Ohio, came 
to the floor of the U.S. Senate and objected to any type of vocal 
arrangement--oral vote, when it came to the approval of U.S. attorneys. 
He said that he wanted all of them to go through the regular order. 
That stopped, under President Biden, the appointment of all U.S. 
attorneys.
  So to argue that they have clean hands in the situation is to ignore 
the Vice President's former status, establishing the standard that made 
it impossible to consider U.S. attorneys on a voice vote.
  Let me say about the issue before us on Epstein. Two weeks after the 
Senate confirmed Pam Bondi as Attorney General, she told FOX News--the 
mother ship--the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients are ``sitting on my 
desk right now to review.''
  Six days later, Bondi released binders of documents related to 
Epstein to MAGA influencers, but these documents were largely already 
publicly available. The absence of any client list led to immense 
blowback.
  Attorney General Bondi returned to FOX News and made another 
startling claim. She said that a whistleblower told her the FBI 
withheld ``thousands of pages of documents'' and the country would see 
``the full Epstein files.''
  Over the next 4 months, DOJ and FBI were silent on this issue until 
an unsigned July 7 memo was issued finding that ``systemic review 
revealed no incriminating `client list.' ''
  So what happened during the 4 months between Attorney General Bondi's 
blockbuster claims in February and this July 7 memorandum?
  My office received a highly credible whistleblower disclosure 
describing Attorney General Bondi's pressure on the FBI to quickly 
review and produce more Epstein documents. For 2 weeks in late March, 
the FBI assigned approximately 1,000 professional personnel in its 
Information Management Division and hundreds of additional agents from 
the New York field office to work 24-hour shifts to review and produce 
more documents. These officials were told to ``flag'' any records which 
mentioned President Trump.
  Essentially, agents were pulled out of the field from their work 
combating violent crime to review these documents. Other important work 
was effectively shut down.
  Using tens of thousands of personnel hours at the expense of public 
safety, for no other reason than to try to bolster baseless claims they 
have made, is reckless.
  President Trump has not helped the situation. Despite his 
administration

[[Page S5484]]

continuing to make promises about transparency on Epstein and the 
existence of records they have not produced, he is currently telling 
the country it is all a ``scam.''
  Last month, President Trump posted on his personal social media that 
``my PAST supporters have bought into this `[BS],' hook, line, and 
sinker. They haven't learned their lesson, and probably never will.''
  This is the way the President is talking about his own constituents 
who are raising concerns about the claims that President Trump's own 
administration has repeatedly raised.
  President Trump and Attorney General Bondi are directly responsible 
for this confusion and mistrust. They owe Congress and the American 
people full transparency. Instead, the situation gets more murky when 
Epstein's girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell is being interviewed by one of 
the highest ranking members of the administration. We don't know what 
the conversation is. We sent a letter that said we want full disclosure 
to both sides of the aisle on what they discussed, and we want to make 
sure there are no promises of pardon or clemency for her to speak. She 
is serving a 20-year term for human trafficking and exploitation of 
children.
  The prosecutor said that she was not a credible witness, and we ought 
to take that into consideration when considering her role.
  So I support Senator Merkley's bill. I am sorry there was an 
objection.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.