“That was Marjorie’s innovation, was that that would be a good way to get the names out without endangering the survivors,” Massie told the Washington Examiner on Thursday. 

Although this clause is enacted on the floor at all times, it is not often used in cases similar to this one. Greene and Massie have expressed their understanding of the fear of sharing names, saying the people on the potential list could “sue these women into poverty and homelessness.” 

“In Jeffrey Epstein’s home and the places they went with him, they saw the most powerful people in the world in his pictures, and they saw him with those people,” Greene said at the press conference. “Can you imagine how terrifying it would be to name names like that?” 

The speech and debate clause, under Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution, gives members of Congress immunity to read the list of names aloud without ramifications in court for defamation. 

“The general purpose of the speech and debate clause is to protect members of Congress from having to worry that anything they say in the course of legislative activities will implicate them in a lawsuit,” Middle Tennessee State University’s Free Speech Center wrote. 

This idea sparked after Epstein accuser, Lisa Phillips, said a group of survivors debated publishing a list of clients if the Department of Justice does not release more of the criminal case files. Epstein died in jail in 2019 as he was awaiting trial on charges related to sex trafficking, in what the DOJ deemed a suicide. Other survivors expressed that they back this effort but shared the sentiment that the duty falls to the DOJ to release information, as many of them remain fearful of their safety. 

“It’s a scary thing to name names, but I will tell you, I’m not afraid to name names, and so if they want to give me a list, I will walk in that Capitol on the House floor and I’ll say every damn name that abused these women,” Greene said. “I can do that for them.”

Massie backed Greene’s idea in a post on X, while some Democrats have also expressed support.

“Obviously, putting forward new names would open them up to significant lawsuits, so that is a good solution that they mentioned,” Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) told the Washington Examiner.

“I think any and all ideas related to this issue, if people want to work together, we’re very open to it,” she said. 

Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) filed a so-called “discharge petition” this week to force a House vote on their Epstein Files Transparency Act, which calls for the full release of the criminal files with redactions to protect the victims.

The House Oversight Committee released 33,000 pages of DOJ files on Epstein this week, just hours after the discharge petition opened, but critics say it’s not enough.

The discharge petition must reach 218 signatures for it to force the speaker to call a vote on the underlying legislation. Most, if not all, Democrats are expected to sign the petition, meaning only six Republicans would need to cross party lines to add their names. Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Nancy Mace (R-SC), and Greene signed on to the discharge petition after Mace left a House Oversight Committee meeting on Tuesday with the victims in tears after hearing their stories of abuse. 

Mace used the speech and debate clause earlier this year in a rare instance to speak out about her experience with sexual assault. She detailed accusations of sexual abuse, where she accused four men of rape, sex trafficking, and other sex crimes against her and other female victims.

“I rise today to call out the cowards who think they can prey on women and get away with it. Today, I’m going scorched earth. So let the bridges I burn this evening light our way forward,” she said on the House floor.

SIX TAKEAWAYS FROM EPSTEIN SURVIVORS SPEAKING OUT ON CAPITOL HILL

Mace told the Washington Examiner she supports Greene and Massie’s use of this clause to protect the survivors while also holding the people involved accountable. The congresswoman listed other ways she and House leadership could protect the victims while getting those names out there. 

“I think using whatever tools constitutionally are necessary, but also in a deposition-type setting, if we as members of Congress asked questions about the name and they would be required to answer it, that would shield the victims from and provide some level of, I think, immunity for them as well,” she said.