June 24, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 116 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S3162-S3170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Cory T. 
Wilson, of Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth 
Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30 
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                        Justice in Policing Act

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the names of George Floyd, Breonna 
Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery continue to ring in the Nation's ears, a 
searing reminder of the desperate need to reform policing and truly 
address injustice in America. Their memory is a national call to 
action.
  Democrats answered that call by proposing a broad, strong, 
comprehensive policing reform bill that would bring deep and lasting 
change to police departments across America. House Democrats will pass 
that bill, the Justice in Policing Act, as early as tomorrow.
  However, here in the Senate, the Republican majority proposed the 
legislative equivalent of a fig leaf, something that provides a little 
cover but no real change. In less than an hour, Leader McConnell will 
ask the Senate to proceed to the so-called policing reform bill.
  We have all gone over the bill's deficiencies over and over. There 
are no good answers. Some on the other side have said the bills are 
similar. They are like night and day.

[[Page S3163]]

  In response to the brutal killing of George Floyd--his wind pipe 
crushed by a police officer--my Republican friends drafted a bill that 
does not even fully ban the type of brutal tactics that led to his 
death.
  In response to the death of Breonna Taylor, killed by police 
executing a no-knock warrant, my Republican friends have drafted a bill 
that doesn't even ban that type of tactic--what weak tea. For Leader 
McConnell to come on the floor with this bill and say he is solving the 
problem--no one believes that, except maybe a few ideologues who really 
don't want to solve the problem to begin with.
  The bill doesn't ban choke holds. It doesn't back no-knock warrants. 
It does nothing to stop profiling, the militarization of police or 
reform, use of force standards, and qualified immunity--all of the 
things that need to be done, almost none of which are in this bill.
  The last piece is particularly surprising. So much of the anger in 
the country right now is directed at the lack of accountability for 
police officers who violate Americans' rights. As far as I can tell, 
the Republican bill does not even attempt one significant reform--not 
one--to bring more accountability to police officers who are guilty of 
misconduct.
  If you present a bill, as Republicans have here in the Senate, that 
does nothing on accountability and say they are solving or dealing with 
the problem in even close to an adequate way, they are sadly mistaken. 
No one--no one--believes that.
  I could spend more time in describing what the Republican bill 
doesn't do than what it does do. The harsh fact of the matter is the 
bill is so deeply, fundamentally, and irrevocably flawed, it cannot 
serve as a useful starting point for real reform.
  Don't ask me. Don't ask the Democrats here. Ask the leading civil 
rights organizations, which have declared their strong opposition not 
only to this bill but have urged us not to move forward because they 
know this bill is a sham, a cul-de-sac, which will lead to no reform 
whatsoever.
  Yesterday, 138 civil rights groups sent an open letter to Senators 
demanding that we vote no on moving to proceed today. I have the letter 
here.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the full letter
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      The Leadership Conference on


                                       Civil and Human Rights,

                                                    June 23, 2020.


       Vote NO on the Motion to Proceed--S. 3985 the JUSTICE Act

       Dear Senators: On behalf of The Leadership Conference on 
     Civil and Human Rights (The Leadership Conference), a 
     coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 220 
     national organizations to promote and protect civil and human 
     rights in the United States, and the undersigned 138 
     organizations, we write to express our strong opposition to 
     S. 3985, the Just and Unifying Solutions to Invigorate 
     Communities Everywhere (JUSTICE) Act. The JUSTICE Act is an 
     inadequate response to the decades of pain, hardship, and 
     devastation that Black people have and continue to endure as 
     a result of systemic racism and lax policies that fail to 
     hold police accountable for misconduct. This bill falls 
     woefully short of the comprehensive reform needed to address 
     the current policing crisis and achieve meaningful law 
     enforcement accountability. It is deeply problematic to meet 
     this moment with a menial incremental approach that offers 
     more funding to police, and few policies to effectively 
     address the constant loss of Black lives at the hands of 
     police. We therefore urge you to oppose the JUSTICE Act and 
     vote no on the motion to proceed when this legislation is 
     brought to the floor. The Leadership Conference will score 
     this vote in our voting record for the 116th Congress.
       Abusive policing practices, coupled with devastating state-
     sanctioned violence, have exacted systemic brutality and 
     fatality upon Black people since our nation's founding. 
     Police have shot and killed more than 1,000 people in the 
     United States over the past year, and Black people are 
     disproportionately more likely than white people to be killed 
     by police. The chronic structural issue of police killings 
     and lawlessness against Black people have escalated to a 
     boiling point in recent weeks following the deaths of 
     individuals like Breonna Taylor, Dreasjon ``Sean'' Reed, 
     George Floyd, Tony McDade, and others. The current protests 
     in our cities are a response not only to the unjust policing 
     of Black people, but also a call for action to public 
     officials to enact bold, comprehensive, and structural 
     change.
       That is why, on June 1, 2020, The Leadership Conference 
     sent Congress a letter outlining accountability principles 
     that must be adopted as a baseline to address rampant, 
     systemic, white supremacy in law enforcement across America. 
     In less than 12 hours, more than 450 of this country's most 
     diverse civil rights, civil liberties, and racial justice 
     organizations signed onto that letter because what was asked 
     of Congress aligned with what advocates, policing experts, 
     and other stakeholders agree is needed. The priorities 
     highlighted are not only reasonable but reflect a bare 
     minimum of what must be included in any policing legislation 
     Congress adopts in order for systemic reform to occur.
       These priorities are: (1) the creation of a use of force 
     standard that allows force only when necessary and as a last 
     resort; (2) a ban on chokeholds; (3) a ban on racial 
     profiling; (4) the establishment of a police misconduct 
     registry; (5) the inclusion of a ``reckless'' standard in 18 
     U.S.C. Section 242 that enables federal prosecutors to hold 
     law enforcement accountable for criminal civil rights 
     violations; (6) a prohibition on no-knock warrants, 
     especially in drug cases; (7) the elimination of the judge-
     made doctrine of qualified immunity, which allows officers 
     and other government actors to evade accountability when they 
     violate individuals' rights; and (8) the demilitarization of 
     law enforcement agencies. This accountability framework is 
     reflected in S. 3912, the Justice in Policing Act of 2020.
       Unfortunately, Senate majority leadership ignored these 
     critical policies and introduced the JUSTICE Act, a bill that 
     fails to align with our framework principles and will 
     therefore not bring about the fundamental shift in policing 
     our country needs. The bill does nothing to address current 
     barriers to holding law enforcement accountable, such as 
     abolishing qualified immunity or criminalizing the reckless 
     use of force. It does not address, let alone prohibit, the 
     perverse yet pervasive practice of racial profiling, nor does 
     it include explicit bans on dangerous practices like 
     chokeholds or no-knock warrants. It fails to address the 
     militarization of police or the need for a national standard 
     restricting the use of force, and lacks the national, robust, 
     and publicly available misconduct registry required for true 
     transparency.
       Further, the JUSTICE Act provides more than $7 billion of 
     additional federal dollars for law enforcement over the next 
     five years, directly contradicting our coalition's call and 
     that of those marching in the streets to redefine public 
     safety by reducing the footprint of our criminal legal 
     system. Many of the crises that currently involve police 
     responses, and which too often lead to mistreatment and 
     increased mistrust, would be better handled through the 
     addition of health providers, social workers, and others who 
     can meet the needs of communities in a non-punitive manner. 
     Pouring additional funding into a broken system is bad 
     policy. Furthermore, considering the limited financial 
     resources prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, all policing 
     reform models must reprioritize how limited dollars are 
     spent. The programs authorized by the JUSTICE Act will 
     necessarily mean fewer funds to tackle other issues critical 
     to longlasting safety, such as housing, education, and health 
     care. Millions of people in the United States are calling for 
     these kinds of direct investments into communities, and 
     Congress should heed that call.
       Now is the time for Congress to be bold and pass meaningful 
     police accountability reform legislation. A vast and diverse 
     collection of people from coast to coast are calling on 
     lawmakers to prioritize Black communities and protect them 
     from the systemic perils of over-policing, police brutality, 
     misconduct, and harassment. It is your moral and ethical duty 
     to ensure Black people and communities are free from the harm 
     and threats from law enforcement and militarized police 
     responses. It is also your responsibility to ensure that any 
     legislation passed does not just provide lip service to 
     these problems, but fully meets the critical needs of this 
     moment and beyond. Passing watered-down legislation that 
     fails to remedy the actual harms resulting in the loss of 
     life is a moral statement that is inconsistent with a 
     genuine belief that black lives matter. Anything less than 
     full support for comprehensive legislation that holds 
     police accountable is inexcusable. Further, any attempt to 
     amend or salvage the JUSTICE Act will only serve to 
     ``check the box'' and claim reform when, in actuality, no 
     reform has occurred to combat police misconduct and to 
     protect Black lives. For these reasons, we urge you to 
     oppose the JUSTICE Act and vote no on the motion to 
     proceed on this legislation.
       Thank you for your leadership in advancing these important 
     policy recommendations. If you have any questions about the 
     issues raised in this letter, please contact Sakira Cook of 
     The Leadership Conference at [email protected] or The 
     Leadership Conference Justice Task Force co-chairs, Kanya 
     Bennett of the ACLU, [email protected] and Hilary Shelton of 
     the NAACP at [email protected]
           Sincerely,
       The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, A 
     Little Piece Of Light, ActionAid USA, AFGE Local 3354, 
     African American Ministers In Action, Alabama State 
     Association of Cooperatives, Alianza Americas, Alianza 
     Nacional de Campesinas, American Association for Justice, 
     American Atheists, American Civil Liberties Union, American 
     Family Voices, American Federation of Teachers, American 
     Federation of

[[Page S3164]]

     Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), 
     American Humanist Association, American Indian Mothers Inc., 
     American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Americans 
     for Democratic Action (ADA), Amnesty International USA, 
     Arkansas United.
       Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, Atrisco 
     Community, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Autistic Women and 
     Nonbinary Network, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Bend 
     the Arc: Jewish Action, Black Farmers and Agriculturalists 
     Association, Inc.; Bread for the World, Center for Disability 
     Rights, Center for Law and Social Policy, Center for 
     Responsible Lending, Center for the Study of Hate & 
     Extremism-California State University, San Bernardino; Chi-
     Town GVP Summit, Church of Scientology National Affairs 
     Office, Clearinghouse on Women's Issues, Climate Reality 
     Project, Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Coalition on 
     Human Needs, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Common Cause.
       CommonSpirit Health, Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of 
     the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces; Constitutional 
     Accountability Center, Council on American-Islamic Relations 
     (CAIR), CURE (Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants), 
     Daniet Initiative Set Project, Defending Rights & Dissent, 
     Demand Progress, DemCast USA, Democracy 21, Drug Policy 
     Alliance, Earthjustice, End Citizens United // Let America 
     Vote Action Fund, Equal Rights Advocates, Equality 
     California, Farmworker Association of Florida, Feminist 
     Majority Foundation, Government Information Watch, Hindu 
     American Foundation, Hispanic Federation.
       Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights First, Immigration Hub, 
     IndivisAbility, Innocence Project, Japanese American Citizens 
     League, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Joint Action 
     Committee, Justice in Aging, Justice Roundtable, Juvenile Law 
     Center, Kansas Black Farmers Association Inc, Lambda Legal, 
     Landowners Association of Texas, Leadership Conference on 
     Civil & Human Rights, League of Women Voters of the United 
     States, Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office, 
     Mommieactivist and Sons, MomsRising, MoveOn.
       Muslim Advocates, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and 
     Educational Fund, Inc.; National Action Network, National 
     Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National 
     Association of Human Rights Workers, National Association of 
     Social Workers, National Center for Transgender Equality, 
     National Council of Churches, National Council on Independent 
     Living, National Domestic Workers Alliance, National Down 
     Syndrome Congress, National Education Association, National 
     Employment Law Project, National Equality Action Team (NEAT), 
     National Housing Law Project, National Latino Farmers & 
     Ranchers Trade Association, National LGBTQ Task Force Action 
     Fund, National Organization for Women, National Partnership 
     for Women & Families.
       Natural Resources Defense Council, NETWORK Lobby for 
     Catholic Social Justice, New America's Open Technology 
     Institute, Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project, Inc.; 
     Open Society Policy Center, Oxfam America, People For the 
     American Way, People's Action, Pesticide Action Network, 
     PFLAG National, Prison Policy Initiative, Public Citizen, 
     Public Justice, Rabbinical Assembly, RAICES, Restore The 
     Fourth, Rural Advancement Fund of the National Sharecroppers 
     Fund, Rural Coalition, Silver State Equality-Nevada.
       Southern Border Communities Coalition, SPLC Action Fund, 
     Stand for Children, Stand Up America, Students for Sensible 
     Drug Policy, T'ruah, Texas Progressive Action Network, Texas 
     Watch, The Agenda Project, The Black Alliance for Just 
     Immigration (BAJI), The Daniel Initiative, The Sikh 
     Coalition, The Workers Circle, Union for Reform Judaism, 
     United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; 
     UNITED SIKHS, United We Dream Action, Voices for Progress, 
     Win Without War, Woman's National Democratic Club (WNDC).

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I want to ask the American people, I 
want to ask Republican Senators: Who is a better guardian of the civil 
rights of African Americans when it comes to police reform--the NAACP 
or Mitch McConnell?
  If this bill were such a good path to reform, why wouldn't civil 
rights organizations from one end of America to another say: Go 
forward; maybe we will get something done. Because they know the bill 
is a ruse, and nothing will get done. That is the way it is designed. 
Whom do you believe when it comes to civil rights and police 
accountability--Mitch McConnell or the lawyer for the families of 
George Floyd and Breonna Taylor? Whom do you believe--the lawyer of the 
Floyd and Taylor families or Mitch McConnell, whom we have never heard 
speak on this issue on the floor until the last few weeks? These groups 
have been speaking about it for decades.
  The idea--the idea--that this bill is a step forward when it will 
lead to nowhere? It will not be. Mitch McConnell keeps saying you can 
cut the bill off when you don't get your 60 votes. What kind of 
solution is that, when it is a junky bill, when it is a bill that 
doesn't go far enough at all? Why don't we put a good bill on the floor 
that can pass?
  Let me read what the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 
said. They have had a hand in crafting every piece of meaningful 
legislation passed in Congress in the last few years.

       The JUSTICE Act--

  The Republican bill--

     is an inadequate response to the decades of pain, hardship, 
     and devastation that Black people have and continue to endure 
     as a result of systemic racism and lax policies that fail to 
     hold police accountable for misconduct. This bill falls 
     woefully short of the comprehensive reform needed to address 
     the current policing crisis and achieve meaningful law 
     enforcement accountability.

  Listen to this sentence, from 136 civil rights organizations about 
this bill that Leader McConnell has put on the floor:

       It is deeply problematic to meet this moment with a menial 
     incremental approach that offers more funding to police, and 
     few policies to effectively address the constant loss of 
     Black lives at the hands of police.

  Leader McConnell, here is what the civil rights organizations say 
about your bill. They rip off any cloaking about what this bill really 
does and what it is. I want to read it again--specifically to our 
Republican leader, who thinks this is a good bill and a great attempt 
to go forward:

       It is deeply problematic to meet this moment with a menial 
     incremental approach that offers more funding to police, and 
     few policies to effectively address the constant loss of 
     Black lives at the hands of police.

  Whom do you believe, America--the Leadership Conference on Civil 
Rights or Mitch McConnell? Whom do you believe, America--the NAACP or 
the Republican caucus? Whom do you believe, America--the lawyer for the 
Taylor and Floyd families or Donald Trump, who has these Members 
quaking in their boots if they do something that he doesn't like?
  That is one of the other reasons we are in such a pickle here. They 
are so afraid of Donald Trump, who is willing to say overtly racist 
statements, like ``Kung Flu'' several times yesterday, that they can't 
even bring themselves to put a bill on the floor that has a modicum of 
respect from the civil rights community? When you call it ``menial,'' 
you are not respecting a bill.
  The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, founded by the great 
Justice Thurgood Marshall--here is what it said. They have been 
fighting for these things for 80 on years, not 8 days. ``It cannot 
support legislation that does not embody a strong accountability 
framework for police officers and [other] law enforcement who engage in 
misconduct.''
  Here is what Benjamin Crump, the lawyer, said: The Republican 
legislation is ``in direct contrast to the demands of the people'' who 
have been protesting; and ``the Black Community is tired of lip 
service, and shocked that the [Republican proposal] can [even] be 
thought of as legislation.'' That is the lawyer for the Taylor and 
Floyd families. Leader McConnell has invoked their names--that is the 
right thing to do--but then deviates totally from what their lawyer 
says needs to be done to deal with these kinds of deaths. Again, 
Benjamin Crump, the lawyer for the Floyd and Taylor families: ``The 
Black community is tired of the lip service, and shocked that the 
[Republican proposal] can [even] be thought of as legislation.''
  Don't get on your sanctimonious horse, Leader McConnell. You have 
none of the civil rights community behind you.
  The most preeminent civil rights groups in our Nation's history are 
speaking. The lawyer representing the families of Americans who have 
lost their loved ones at the hands of those who are sworn to protect 
and serve are speaking. They have one simple, urgent goal, and it has 
nothing to do with politics.
  Leader McConnell accuses what we are doing as being filled with 
politics. Does Leader McConnell accuse all 138 civil rights 
organizations of wanting to do this for politics? No, no, no. I think 
the shoe is on the other foot. I think the politics here is that Leader 
McConnell wants to show that he is doing something and get nothing 
done.
  He may be afraid of President Trump. He may be afraid of some police 
organizations. I don't know what it is.
  Here is what they say in their letter: ``We therefore urge you''--the 
Senators--``to oppose the JUSTICE Act and vote no on the motion to 
proceed.''
  I dare the leader to come out here and say they are playing 
politics--

[[Page S3165]]

come right out and say it--because it is false, and we, the Democrats, 
are aligned with what they believe
  This morning, we heard more predictable histrionics from the 
Republican leader--the accusation of mindless obstruction and 
outrageous hypocrisy. Leader McConnell should spare us the lectures 
about how laws get made. He knows how. It is through bipartisanship. 
The leader talks about bipartisanship and introduces a totally partisan 
bill and introduces a process where Democrats have had no input. That 
is partisanship.
  Do you want to be bipartisan, Leader McConnell? Sit down, assemble a 
group--some from your side, maybe Senator Scott, who is greatly 
respected; some from our side, maybe Senators Booker and Harris, who 
are greatly respected; and a few others. Let them sit down and come up 
with a proposal. It does not have to be behind closed doors.
  The leader is worried about closed doors? There is something called 
the Judiciary Committee. It doesn't meet in secret. Why wasn't this 
bill referred there, where there would be at least something of a 
bipartisan process? Who is he kidding? Who is he kidding?
  You don't want closed doors, Leader McConnell? Send it to the 
Judiciary Committee. Something as important as this should have gone 
through that to begin with.
  Let me repeat: Republicans came here, dropped the bill on the floor, 
and said: Take it or leave it. Even if we were to get on the bill, 
there is no conceivable way to rectify all of its many problems. It is 
not realistic that we can fix this bill even with a series of 
amendments because they will require 60 votes, and we will not get 60 
on any of them. If they believed in these ideas, as Senator Harris 
said, they would have put them in the bill to begin with. They didn't.
  The Republican majority has given the Senate a bad bill and no 
credible way to sufficiently improve it. Senator McConnell--cleverly, 
maybe cynically--designed a legislative cul-de-sac from which no bill--
no bill at all--could emerge. And whether the bill lacks 60 votes now 
or 60 votes in a few days, we know the Republican leader will accuse 
Democrats of filibustering and claiming we are the opponents of 
progress, as he did this morning.
  Please, does anyone believe that Democrats are the obstacles to 
reforming our police departments? Does anyone believe that? We 
announced a much bolder, stronger, better, more effective bill 3 weeks 
ago. And, unlike the Republican legislation, the Justice in Policing 
Act will actually pass a Chamber of Congress. When it passes the House, 
the Nation is going to say to Leader McConnell: Get something moving in 
the Senate. And Leader McConnell knows, and everyone in this body 
knows, that you have to do that in a bipartisan way. That is how the 
Senate has always worked and still does.
  Senate Republicans and their President, who proclaims we should 
cherish the memory of Confederate traitors who fought to preserve 
slavery, who gleefully called the coronavirus ``Kung Flu,'' with hardly 
a word of criticism from his party, expects you to believe that 
Republicans are, all of a sudden, the true champions of racial justice 
and police reform? That is what Senate Republicans want America to 
believe, and America ain't buying it.
  The same Republican majority that has demonstrated a complete lack of 
urgency to address the public health and economic crises that are 
devastating Black America, the same Republican majority that has 
refused time and again to call out President Trump's bigotry and 
intolerance, the same Republican majority that has run a conveyor belt 
of anti-civil rights votes for judicial nominees, including one today--
today, the very same day we vote on policing reform--wants you to 
believe that all of a sudden they want to get something done. As they 
say in Brooklyn, forget about it.
  When you hear President Trump and Senator McConnell trying to cast 
blame for lack of progress on police reform, I have three words for 
you: Consider the source. Look at their history. Look at what they have 
done. Look at just today. Leader McConnell proudly brags that he is 
putting someone on the Fifth Circuit who has opposed voting rights for 
his whole career. That is who wants to move things forward? I doubt it.
  Here is the truth. Senator McConnell has been around a long time and 
knows how to produce a workable outcome in the Senate if he really 
wants to. We have done it before on criminal justice reform, on annual 
budgets, on the national defense bill, and on the lands package we just 
passed.
  Even on difficult issues like immigration, the Senate can function if 
the leadership allows it to. In 2013, a bipartisan group of Senators 
produced compromise immigration legislation that garnered two-thirds of 
this Chamber on immigration, no less. What do bills that pass have in 
common? Bipartisanship, sponsorship, and support. What does this bill 
have? Only partisan support. Not a single Democrat supports this bill, 
their bill.
  While I certainly feel obligated to point out the contradictions and 
hypocrisy in the Republican leader's statements and history, I am not 
dismayed by the likely failure of the Republican bill today. All is not 
lost. There is a better path and one we should take once this bill 
fails to go forward.
  After this bill goes down, there should be bipartisan discussions 
with the object of coming together around a constructive starting point 
for police reform. Leader McConnell can pick a few of his Members as 
negotiators. I could designate a few from our caucus. They can sit 
down, talk to one another, and find a bill that we are ready to start 
debating. We could send that bill to the committee and have an open 
process, as it would be refined. This is an important issue.
  That, Leader McConnell, is what successful legislating will be. I 
have no doubt that we could come up with a bill that is ready for the 
floor in a few weeks. We know how to do this. But in the rush to get 
this issue off their backs, to check some political box and move on, my 
Republican colleagues have forgotten or are simply ignoring everything 
they know about how the Senate works.
  My hope, my prayer is that after this bill fails today, after Leader 
McConnell's path reaches its preordained dead end, we can start down 
the path of bipartisanship--real bipartisanship--not a bill designed to 
be put on the floor by one party.
  If Americans of all ages and colors and of all faiths can join 
together in a righteous chorus calling for change, as they have in big 
cities and small towns across America, then we in the Senate can at 
least try to come together to deliver it--Democrats and Republicans 
working together to solve an age-old problem that is a deep wound in 
America.
  These past few weeks have magnified a very old wound in our country. 
The binding up of that wound is a project that demands more from all of 
us: Black Americans, White Americans, police departments, and the 
protesters in the streets--Democrats and Republicans.
  So, please, let us not once again retreat to our partisan corners 
after today's vote. Let us appeal, instead, to the better angels of our 
nature, reach out to one another, Democrats and Republicans, and try to 
forge a path forward together.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Loeffler). The majority whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, in just a few minutes, we will vote on 
whether to move forward on Senator Scott's policing reform bill.
  We are at a turning point in our Nation's history--a moment when 
Americans of every background and political persuasion are united in a 
call for change. We have a chance to give it to them. Over the course 
of the next couple of weeks, we will have a chance to pass legislation 
that will permanently reform policing in this country--legislation that 
will improve training, increase accountability, and give increased 
security to families who worry that their sons or daughters could be 
the next George Floyd or Breonna Taylor. Senator Scott's legislation, 
the Just and Unifying Solutions to Invigorate Communities Everywhere 
Act, or the JUSTICE Act, is a product of years of serious work. It is 
an extensive bill that focuses on a number of areas that call for 
reform.
  Make no mistake about it. When the Democrats vote today, if they do--
and, I hope, there will be enough of them

[[Page S3166]]

who will not, so as to allow this legislation to move forward--they 
will be voting to block police reform legislation, because that is what 
this is. This is not Senator McConnell's bill. The Democratic leader 
kept attacking Senator McConnell and the McConnell legislation. This is 
a Tim Scott bill, crafted with input from other Senators, with input 
from communities of color from across this country, and with input from 
the law enforcement community--people who care deeply about not just 
talking about this issue but about actually solving this issue, people 
who care about action. The Democratic objection and vote to block this 
legislation from moving forward will prevent an open debate in front of 
the entire American public about an issue that has generated a 
tremendous amount of controversy, not only currently but throughout our 
Nation's history.
  We cannot change our past--there are parts of it that we are not 
proud of--but we can change our future, and that could start today with 
this vote to get on this bill and then to have an open process.
  The leader has promised that, if we can get on this bill, we will 
have an amendment process. If there are things in the bill that people 
on either side of the aisle think can be improved on, they will have an 
opportunity to offer amendments to make those improvements. Yet, by not 
even getting on the bill, they will be saying to the American people 
that we don't care about your having a voice in this process or being 
able to see what your elected leaders are actually doing to resolve 
this problem in our country.
  That is what this would do. It would open it up. It would allow a 
piece of legislation to be brought to the floor; allow for a motion to 
proceed to get on it; allow us to open up the amendment process and to 
have a freewheeling, fulsome debate about each and every one of the 
issues that is involved in this legislation.
  They have said that this doesn't go far enough, that it doesn't do 
this or that it doesn't do that. Sure, that is true. Perhaps, it 
doesn't, but it gets about 75 percent of the way there. If you look at 
the contents and the substance of this bill, it represents a lot of 
what both sides have been talking about. There are a lot of 
recommendations in it that have come forward from people across this 
country who have been directly impacted, none more so than Senator 
Scott. I can tell you Senator Scott doesn't view this as a messaging 
exercise. He views this as something that is deeply personal to him. 
Unfortunately, he has experienced the pain of racism, not only as a 
young boy, growing up in the South, but as an adult and as a U.S. 
Senator. He wants a solution, and we should all want a solution, but 
that starts by getting on the bill and debating it in the open, in the 
light of day.
  The Democratic leader talks about: Why can't we go back behind closed 
doors and negotiate this? Look, we have a piece of legislation that 
represents 75 percent of what the Democrats say they want, and we can 
finish the other 25 percent. Maybe we will not get to 100 percent. 
Nobody ever, usually, gets 100 percent of what one wants around here. 
Yet simply having a debate, allowing an open amendment process, and 
allowing the will of the U.S. Senate to be heard is all this is about. 
This isn't about the final bill. This isn't about the final contents. 
This is about whether or not this body--100 U.S. Senators--has listened 
enough to what is going on around this country to say: We want to have 
this debate. We want to get on this bill, and we want to have it in 
public, in the light of day, in front of the American people, not 
behind closed doors--an open debate, a fulsome debate, in which 
amendments can be offered and in which the American people can observe 
and see it. That is what this vote today is about.
  Now, the Democrats will say that, if you allow us to get on the bill, 
then they will have no control over what will happen after that. Well, 
actually, they will, because it is not just a 60-vote threshold to get 
on the bill; it is a 60-vote threshold to get off the bill. So, if you 
want to stop this somewhere--anywhere in the process--you will have the 
opportunity to do that because it will take 60 votes to move it forward 
and to ultimately pass it, not just to get on it.
  It takes 60 votes--a supermajority here in the U.S. Senate. I think 
it is fair to say that, historically, the way the Senate has worked on 
major pieces of legislation is it ends up being bipartisan because of 
the 60-vote threshold. There hasn't been a time since the popular 
election of Senators, at least on the Republican side, when we have had 
more than 55 votes in the U.S. Senate. The Democrats have had 60 a few 
times throughout history, but the Republicans have never had more than 
55. So we know it is going to take a bipartisan solution, and we know 
that the Democrats' voice matters. We know that, in the end, if you are 
going to have a bipartisan product, you are going to have to have input 
from both sides
  That is what this is about. It is about getting on the bill that has 
been advanced and put forward by an individual, Tim Scott--it is a Tim 
Scott bill--again, with input from others. It is not a McConnell bill. 
It is a Tim Scott bill. He is someone who has personally experienced 
and felt the very frustration and anger that is being voiced by the 
American people across the country. He wants a solution. He doesn't 
want a messaging bill. We want a solution.
  Let me just tell you quickly about a few of the things that are in 
this bill, which I think suggest that it would be really important to 
get on it and to, at least, have a debate.
  One of the most important sections of the bill is the George Floyd 
and Walter Scott Notification Act, which would correct deficiencies in 
law enforcement's reporting of use-of-force incidents. Right now, the 
FBI's National Use-of-Force Data Collection only receives data on about 
40 percent of law enforcement officers--40 percent. That needs to 
change. The only way we can understand the scope of the problems we are 
facing is to have full and accurate data--a complete data picture--that 
will allow us to pinpoint problems, identify troubled police 
departments, and develop best practices for use-of-force and 
deescalation training.
  There are many police departments across the Nation that are doing an 
excellent job of policing and that are keenly interested in becoming 
still better. I recently met with law enforcement leaders back in my 
home State of South Dakota. Among other things, they have been 
participating in listening sessions with the community since George 
Floyd's death, and they are supportive of new measures that will help 
to ensure that every officer does his or her job in the best possible 
way. Yet, while there are a lot of excellent police departments out 
there, there are also troubled departments--departments that fail to 
train their officers properly and that overlook officer misbehavior. We 
need to identify those departments and demand their reform. Collecting 
full and accurate data on use-of-force incidents will help us to do 
just that.
  Another important section of the JUSTICE Act focuses on police 
deescalation and duty-to-intervene training. Sometimes police end up 
using force in situations in which force could have been avoided simply 
because they lack the necessary training to deescalate a situation 
without the use of force. It may be understandable that well-meaning 
but overwhelmed police officers who are in dangerous circumstances will 
sometimes resort to the use of force too quickly, but that is not a 
situation that we can accept. Every police officer in this country 
should be given the kind of training that will ensure that the use of 
force is restricted only to those situations in which it is absolutely 
needed.
  Another key area of the bill--one that is absolutely essential to 
getting bad cops off the streets--deals with law enforcement records 
retention. Too often, law enforcement officers with problematic 
records, like multiple excessive use-of-force complaints, manage to 
transfer to new jurisdictions because the hiring police departments 
never see their full records. That is a problem. Bad cops should not be 
able to find new homes in other jurisdictions. We can prevent that from 
happening by ensuring that every police department is able to access 
the full disciplinary record of any officer it is looking to hire.
  The JUSTICE Act would help to make sure these records are readily 
available by requiring police departments to keep officers' records for 
at

[[Page S3167]]

least 30 years. It would also require any police department that hires 
a new officer to obtain a full employment and disciplinary record for 
that officer from all of his previous departments.
  There are a lot of other important measures in the JUSTICE Act, from 
the funding of body cameras to expanding minority hiring, to developing 
best policing practices. With this legislation, we have a real chance 
of improving policing in this country and of ensuring that every 
officer is held to the highest standards.
  Our ability to do that is going to depend on one thing, and that is 
the willingness of the Democrats to come to the table. It was 
disheartening to see the Democrats dismiss Senator Scott's bill before 
it had even been released, especially because, as I said, many of the 
proposals in the bill have been taken directly from earlier bipartisan 
bills. The word, of course, today, is that they are planning to block 
the bill without even allowing it to be considered on the floor.
  The Democrats have spent a lot of time talking about police reform, 
but if they want to actually achieve reform and not just talk about it, 
they are going to have to decide to move beyond politics. Senator 
Scott's bill is a serious, wide-ranging bill. It is a commonsense bill. 
It is a bill that all of us, whichever our party, should be willing to 
agree on.
  As I said, the Democrats have changes they would like to make, and 
the leader has made it clear there will be an opportunity for 
amendments. But to refuse even to allow debate on this bill suggests 
the Democrats are more interested in attempting to score political 
points on this issue rather than to actually do anything about reform. 
I hope that what we are hearing about the Democrats' plans to block 
this bill is wrong. I hope--I really, sincerely, hope--that we are 
going to see the Democrats--some courageous ones--come to the table and 
vote to move forward with debate on this legislation.
  We have a chance to do something important here--a historic chance. 
With the JUSTICE Act, we can permanently improve policing in this 
country and bring real hope to those who have lost faith in law 
enforcement, but we are going to have to stand together to get this 
done. I urge my colleagues to vote, in a few minutes, to move forward 
on the JUSTICE Act and start the process of reform.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
civil rights of all Americans and ask my colleagues to vote for a 
process today that will lead to laws that will protect those civil 
rights. Unfortunately, the motion to proceed to predetermined 
legislation is just a predetermined outcome for a weak bill.
  There is no agreement today by the majority leader and the minority 
leader on a bipartisan bill. Everyone around here knows the way to get 
good bipartisan legislation. It starts with a committee process that is 
open and public and an amendment process. You can, and we have, done 
things like we did with COVID, where we get a bipartisan group of 
members together to discuss legislation and put something before 
Congress. Or you could bring up a bipartisan bill on the Senate floor. 
But that is not what is happening. That is not what is happening.
  What is happening is a predetermined process to get a bill that is 
not good enough for the American people. Voting yes is just an attempt 
to dictate a weak outcome when what America wants more than anything 
else is justice. They want justice, guaranteed by a strong Federal 
response. Leader McConnell said, in talking about the Republican 
efforts, ``it would encourage smart reforms of law enforcement without 
steamrolling states and local communities' constitutional powers.'' 
Elsewhere, he said Democrats want to overreach, ``Federalize all of the 
issues.''
  Well, with all due respect to the majority leader, it is called the 
Federal Civil Rights Act for a reason. It wasn't right to deny Rosa 
Parks a seat on a bus when she was fighting for her Constitutional 
rights. It wasn't right to deny African Americans access to hotels or 
lunch counters when they were fighting for their civil rights. It 
wasn't right to use police dogs on Black women trying to register to 
vote in 1964 in Mississippi when they were fighting for their voting 
rights. I guarantee you, it is not good enough and would not be good 
enough to give them 75 percent here. Rosa Parks was not looking for 75 
percent; she was looking for someone to uphold her rights.
  I spoke last night with one of my constituents, Stan Barer, who 
worked for Senator Warren Magnuson. As a staffer, he drafted the 
Accommodations Clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as one of his 
first jobs on the Senate Commerce Committee. Can you imagine coming to 
the U.S. Senate as a young lawyer and getting a job on the Commerce 
Committee and the first thing you have to do is draft the 
Accommodations Clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
  I can tell you what he told me. He said: Advocates then tried to 
minimize the Federal role. That is what we are hearing today, minimize 
the Federal role. Where would we be if President Kennedy had taken that 
approach? He fought for equal protection under the law for access to 
education and to end discrimination and segregation when Southern 
Governors wouldn't do so. There is a Federal role in protecting the 
civil liberties of all Americans, and we should not be abdicating it 
today with this vote.
  Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1871 after the Civil War when 
Black Americans faced violence from the KKK and White supremacists in 
Southern States. It gave them the right to seek relief in Federal court 
when their Constitutional rights were deprived by someone acting in 
official capacity. It is those same civil rights that we should be 
upholding today, upholding those rights--making sure that there is not 
police brutality. That is what the U.S. Department of Justice is 
supposed to do. It is supposed to fight to uphold those rights. But we 
know we have a problem because President Trump and Attorney General 
Barr have repeatedly abdicated those responsibilities, have failed to 
uphold those civil rights. Because as the top law enforcement officer 
in the land, Attorney General Barr could be directing and supervising 
U.S. attorneys and prosecuting those Federal crimes as violations of 
civil rights.
  Well, I know that that is what President Obama did. I know that he 
worked hard to make sure the U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division oversaw 
pattern and practices of police abuses and entered a number of consent 
decrees with major cities, including in my State. Yes, the Attorney 
General is supposed to uphold the Fourth Amendment protections against 
unreasonable seizure and the civil rights laws that protect against 
excessive use of force. But that is not what is happening. Under the 
Trump administration and Attorney General Barr, the U.S. Department of 
Justice Civil Rights Division police practice group has been reduced to 
half. It has not opened a major pattern or practice investigation, and 
Trump and his administration have been pulling away from this important 
role. It started with Jeff Sessions. Jeff Sessions made it harder to 
reach consent decrees with cities. So instead of playing the Federal 
role that we are supposed to play, we have an administration that is 
enabling bad practices to continue by not stopping them.
  So, yes, there is a Federal role, there is a Federal role here today, 
just as there is with voting rights, just as there is with access to 
public places, just as there is with education and fighting 
discrimination. In fact, I think that is the central question of this 
debate. Are we going to have a strong Federal role in protecting the 
Constitutional rights of all Americans to prevent excessive force by 
police? It is pretty basic. We want to see a law that says that choke 
holds should be banned. We are not looking for 75 percent, we are not 
looking for study and analysis, we are looking to protect the 
Constitutional rights of all Americans.
  So it is no surprise that the NAACP and Urban League have said that 
this legislation that our colleagues have proposed on the other side of 
the aisle does not meet the moment to end racial justice. I ask my 
colleagues, when are we going to? Maybe the information age has laid 
bare for us and all our eyes to see that this problem has to be 
resolved.
  Are we going to uphold the Fourth Amendment rights against 
unreasonable seizure and the civil rights protecting against excessive 
use of force

[[Page S3168]]

by police? Are we going to uphold the rights of all Americans, or just 
some Americans? I would say to my colleagues, if we are not upholding 
all the Americans' rights, then we aren't really upholding America's 
civil rights. We have to ask ourselves, what moment are we living in 
when somebody thinks 75 percent is enough, and it is study and 
analysis, when we are talking about protecting the rights of all 
Americans?
  My mom has been ill and so I've been spending a lot of time with her 
talking about family history, talking about this moment in our history, 
and she told me a story of how she was a young girl. She was born in 
1932, so you can imagine the era that she lived through. But she told 
me when her older brother got to go to school, she got to stay home and 
ride his tricycle, so she thought that was the best. You know, he 
started kindergarten, she could ride his tricycle up and down the 
alley. And she met a woman, an African-American woman, who became her 
friend--her first real friend as a young child.
  And she got to know that woman so well that my grandparents, in the 
neighboring building, helped with an election and saw that people were 
lining up to vote. White people were allowed to come into the building 
and be warm, but the African-American people had to stay outside in the 
cold and wouldn't be allowed to come into the building to vote, a great 
discouragement. Thank God my grandfather went out and built a bonfire 
and then left to go to work.
  But when you look at the history of our country--and we still see 
voter suppression issues today--that is why we have to ask ourselves 
the fundamental question. When it comes to the civil rights of 
Americans, a report, 75 percent, is not enough. A clear line ending 
excessive abuse and declaring choke holds illegal is where we need to 
be.
  I ask my colleagues to turn down this measure on a weak, 
predetermined path and get a real bipartisan effort and uphold the 
civil liberties of Americans because, I guarantee you, America really 
is watching.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I stand before this body today with a 
troubled heart, as most of us do, but that is not good enough. We have 
to kind of put away our own biases, our own prejudice. I am not talking 
about racial; I am talking about political.
  Today we have an opportunity to do something, to start a process. 
Words are cheap in this body. I hear a lot of empty words. I hope not 
to add to that quantity today.
  When I was a kid growing up in the Deep South, Martin Luther King 
wrote a letter from a jail cell in Birmingham to Black preachers in 
that community. He encouraged them to turn away from the violence that 
had such a potentially devastating impact and to seek reform 
peacefully; that in the long term, that was the better approach. My 
father had me read that letter. I gave a speech a couple years ago, and 
I quoted from that letter. It meant something to me as a young White 
man in the Deep South.
  Almost 57 years ago, on the other end of the National Mall from where 
we stand today, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I believe, changed the 
world--certainly impacted millions of lives.
  Standing before thousands of people, he shared his dream. He dreamed 
of a world where justice would prevail over prejudice. He dreamed of an 
America where everyone would be judged not by the color of their skin 
but by the depth of their character.
  Since that day in 1963, a lot has changed in our country for the 
better. Unfortunately, Dr. King's vision of racial justice, harmony, 
and equality is yet to be fully realized. That is unacceptable.
  This year, our country is seeing devastating tragedies taking place 
in our communities, but what we see on TV really is the tip of the 
iceberg, as a lot of my friends from those communities tell me. I 
believe them.
  We need to make sure that the fundamental issue of fairness is upheld 
by all law enforcement agencies so everyone gets treated equally, 
fairly, period. The tragedies we have seen are unacceptable by any 
measure, and I don't think anybody in America thinks that what we have 
seen is right. Those who are responsible need to be prosecuted to the 
fullest extent of the law, and we need to put a full stop to it right 
now. But that fight starts today, I believe, here in the U.S. Senate.
  Like so many Americans, my wife Bonnie and I have spent a lot of time 
reflecting and praying for our country and our friends and our fellow 
Americans in the last many weeks. It is clear to us that we have more 
work to do to make justice for all become a reality for every American.
  We are a nation of laws, but those laws have to be enforced fairly 
and equally. To truly be effective, the police need to have the 
confidence of the communities they serve, and in many cases today, that 
is just not the case. That trust and confidence must be earned, 
however. Clearly, there is much work to do on this front to build up 
mutual trust
  I had a conversation with two grandmothers last week--well-educated, 
successful women of color, in positions of tremendous responsibility--
and we talked about how their perspective and my perspective differed 
and how we saw each other in this crisis. But the most telling thing in 
that conversation was how they told me their No. 1 concern was for 
their grandsons and how their grandsons would be treated by members of 
the police force in their communities. That is a tragedy, and we can do 
something about it.
  This issue is personal to me. Growing up in middle Georgia in the 
1960s, I have seen the devastation of racism, discrimination, a lack of 
equality, prejudice. As the son of two public school teachers, I saw 
how it weighed on my parents during that time. All they wanted was for 
every child to be treated equally, regardless of where they came from, 
what their name was, or the color of their skin.
  Understand, I grew up in a military town, and we had people there 
from all over the world. So this wasn't an idle conversation; this was 
an objective they tried to live up to every single day. They wanted 
every child to have the same simple opportunity.
  As superintendent of schools in our county, my father successfully 
integrated our school system--I remember that as a young kid--one of 
the first counties to do that in our State. They did it there without 
incident. It was a military town. We had people, again, from all over 
the world, and it was a joint effort. My dad did not do it because it 
was the easy thing to do, the convenient thing to do; he did it because 
it was the right thing to do.
  In my own life, I have been blessed to have interacted with people 
from all over the world in my career. My hometown of Warner Robins is a 
military town. I went to school there, went to church there, and played 
ball there with people literally from all over the world. Later on, my 
wife Bonnie and I had the opportunity to live around the world in 
different places. This challenged our perspective in many ways. It 
helped us develop a deeper appreciation of how America's diversity is 
at once our greatest asset and, yes, sometimes our greatest challenge.
  However, I also recognize that as a White man, my perspective is by 
definition very different from those of African Americans in my own 
community. We have these conversations all the time. I know I could 
never fully appreciate the pain and adversity many African Americans 
have faced in my lifetime and still face today. That is wrong. We can 
fix that starting today or at least start down that road again.
  Yes, we have made a lot of progress--I can see that in my own 
lifetime--but that is no reason to ignore the situation today or to sit 
back and not do anything. However, as Dr. King said at the Lincoln 
Memorial, we will ``not be satisfied until justice rolls down like 
water and righteousness like a mighty stream.''
  Right now, the Senate has the opportunity to fight for justice for 
all. Today we will be voting to--it is a technicality, but it is a 
motion to proceed. This is nothing more than to just start on the bill.
  I hear my Democratic colleagues talking about, well, it is not 
perfect; it is only 75 percent of the solution. Well, OK. Great. Let's 
start there. The purpose of a motion to proceed is to put a bill on the 
floor and actually debate it, have amendments. This bill is not 
perfect. It doesn't satisfy all the things I want to do. But it is a 
start. I plan to

[[Page S3169]]

offer amendments. I am sure the Presiding Officer wants to offer 
amendments. We welcome amendments in this process. The majority leader 
has said we will have an open amendment process. What we want to do is 
offer up this as a starting point, not a final solution.
  Today we will have the vote on whether to start actually working on 
the JUSTICE Act. Senator Tim Scott has led a small task force to come 
up with the starting point--a bill that we can actually put our hands 
on, read, and then start changing. I am proud to be a cosponsor. We 
have many cosponsors. I think that we will probably have a unanimous 
vote on that on the Republican side today. My prayer is that we will 
have many on the Democratic side say: Look, we understand it is not 
perfect. We want this. We want that.
  Let's put in the work, and let's start working on this now. It should 
be a foregone conclusion that we get overwhelming bipartisan support to 
debate the bill. Let's make it a good law. If it is not to your 
satisfaction, fine. Let's debate it.
  Some say: Well, we don't trust the majority leader.
  You don't have to trust the majority leader. The rules of the Senate 
protect each individual Senator once we put the bill in play. But if we 
don't put the bill on the floor, nobody is protected--especially our 
constituents.
  Unfortunately, many of my colleagues on the other side are attempting 
to shut down this debate before we even start. They say it doesn't go 
far enough. They call it a token. That is absurd. That is ridiculous. 
It is insulting, particularly to my good friend Tim Scott.
  Look, none of us believes this bill is perfect or an end-all as it 
is. As I just said, we have differences on this side, but we are 
willing to put it on the floor. We have allowed the Democrats to do 
things like this where we went on the floor and tried to debate a bill 
to get it to where--if you don't like what we end up with, you can 
always vote it down at cloture. You don't have to even go to the final 
vote.
  All we are pleading for today is a motion to proceed to allow this 
bill to go on the floor and be fully debated. It is simply a starting 
point for debate and true compromise. Isn't that what our job is? Isn't 
that what we are supposed to do?
  I ask my Democratic colleagues this: What major bill has come before 
this body in perfect form at the very outset? I can't think of any. If 
you have issues with this bill, let's debate it and offer amendments. 
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good, please.
  On major issues like this, it is our duty to come together. It is our 
duty to find common ground. It is our duty to fight for what is right.
  This bill offers meaningful solutions that will help build trust 
between law enforcement and the communities they serve. These are just 
ideas. It provides solutions that all of us can get behind right now.
  In addition to modifying the rules concerning the use of force and 
providing body cams, this bill does several critical things to 
establish that trust and provide additional funding to help improve our 
police forces.
  First, it incentivizes police recruiting to reflect the demographics 
of the communities they serve. How simple is that? This is a big step. 
If the police live in the communities they serve, if they reflect the 
demographics of that community, if they identify with the people of 
that community, it is a lot easier to develop trust and common ground
  Second, this bill encourages deescalation training for law 
enforcement officers. This will help law enforcement develop the skills 
and techniques they need to prevent public interactions that lead to 
the violence we have seen of late.
  Third, this bill creates a database that helps our communities root 
out those who do not serve the public even though they are enforcing 
law.
  The bottom line is that the bill increases funding for law 
enforcement. It doesn't defend law enforcement or eliminate the police 
force.
  These solutions we are offering up as a starting point today are 
meaningful. They will restore the confidence of our communities and 
hold accountable police officers who abuse their positions or who are 
poorly trained.
  Most of us who truly want change also understand that eliminating 
police forces is not the answer, as some suggest. Our police forces are 
to serve and protect our communities--all of our communities--and there 
needs to be change before they can be successful in that.
  We have proven in the past that we can come together to fight for 
what is right. We did when we provided permanent funding for our HBCUs, 
our historically Black colleges and universities. We did it when we 
created opportunity zones in hundreds of communities of color around 
the country, many of them economically challenged. In 2018, when we 
passed the bipartisan criminal justice reform bill--the biggest one in 
the last 50 years--that was true progress. We did it. We can do it 
again today, but first we have to put this bill on the floor. We have 
to start the debate. We have to pass this motion to proceed, or--guess 
what--no debate will happen. They will talk to their base, Republicans 
will talk to our base, and nothing will happen. A pox on all of us if 
we let that happen.
  If Democrats shut down this bill today, it will demonstrate a lack of 
sincerity, in my opinion, to at least engage in finding solutions. This 
is no different from the immigration conversation we had just a couple 
years ago. When the President of the United States, Donald Trump, 
offered up a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million DACA recipients and 
we couldn't even get a debate going with the other side--they turned it 
down out of hand because it was President Trump's suggestion.
  All of us need to remember that while we look different, we might 
talk differently, we certainly may think differently, we really are one 
Nation under God.
  Our diversity is our strength. It makes us different. It makes us 
stronger. It makes us the leader of the world in our current time. What 
unites us is far greater than what divides us.
  Let's work on this bill today and start building a more perfect union 
for every American. Let's vote yes on this motion to proceed.
  I yield the floor.
  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. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
to complete my remarks before the rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            The JUSTICE Act

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, we come here today with 
an opportunity to say to America and specifically to communities of 
color: We see you. We hear you. I have experienced your pain.
  I have been stopped 18 times in the last two decades, and 1 year, I 
was stopped seven times, as an elected official in this body, trying to 
get into the Chamber and into the office buildings on the congressional 
side.
  I understand some part of what too many have experienced. This police 
reform legislation addresses that. It provides clear opportunities for 
us to say: Not only do we hear you, not only do we see you, but we are 
responding to your pain, because we in America believe that justice 
should be applied equally to all of our citizens, with no exceptions, 
and when we see exceptions, it is our responsibility to do something 
about those exceptions, and this legislation helps us get there.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side, we received a letter from 
Senator Schumer saying that there were five things about the JUSTICE 
Act that did not meet their principles. My response was a simple one: 
Let's have five amendments on those things. If we can get the votes on 
these two sides of the Chamber, we should include that in the 
legislation.
  I met with other Senators on the other side who said that there are 
more than five things that we need to have a conversation about. I 
said: Let's include an amendment for every single

[[Page S3170]]

issue you have. They did not stick around for that meeting.
  My concern is that 80 percent just won't do. My concern is that our 
friends on the other side will not take advantage of this opportunity 
to say to the communities that are suffering: We see you. We hear you. 
We are willing to respond as one body.
  I implore all of us to vote for the motion to proceed so that if 
there are recommendations that come in the form of amendments, we have 
a vote up or down on those amendments. I have offered as many 
amendments as necessary for this bill to be seen by the public, and, in 
consultation with the other side, let it be their bill--not Tim Scott's 
bill, not the Republican bill, not the Democrat bill, but a bill that 
starts to address the issues that have plagued this Nation for decades.
  This is not my first start at this legislation. I started on this 
bill 5 years ago, but I could not find voices that would push forward 
reforms brought to our attention by the Walter Scott shooting in 2013.
  I will close with this: I respect people with whom I disagree. They 
have the right to disagree. My pastor tells me I have the right to be 
wrong, which means I am not right all the time. But on this bill, if 
you don't think we are right, make it better. Don't walk away. Vote for 
the motion to proceed so that we have an opportunity to deal with this 
very real threat to the America that is civil, that is balanced. This 
is an opportunity to say yes--to say yes not to us but to those folks 
who are waiting for our leadership to stand and be counted.


                       Vote on Wilson Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Wilson 
nomination?
  Mr. LEE. I call for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 125 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). Under the previous order, 
the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, 
and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________