[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 134 (Saturday, August 2, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5484-S5487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2557
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the American people have been treated
to an extraordinary spectacle. It is the spectacle of a President of
the United States trying to stonewall and stall the disclosure of a
file from the U.S. Department of Justice that directly implicates him
and others in places of power after boasting to the American people
that he would reveal everything. He promised again and again and again
that he would disclose all the files--not only of this investigation,
but the JFK investigation and others--because the American people
deserve transparency. They deserve disclosure. They deserve to know
what is in the files of the Department of Justice when there are
credible allegations that an investigation is incomplete and potential
evidence concealed.
And the American people are rightly asking now: What do they have to
hide? Why are they concealing this information in the files of the
Department of Justice?
We are talking about documents, interviews, testimony that may
mention the survivors and innocent people, and their names should be
redacted and removed from any public disclosure so they are not
victimized again by the public ignominy of having been victims. And if
there is any ongoing investigation here that requires confidentiality,
it can be held.
I know from my days in the Department of Justice--I was the U.S.
attorney for Connecticut--that this kind of disclosure is done not
routinely, not commonly but in exactly this kind of instance when the
credibility of the Department of Justice may be at stake, and people
deserve to know the truth.
And here, let's be very blunt. There are questions about whether this
investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
was full and complete. There are names; some of them rich and powerful
people. There are stories; some of them believable. There are places
and locations. There is testimony that describes a situation that may
be much broader than just these two individuals who have been
prosecuted.
And at the end of the day, we are talking here not about just
legalities and about politics. We are talking about girls, the youngest
victim--and some of them survivors. The President referred to them as
beautiful women on the younger side, some of them.
Well, some of them were actually not women; they were girls. This
crime is about the most heinous kind of exploitation of women,
predatory victimization of girls, in effect, trafficking them--which
was Maxwell's specialty. And the President has said that they may have
stolen some of them from his spa, as if they were chattel to be bought
and sold. But that was the attitude that Epstein and Maxwell had toward
them, and, sadly, that was the attitude that, perhaps, some of their
aiders and abettors or coconspirators or simply enablers had as well.
This action about disclosure is necessary now because the
administration continues to stonewall and stall, concealing information
and betraying its promise to the American people.
And what is at stake here is not just the President's promises--
although they are absolutely clear when he said:
President Trump says he will declassify the 9/11 Files, JFK
Files, and Epstein Files. That is President Trump.
What is at stake here is the credibility of our justice system. That
is why an act of Congress is not only appropriate but necessary. And
what is at stake here is also the victims.
This crime involved money laundering. It involved financial
illegality. It involved fraud against the government. It involved a
range of crimes that may sound abstract, even technical. But at the end
of the day, it was not a victimless crime. It was about exploiting
girls, young women, girls--girls who were mercilessly and repeatedly
subject to abuse and trafficking.
Donald Trump has broken these promises, but he has also remained
actively engaged in a coverup. That is why he sent his Deputy Attorney
General to interview Maxwell for 2 days. Unprecedented, absolutely
mind-boggling to send the Deputy Attorney General, who may then be a
witness and potentially implicated in a coverup, to interview a vital
witness.
We don't know who was with him, but we have to believe there were
notes or recordings. They ought to be disclosed as well. And we should
require that the disclosure be immediate, as this legislation would
require.
That Deputy Attorney General also happens to be the President's
personal lawyer, or he was in all his criminal prosecutions. That is
unprecedented as well.
The American people deserve an end to this stonewalling and stalling.
And that is why, 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 the immediate consideration of S.
2557; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and
passed; and that 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. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague Senator Wyden.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we have been looking at this for well over
3 years now, and what I would like to do with my colleague Mr. Merkley,
with all of my colleagues, is make an important point. I wanted to just
take stock of where things stand.
The Trump administration came in promising radical transparency on
Jeffrey Epstein. Now the fact is that the Epstein files are being
suppressed, and the administration is obstructing oversight from the
Congress.
The President's story about his relationship with Epstein changes by
the day, and that is true of his administration as well. His personal
lawyer went to talk to Ms. Maxwell, and who knows what was said in that
conversation.
What we do know is that Maxwell has been moved--Epstein's partner in
crime--to a minimum security prison without giving any good reason as
to why a child sex trafficker deserves that additional comfort.
House Republicans seem no longer interested in having Maxwell
testify.
Yesterday, it was reported that a member of Donald Trump's inner
circle gave a high-paying job to another close Epstein associate, a man
named Darren
[[Page S5485]]
Indyke. That sounds about as bizarre and wrong as you can get.
My colleagues and I believe it is a big mistake for the Senate to go
out of session without making real progress on real transparency on the
Epstein issue. There are a number of ways you can do that.
Let me say a little bit about our investigation, which began 3\1/2\
years ago, so it has been looked at by Democrats and Republicans alike.
From the outset, it has been built on the fact that you have to follow
the money to be at the core of this global sex trafficking operation,
which, on the basis of what we have seen, has been funded lavishly.
We began by examining the financial ties between Mr. Epstein and a
Wall Street titan named Leon Black. We found that Black paid Epstein
$170 million over just a couple of years. He said it was ``for tax and
estate planning.''
The central claim, though, is what is noteworthy. The claim was that
Mr. Epstein was a financial wizard, some superstar in terms of looking
at taxes and estates, and he could perform accounting miracles. It
appears this kind of work for Black and others was one of Mr. Epstein's
biggest sources of income.
Now, here is the catch: Epstein wasn't an accountant or a tax
attorney at all. And Leon Black, who is extraordinarily well off,
already employed the best tax advisers in the business. He didn't need
Mr. Epstein to handle his money. Black's lawyers even told our
investigators--let me just keep it brief--that Epstein's work wasn't
very impressive. He made mistakes, and his work needed to be double-
checked by people who were actually tax experts. But, Mr. Black was
paying Mr. Epstein more than double the income of the average Fortune
500 CEO.
Mr. Black wasn't the only one paying Mr. Epstein top dollar for this
so-called financial advice. That is where we have to go to follow the
money.
Last year, my investigators went to the Treasury Department and
reviewed thousands of bank documents related to Mr. Epstein's
financing. I have spoken at length about those documents here on the
Senate floor. There is a whole set of Epstein files in the possession
of the Treasury Department, above and beyond the files in the
possession of the Department of Justice.
So that is a key point. You have to look, if you are going to follow
the money, at the Treasury Department, not just at the Department of
Justice.
We have been trying to get those documents. The Trump administration
has been blocking us.
We have demanded answers from the new head of the IRS about why its
criminal investigators didn't look into Epstein's work for Leon Black
or whether they did any investigation of Epstein at all.
We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars paid by
ultrawealthy individuals to a known sex trafficker for the purpose of
dodging billions in taxes. It is unthinkable that those transactions
were never audited or investigated.
A deep dive on this, starting with the IRS criminal investigations
operation, could have blown the lid off Epstein's cover story about
being a financial genius quite some time ago. It could have helped
uncover the financing behind these horrific crimes.
One last point in terms of an update. There are all kinds of pundits
out there chattering about whether this is the right political issue to
focus on. My message is blunt: This is not about politics. This is not
about Democrats and Republicans.
I just want to make it clear, this is about whether there is going to
be justice for the victims of a notorious sex trafficker who did not
abuse these women and girls alone. This is about whether there is going
to be accountability for the people who enabled and participated in
Epstein's crimes.
The question really is, as I close: Who is the government looking out
for, the rich and powerful, even those who do horrible things, or the
powerless, the victims of abuse who have been neglected for too long?
Donald Trump wants this to go away without any accountability. And
for him, that might be about self-preservation. But it is clear the
Trump administration, based on our detailed work, doesn't want to do
the right thing here. I am 3\1/2\ years into my investigation of one
aspect of the Epstein story because there ought to be accountability
and justice for the victims. I am here to bring my colleagues up to
date on the investigation. There will be more this summer, particularly
about the Treasury Department, which is sitting on thousands and
thousands of Epstein documents of its own, and they shouldn't be
allowed to skate on this. We are going to keep investigating. We are
going to keep putting the pressure on.
This is not about blue. It is not about red. It is about doing the
right thing and making sure something like this doesn't happen again.
Senator Merkley and my colleagues are doing the right thing today. I
want it understood, as somebody who has led this investigation for more
than 3\1/2\ years, I support them strongly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I think we can and certainly should
all agree that the case of Jeffrey Epstein is deeply disturbing, with
horrifying abuse of young women and girls.
From the lenient plea deal he received in Florida in 2008 to the end
of his case with the death in prison, survivors of his abuse have been
denied a full accounting of his crimes and the justice they deserve.
It is also clear that a lack of transparency and accountability and
contradictory statements by the Trump administration and its officials
have led to even deeper public distrust of our justice system and
especially the handling of this case. After all, Trump administration
officials, including Attorney General Bondi, promised transparency in
this case but instead gave the American people a binder of largely
already-public documents. It was a sham.
Last month, the Department of Justice released a two-page memo
informing the American public that the Department had completed its
exhaustive review of the Epstein files and concluded that ``no further
disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.'' We shouldn't be taking
the word of any official in any administration on face value. The
public should see these documents for themselves. People ranging from
the victims to the American public believe transparency is warranted,
and it is.
Just 3 days after the Department of Justice memo was published, the
Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously agreed to an amendment I
proposed to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill that would require two things. It would require the
Department to retain, preserve, and compile the Epstein files and
submit a report with the files to the respective subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee.
I understood that earlier today, Senator Barrasso made the point that
that Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill was on the floor and
that I objected to moving forward on that bill, as I did for totally
unrelated reasons.
We also know that appropriations bills take a very long time to wind
through the U.S. congressional process. It has to go through the House.
It could be months before that provision--if it continues to be in
there--sees the light of day. It shouldn't take months. We should do it
now, which is why, the day after the Senate Appropriations Committee
unanimously--Republicans and Democrats together--supported that
provision to require the report and preserve the documents, Senator
Durbin and I wrote to the Attorney General to say: Why wait?
And that is the question, Mr. President--why wait? The victims, the
American people--they deserve to see the files and know the full truth,
and they deserve it right now.
Just this morning, there was a new report in Bloomberg. The headline
says ``The FBI Redacted Trump's Name in the Epstein Files.'' We have
always understood that Donald Trump's name was in the files. What we
are learning today, at least according to these reports, is that the
FBI redacted Donald Trump's name from those files. The question is,
Why? Nobody's name should be redacted from the files with respect to
the perpetrators of these crimes. Clearly, in releasing files, we need
to protect the names of any victims, but the perpetrators--we should
[[Page S5486]]
know their names. They should not be redacted.
What we have seen, of course, from the President is an effort to
change the subject entirely, say that it was the Obama Administration
that somehow invented this whole dispute and debate. But we know that
is not true. We know that is not true because of what President Trump
has previously said and, of course, what his Attorney General has said.
It is also deeply concerning that the Deputy Attorney General of the
United States of America, who previously was Donald Trump's personal
lawyer, skirted all the Department of Justice protocols and went down
to secretly interview Ghislaine Maxwell for hours over a couple of
days. I think we should have the transcript of that interview as well.
We have also heard President Trump say that he has the power to
pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. Well, it is one thing to have the power; it
is another thing to speculate publicly about using that power to pardon
somebody who could testify in an incriminating way against all of the
perpetrators. That reeks of a hint of the obstruction of justice, to
signal to Ghislaine Maxwell that if she says the right things, the
President of the United States could pardon her. That would be a
corruption of the judicial process--a gross corruption of the judicial
process.
So I hope President Trump will immediately announce that he won't
pardon this person, Ghislaine Maxwell, who was the associate of Jeffrey
Epstein in perpetrating these crimes against young women and girls. The
President of the United States should announce today that he will not
do that. That is the way the President can put an end to the
understandable concern that he is signaling that if she says the right
thing regarding him, she will get a ``get out of jail free'' card. That
would be a gross corruption of the process and of the justice system.
This is why we should do now what the victims deserve and what the
American public demands, which is to support the proposal put forward
by the Senator from Oregon Senator Merkley.
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 the 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 an objection?
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection noted.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, would my colleague from Maryland yield
for a question?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would.
Mr. MERKLEY. Did I understand you to say that the President of the
United States has put forward the possibility of a favor to someone who
could testify about Epstein's conduct over many years?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The President of the United States, when asked if he
could pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, said, yes, he has the power to do that
pardon, to make that pardon. Her attorneys have made very clear through
multiple public remarks that they would welcome that. Of course her
attorneys would welcome that. She would love to get out of jail free.
This is why the President, today, should make very clear that he will
not pardon Ghislaine Maxwell because she was a close associate in the
crimes that she and Jeffrey Epstein committed.
Mr. MERKLEY. In any ordinary world, wouldn't this be considered
witness tampering?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Certainly. If the President of the United States is
signaling to Ghislaine Maxwell and her attorneys that he would provide
a pardon without any possible reason to do so other than for her to
give testimony--in this case, it would be false testimony because we
know about the close association between Donald Trump and Jeffrey
Epstein--that would clearly be witness tampering.
Mr. MERKLEY. To my colleague from Maryland, did you also mention that
the FBI redacted President Trump's name from certain documents?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I did, indeed. This is a report that just came out.
The headline is ``The FBI Redacted Trump's Name in the Epstein Files.''
It is a Bloomberg report, and it is just one more example of what
appears to be an effort to cover up any role that Donald Trump may have
played in these crimes. Again, we don't know, and the best way for us
all to know is to support your effort here, to support our mutual
efforts, which is to just release the files.
Mr. MERKLEY. I so much appreciate your amendment, which we advocated
for, which you presented very well in the Appropriations Committee,
that said that all the files have to be retained so that nothing is
destroyed--no missing minutes on a White House tape or anything
equivalent. Why is it necessary to express this concern?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The concern, of course, is that the Trump
administration would be tempted to destroy these files for the purposes
of getting rid of evidence. As I indicated, reports today indicate that
the FBI--and, again, I don't know if they were instructed to do so. I
do not know all the circumstances. What we do know are the reports from
Bloomberg that Donald Trump's name was stricken from the files.
Mr. MERKLEY. If that is accurate, I am just trying to understand why
they would do so. If his name is in the files and it is simply in the
context of he attended a certain event, something of that nature, or
maybe Mr. Epstein went to an event at one of the President's
properties, that would be a completely innocent role. Why would the FBI
redact such a reference?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I think that is a question for all of us to ask the
FBI, and we should follow up and ask the FBI.
In the meantime, though, the best way, as you pointed out and all of
us have pointed out and even Attorney General Bondi at one point
pointed out, is just release the damn files. That is how we would get
to the bottom of all of this. And don't redact anything from the files
except--except--to protect victims. But perpetrators should not have
their names redacted from the files.
Mr. MERKLEY. Absolutely. I so appreciate your bringing this
additional information to bear.
Our colleague across the aisle who objected noted the Republicans
also voted for this amendment--your amendment--in committee. So I am
wondering, if we bring it back as a UC, as a bill to pass right now,
saying all information is to be retained, I wonder if our Republican
colleagues would join us in that effort.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, that is a very good point, Senator Merkley.
We had a unanimous bipartisan vote in the Senate Appropriations
Committee on an amendment to do exactly that--to make sure the records
were preserved so nobody tried to destroy evidence--and it required an
exhaustive report, detailing many of the questions that we have all
raised regarding the Epstein files.
As I said, the appropriations process takes a very long time to wind
through the U.S. Congress, and there is no reason to wait on this.
Again, if a majority of the Appropriations Committee--not just a
majority--but if a unanimous vote in the Appropriations Committee took
place, we could actually get this out right away, and, hopefully, the
House would pass that, and then we could send it right to the
President's desk.
Mr. MERKLEY. Well, I do hope you will bring that back as a unanimous
consent request later today based on your amendment to retain all of
the files. We have already heard our colleague's objection to releasing
the files, but, certainly, they should join us in a unanimous way in
retaining all of the evidence.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We, certainly, more importantly, the American people,
and especially the victims deserve to know that nobody will tamper with
the files between now and the moment they are released.
Again, the fastest way to address this issue, to meet the concerns,
to meet the terrible, terrible abuse that was visited upon these young
women and girls, is simply to release the files and do it now.
[[Page S5487]]
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, as a point of information, are we going
to proceed with the vote at 12 noon?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time expires at 12:46 p.m.
Mr. MERKLEY. At 12:46? I thank the Presiding Officer for that
information.
Mr. President, I believe Senator Markey has come to the floor to make
some comments, so I will just close with this notation.
All across America, ordinary men and women know that, if they commit
a crime, they will pay the fine. If they commit a crime, they will do
the time. They don't have fancy lawyers. They don't have friends in
high places. They don't have the FBI redacting their names from
documents. They don't have one caucus of the U.S. Senate blocking
information from being released.
On behalf of every ordinary citizen across America, we are going to
continue to press for the powerful and the rich to be accountable. If
they, in fact, participated in the abuse of young women and in the rape
of young women, we want them to be brought to justice no matter what
political party they are from or what bank account they have or what
part of the country they live in or what friends they have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.