Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

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. MERKLEY. Another question, if I might.

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. 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. MERKLEY. Had the Senator not objected, we could have passed this bill today by voice vote, not necessarily having a recorded vote.

Mr. MERKLEY. Because it doesn't even get to a--

Mr. MERKLEY. It would have been unanimous.

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 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. 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. MERKLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I know of no further debate.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we will soon be voting on bipartisan appropriations bills. These represent the spending strategy that has been worked out between Democrats and Republicans on the committee. When I came here as an intern some 49 years ago, Senator Hatfield was very engaged on the Appropriations Committee, and he was later chair. I really enjoyed interning for him and hearing how appropriators really considered themselves as, well, first appropriators before they were Democrats or Republicans and how important it was to forge a vision going forward that addressed the needs in every geographic area of the country, in both rural and urban areas, and to bring in the collective voices of everyone together that would help take the country forward. When Senator Hatfield was ill and not far from passing from this planet, in the last conversation I had with him, he expressed his concern about the committee losing that sense of bipartisan collaboration, and he mentioned specifically--and he was a Republican-- working with Patty Murray and with a Democrat, Daniel Inouye, as some of his fondest memories. Thus, when I ran for reelection, it didn't seem very likely I would win, but I said: If I run, can I be in the first group in my class to be appointed to the spending committee, to the Appropriations Committee? Because I know how important a voice on this committee has been for Oregon as to what we need to be done on water systems, both clean water presentation and septic or sewer systems; how important it is on transportation and to tackle many of the needs that we have throughout our forests, both our national forests and our BLM lands--so many concerns that are addressed. The leadership on the Democratic side said yes. Then, miraculously--it was an easy promise to make because I wasn't likely to win, but you never know what is going to happen, and I ended up here in the Senate. I was appointed to this committee, and I am very pleased to be on this committee. But I am concerned now that a huge threat exists to further degrade this bipartisan cooperation, and that is that we have this process called rescissions--a fancy term--and it exists from the 1974 bill, the Budget and Impoundment Control Act. It says that a President can send a request to Congress to undo the bipartisan work that was done here by the spending committee, by the Appropriations Committee. That has never been used in this fashion until this year. Now, it isn't that there haven't been rescissions--rescissions mean repealing former funding decisions--but they have been done by the Appropriations Committee. So what has been forged together--Democrats and Republicans together, with every geographic area of the country represented--in that bipartisan fashion has for the first time been undone in a partisan fashion. Now we are hearing that Mr. Vought at the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, is planning to send a rescissions package to us maybe in the middle of August. Why is this important, and why is this a problem and a challenge? It is because he has expounded on a theory that he calls a pocket rescission, and that is, if the fiscal year ends on September 30, which it does, and if he sends it within the last 45 days, he believes that he can thereby, even if we were to meet in September and reject the rescission--that even then, he would be able to use a 45-day pause that is in that 1974 law to not spend the funds that we had directed. So what does that look like? That looks like a law was passed to spend the funds, but with no change in the law, the President's team stalls until the end of the year, sends in a rescission, and then stalls to the very end of the year and never spends the money. In other words, what was passed into law never happens. This is a direct attack on the power of the purse, which in the Constitution is allocated to Congress. In that sense, we on the Appropriations Committee are carrying that responsibility, that constitutional responsibility of the power of the purse. In facing this in the past, the Supreme Court has weighed in twice. The first time was in 1996. Actually, the first time was in 1975. Excuse me. In 1975, the Supreme Court weighed in on the fact that a couple of years earlier, in 1973, President Nixon had frozen, or impounded, funds and not done what Congress had set in a law that had been passed in both Chambers and had been signed by the President. The Supreme Court said: Hell no. You can't do that. Mr. President, you cannot do that. No President can do that. You have to follow the law. You cannot take the power of the purse. Then, in 1996, Congress said: Hey, we want to give the President line-item veto. They passed a law to do so. The Supreme Court weighed in again and said: Hell no. You have the responsibility under the Constitution of the power of the purse. So now we are facing the situation in which Mr. Vought is saying: The law is just a suggestion. It is just a ceiling. We can spend less if we want to. We can spend more by transferring funds from one place to the other. The law is just a suggestion. Well, no, Mr. Vought, it is not just a suggestion, and the President is not a King. But by doing what he is planning to do with this late rescission, he is basically trying to find a way to, well, run out the tape--``run out the clock'' I guess is the right term--run out the clock and alter the power of the purse. So I am asking for us to stand together, Democrats and Republicans, and defend our constitutional, bipartisan responsibility and should there be a rescission that comes in in August, for us to come in the first thing in September and vote against it and therefore say no in both Chambers of Congress, thereby sending that message, because that would provide a foundation for us to challenge the strategy Mr. Vought is putting together. In addition, today, I am asking us to join together, Democrats and Republicans, to say that nothing that is passed by us in the fiscal year 2026 spending bills--nothing that is in those bills will be subject to the 1974 rescission. So this would not be retroactive. It could not at this moment, in this bill, be able to address a possible rescission of funds from 2023 or 2024 or 2025. But we can certainly insulate the funds in 2026 from this partisan attack by the President, this unconstitutional attack by the President. The first amendment to be up when we convene at 4:15--about 3 minutes from now--will be this amendment to say: Together, Democrats and Republicans, let's defend our constitutional responsibilities, and let's say that nothing we pass in the fiscal year 2026 bill will be subject to that strategy by Mr. Vought and President Trump.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3114 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this amendment protects the work that we are doing today from a future rescission happening in a partisan basis. Now, realize this only affects FY 2026 and therefore only bills that have been both passed here and in the House and signed by President Trump. But here is why this is important: The work that we have done on a bipartisan basis has never been undone, until this last month, in the history of the Senate since the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was passed. Why? Because we agreed that the rescissions--that is, to repeal existing spending already in law--would be done in a bipartisan way, just as the initial bill was done in a bipartisan way. This is important for us to work together, no matter who is in the White House in the future. I must say, this bipartisan work is so important to preserve our responsibilities under the Constitution here in the Senate and the House, where the Constitution assigns the responsibility for the power of the purse. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, how many seconds do I have left?

Mr. MERKLEY. In that case, Mr. President, my--

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds for my colleague and 15 seconds for myself on why this should or should not be waived.

Mr. MERKLEY. Please go ahead.

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you. I will borrow his 15 as well as mine. Motion to Waive Mr. President, we do have the power to waive this. It does take 60 votes, but this would be all of us together saying we should defend the bipartisan work here now, just as we have through the entire history since 1974. We are talking about a half century of bipartisan strategy being undone with the possibility of partisan rescissions. Let's do our rescissions in a bipartisan way, in committee. And for that reason, unless there is a rebuttal from my colleague, I will make the formal request to waive. OK, continuing. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Review Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget points of order for the purposes of the pending measure. Vote on Motion I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Colorado. I don't think it is unique to the States out West, be it Oregon or Colorado or California or Idaho or Nevada or so forth. I think people in every single State care about access to healthcare. Now, I came to the Senate in 2009, and in that year, we decided to make a major effort to fill in huge holes in our healthcare system. Well, we had Medicaid for the least affluent, but then folks who were just above that, they couldn't afford private insurance; they also didn't qualify for Medicaid, so we created extended Medicaid and made it a State option that covered a lot more people. And then when you came to the middle class, you had folks who had insurance through their employer but not every employer provided insurance. And so we created the healthcare exchange where you could buy insurance and you could do so with tax credits to help you make the payments so that they were affordable. Well, that plan was pretty straightforward, but a man named Frank Luntz--he was a pollster and messagemaker for the Republicans--put out a memo. And I was one of the first Members of the Senate to see this memo. It was April of 2009. And the memo said: Whatever the Democrats come up with to improve healthcare, we are going to call it a government takeover because we have done focus groups, and that scares Americans. It makes them dread this. And it doesn't matter what the policy is, we will call it a government takeover. And I came down here to the floor, at that point my desk was much farther over here, around the corner, and I waved this around and said: Is this what America has come to? Instead of working together to improve the healthcare system, instead, we are so polarized that the minority wants to stop us from improving healthcare, even if it makes sense. And they are going to make up a falsehood and sell it across America. Well, apparently, that is what America had come to because they did promote that falsehood all across America. Now back home in Oregon, I have made a commitment to go to a townhall in each of my 36 counties every year, open hour. People can come and share whatever they want. I am out in Prineville, OR, where, normally, there would be, like, 30 or 50 people at a townhall and about 500 people show up. Why? Because they are terrified of a government takeover of the healthcare system. There was about 200 people inside the room. There are several hundred people outside who can't get in because the room is completely packed. And they are angry. They are very angry. And one man shouts out and says: Why won't you listen to us and stop this government takeover? And I said: I will listen to everybody in this room. I will describe major features of the plan, and you all can respond to me: Step forward or step backward. So I said: How about requiring insurance policies to cover pre-existing conditions? Step forward--80 percent of the people in the room raised their hand. Step backwards--about 10 percent. Another 10 percent didn't vote. I said: How about having preventive tests free because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Step forward--80 percent yes. How about having children on your policy to age 26? Again, 80 percent yes. How about having a website where you can compare private insurance policies so you can pick the best one for your family? Again, 80 percent yes. Well, by now, people are looking around the room going: Well, this all sounds pretty good. Of course, they came, and they were very angry. I said: Let's talk about the economics of this. How about providing tax credits to help middle-class Americans buy insurance from private companies? Again, 80 percent yes. People liked that idea. How about expanding Medicaid because we have the least affluent in our society who are trapped between just a little too affluent to qualify for Medicaid, but they certainly can't afford private insurance. Oh, no. That sounds good too. And so I would say then: Thank you very much for the feedback on the major features of the plan. There is no government takeover in it, but you have all expressed to me your support for many of the features, and that is why I am supporting it. Well, this was the year 2009. You had a blue trifecta that said: Let's fill in the holes on healthcare, and we went about and did it. And now let's fast forward to 2025. You don't have a blue trifecta; you have a red trifecta. And the red trifecta knows how important health insurance is, so they made some promises. And the promises were: We will not touch your healthcare. We will not force people off insurance. And, in fact, they did exactly the opposite. In 2009, the House, the Senate, the Oval Office working together to fill in the holes and make sure everybody could get healthcare; 2025, the red trifecta, the Oval Office, Republican leadership in the House and Senate say: We are going to tear down your access to healthcare. And that is what they did in the one big ugly betrayal of a bill voted a few weeks ago right here in this Chamber, tearing down your healthcare. And 15 million Americans are going to lose access to healthcare because of this bill. Here is the philosophy we saw: Roll out the red carpet for the rich and powerful. Roll out the redtape for the less affluent. Wow. What a horrific strategy to rip healthcare away from 15 million people. What does that mean to a family when they lose health insurance? Well, I will tell you. It means that they don't go to the doctor. And when they don't go to the doctor, that lump they ignored becomes ravaging breast cancer with horrific consequences for the woman, the family, the children. It means diabetes delayed is diabetes that is much more severe and hard to treat. It means all sorts of risks for the individual and all sorts of consequences for the family and the stress of knowing you have a healthcare condition and you should go to a doctor but you don't go because you can't afford to go. Or maybe you do buy a policy, but now it is more expensive. Here is what is going to happen on the healthcare exchange in Oregon. The cost is going to go up by 68 percent, an estimated $1,300 per family, because the big ugly betrayal of a bill raised the cost of buying healthcare on the exchange because it didn't extend the premium tax credits that were in the bill previously, that were in the system previously. Well, that is a shocker. If people spend the money there, it may well be that they don't have the money for their rent, may not have their money to purchase the prescription pills that the doctor they went to said they need to buy, or maybe it is an impact on groceries. And I will tell you what else happens. With so many people losing Medicaid--in Oregon, the Oregon Health Plan--and in Oregon, the estimate is 150,000 to 200,000 people will lose Medicaid. Well, now in your rural clinics and hospitals, we have a situation where the revenue that flows to that clinic or hospital drops dramatically. This is from the Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina--real experts on rural healthcare. And what do they say in this study? They say that more than 300 rural hospitals are at risk of either closing or significantly reducing their services because of the big ugly betrayal of a bill. Oregon, four rural hospitals or clinics. Almost every state is listed here. Is that really what we want to do? We want to shut down rural healthcare? And when you shut down a clinic, when you shut down a rural hospital, you aren't just affecting the least affluent who were on the State's Medicaid plan; you are affecting everyone in the community. Every single person loses access to the healthcare when the clinic or hospital shuts down. We lost, 2 years ago, a maternity care ward in Baker City, OR. Tragic for the community. If you are getting ready to have a child, now you are thinking about the fact, to have it delivered, I have to go at least 70 miles down I-84, and I-84 is often closed in winter due to ice and snow. Is that the stress? We want to rip healthcare out of our rural community and put on the stress? And I will tell you what else happens: People simply don't get down the road for the medical treatment that they should be accessing. So here is the story. This is wrong, so we are going to introduce a bill that reverses this and says: Everything that was ripped out of American healthcare by the big ugly betrayal of a bill, we are going to restore it. And we are going to add in the same tax credits people had access to last year. That way, there won't be a 68 percent increase for people buying healthcare on the exchange on Oregon, a $1,300 increase. That way, the middle class will still be able to afford to buy policies, and the less affluent will still have health insurance so they will get the care that they need, and the rural communities will still have the cash flow to be able to keep their clinics and hospitals open. That is the right vision, not the vision of: Families lose and billionaires win. That is the whole vision of the big ugly betrayal of a bill. No, but, instead, a better vision. And what is that better vision? Families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share. Let's fight for that vision.

Mr. MERKLEY

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. 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.

Mr. MERKLEY. Would my colleague yield for a question?

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.