[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 17, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3041-S3046]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              JUSTICE Act

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I woke up this morning, 
Wednesday morning, June 17, 2020, and for so many Americans, this is 
just another Wednesday morning. You wake up; you get ready for work--
but not in South Carolina.
  In South Carolina, this Wednesday, June 17, is the fifth anniversary 
of when a racist walked into Mother Emanuel Church, sat through a Bible 
study for an hour and listened to believers talk about their love of 
God. At the end of that Bible study, he pulled out a weapon and killed 
nine people. So for me and so many South Carolinians, this is a hard 
day.
  I will tell you this: Standing on this floor, remembering the words 
of one of the victims' son, Daniel Simmons, Jr., 5 years ago on a 
Wednesday, 1 week later--I asked Daniel Simmons, Jr., whose father, 
Daniel Simmons, Sr., had been killed in an attempt to start another 
race war at the home of the Civil War: What should I say to the people 
who would be watching around the country?
  He said what I could not believe. It was this: Please remind them of 
Romans 8:28--that all things work together for good for those who love 
God and are called according to His purpose.
  I was standing at those doors on my cell phone. I could not believe 
the words he was speaking. In an act of true, unconditional love, he 
inspired me. He encouraged me. He taught me lessons of strength and 
courage and mercy our Nation needs to remember.
  I came to the floor today to speak about my new bill, the JUSTICE 
Act, our Republican response to police reform. I was sitting in my 
office when the Senator from Illinois talked about the ``token'' 
legislation on this day, the day that we remember Mother Emanuel Church 
and the nine lost lives and my friend, the pastor of the church, 
Clementa Pinckney--the first person ever to call me a Senator, the 
pastor of that church, a Democrat pastor of that church said to me ``My 
Senator,'' in December of 2012--and reflect back on the fact that I 
have on my phone today the text for Clementa in which I said: Are you 
OK? He didn't answer because he was already dead.
  To think that on this day, as we try to make sure that fewer people 
lose confidence in this Nation, to have the Senator from Illinois refer 
to this process, this bill, this opportunity to restore hope and 
confidence and trust to the American people, to African Americans, to 
communities of color--to call this a token process hurts my soul for my 
country, for our people.
  To think that the concept of anti-lynching that is a part of this 
legislation would be considered a token piece of legislation because, 
perhaps, I am African American and the only one on this side of the 
aisle--I don't know what he meant, but I can tell you that, on this 
day, to hear those comments, again, hurts the soul.
  To think about how, in the same year, 2015, Walter Scott, in my 
hometown of North Charleston, running away from the police, was shot 
five times in the back--I sponsored legislation then, and I don't 
remember a single person saying a single thing on that side of the 
aisle about helping to push forward more legislation on body cameras. 
But, today, this is a token piece of legislation. I think it is 
important that we stand up and be counted and make sure that we have 
more resources available for every officer to have a body camera 
because, as we saw in Georgia with Mr. Arbery, had it not been caught 
on video; in Walter Scott's case, had it not been caught on video; in 
George Floyd's case, had it not been caught on video, we might be in a 
different place.
  On the other side, they are wanting to race-bait on tokenism, while 
this legislation would provide resources for body cameras, for anti-
lynching, and for deescalation training. But, no, we can't concern 
ourselves with the families I sat with at the White House yesterday and 
in my office yesterday. Instead, we want to play politics because this 
is 2020, and we are far more concerned about winning elections than we 
are about having a serious conversation on reform in this country. No, 
we would rather have a conversation about tearing this country apart, 
making it a binary choice between law enforcement and communities of 
color instead of working for the American people, bringing the reforms 
to the table so that we have a chance to balance this Nation and direct 
her toward due north. No, that is too much to ask on June 17, 5 years 
later.
  I started this conversation on body cameras in 2015, in the Walter 
Scott Notification Act in 2015. But, no, we want to have a political 
conversation. I reject that. I reject that.
  I will tell you that I believe my friends on the other side of the 
aisle are serious about police reform. There are just some who are more 
interested in scoring political points than they actually are in 
getting a result.
  It is not the majority of them. The majority of them have the same 
heart that we have for the American people. That is where we should be 
focusing our attention, not the color of my skin, not tokens. It is 
cool when you are out in the public. I get it all the time on Twitter. 
I am used to it. But on this day, my heart aches for my State. My heart 
aches for my uncle's church, which he attended for 50 years before he 
passed. So I am a little riled up.
  I sit here quietly trying to pass good legislation that was based on 
the House bill because I knew that if I wanted a chance to get 
something done, we had to do it in a bipartisan fashion. I am not 
running for anything. I am not up for reelection. I am not trying to 
support someone for their victory. I am simply saying to the families I 
met with yesterday at the White House without a camera and in my office 
yesterday without a camera: I hear you. We see you. You are not simply 
sitting there silent. We are working on serious, tangible, measurable 
results.
  Why is that not enough? Why can't we just disagree on the three or 
four items that we disagree upon? Why can't I say what I have been 
saying, which is that the House bill is, in fact, the blueprint for 
some progress? It goes too far for me in some areas, but, yes, I like 
the concept of more information. This is a good thing. The House does 
it; we do it. That is a good thing. I like the concept of more 
training. The House does it; we do it. I like the fact that we are 
looking for a way to ban choke holds. We do it by taking money from 
different departments; they do it in a different fashion. We are about 
90 percent there.
  But where do we go? Where do we go? People wonder why our country is 
so divided. It is because it is so easy to walk onto this floor and say 
``token'' and send the same race-baiting message that we have heard for 
a very long time.
  If you are a Democrat, hey, it is OK. That is not ever OK. It is not 
OK to say to our kids: You can't think what you want to think and be 
who you want to be. If you are not in line with one idea and the way 
they think, it is bad news. Then you are a sellout
  What message do you send the kids? I am going to be OK, but what 
message are we sending the kids throughout our country--that you can't 
be taught just to think; we have to teach you how to think. That is the 
kind of conclusion that is wrong. It is toxic. It is pushing our 
country toward an implosion that is avoidable.

[[Page S3042]]

  That is why I started my legislative day today with remembering 
Mother Emanuel. It is why I read my Bible next--because I knew I needed 
a little extra strength. That is why I turned immediately to my first 
interview trying to talk about police reform because, as a guy who has 
been stopped 18 times in the years of the 2000s, I take it seriously. 
Being stopped seven times in a single year, being stopped this year, 
being stopped last November, being stopped coming into the Senate with 
my pin on--sure, I get it. But I don't point fingers at the other side, 
saying that they are just not serious about the issue. It is just not 
what we should do.
  I assume that everybody should be serious about the issue, but I have 
to tell you, it is with a heavy heart--it is with a heavy heart that I 
believe that, had we had more money for body cameras, we would be in a 
different position today than we were in 2015. But I didn't have 
anybody who wanted to have this conversation or, at least, they didn't 
have this conversation.
  I believe there are good people of good intent on the other side of 
the aisle. I think there are people of good intent on our side of the 
aisle. I think the fact is that most Americans are tired of Republicans 
and Democrats talking about Republicans and Democrats. I think most 
Americans are tired of our talking about election outcomes and polls. 
``What about me?'' is what they are saying.
  I am suggesting that this bill, the JUSTICE Act, is a serious 
nationwide effort tackling the issues of police reform, accountability, 
and transparency. It is grounded in bipartisan principles because I 
believe that the other side has some stuff we have to hear and that our 
side has some stuff they need to hear. If we do that, we will have the 
votes to have a real debate next week on this bill, but if we don't do 
that, we will just talk about scoring political points, and you will go 
on MSNBC or CNN, and we will go on FOX, and everybody will have their 
chatter, and more people in the communities of color will have less 
confidence in the institutions of power and authority in this Nation 
because we missed the moment. We missed it 5 years ago. We don't have 
to miss it now.
  As you know, I am not really into theatrics. I don't run toward 
microphones. I have had a lot of them these last 7 days. I don't talk a 
lot in conference because, why say what other people are saying? They 
have probably said it better. I don't demonize the other side because I 
know that in order to get anything done in this conference, on this 
committee, in this Senate, you have to have 60 votes. Plus, if you have 
a grievance with your brother, talk to them. Talk to them. I have tried 
to do that.
  As I am sure I am running out of time, let me just say that the 
families I sat down with yesterday--they don't think working on body 
cameras is a token experience. They don't think sitting down with the 
President of the United States, with tears filling their eyes, running 
down their cheeks, talking about their lost loved ones is a token 
experience. The law enforcement officers in that meeting with those 
families do not believe that having a serious conversation about police 
reform is a token experience. They don't believe that coresponders for 
the one man who was in the room, whose son was having a mental episode, 
who was shot on the scene--he doesn't think this was a token 
experience.
  Shame on us. Shame on us if we are unwilling to have a serious 
conversation about a serious issue that, in my opinion, is a greater 
threat to this Nation than perhaps anything we have seen. We have never 
solved it because we are all having political points. That is wrong. It 
is just not right.
  Let me say to all of my colleagues, Senator Lankford, Senators 
Capito, Sasse, Lindsey, Barrasso, and Alexander: Thank you. Thank you 
for giving a voice to a serious issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, first, I would like to associate my 
remarks 100 percent with everything Senator Scott just said. Somehow I 
am supposed to speak after he just said it.
  The frustration that I have had over the past couple of days as we 
have worked very hard in pulling the legislation together is we have 
talked to people all over. I have talked to people of all backgrounds 
all over Oklahoma. I have talked to members of the community. I have 
talked to law enforcement. I have talked to leadership in law 
enforcement. We have worked to build a coalition of ideas, things that 
would pass, answering the question that Tim Scott started with: Could 
we pull together a piece of legislation that would actually help--not 
to just pass something so we can walk away, pat each other on the back 
and say ``We passed something,'' knowing quietly that it really isn't 
going to make any difference? Is there something we could do that would 
actually make a difference?
  Over the weeks we have worked to identify what could pass, what could 
make a difference, what answers the questions everyone is asking. We 
didn't look at whether it was a Republican or Democratic idea. We just 
asked the question, what would make the difference, because I don't 
believe equal justice under the law is owned by a party. It has been 
fascinating to me, the questions I have had over the past couple of 
days as members of the media would quietly pull me aside and say: Hey, 
are Republicans going to be able to pass a bill on race? Quietly, they 
are asking the question: We know all those Republicans are racist, so 
are you going to be able to pull something off? That is really what 
they are saying in the background. Over and over again, I heard it 
through the media and have seen it put out there: You know those 
Republicans are all racist. I don't think they are going to be able to 
pass something dealing with race.
  As this dividing message continues to go out, we continue to do our 
work because we also believe in equal justice under the law. As a 
friend of mine said to me a couple of weeks ago, we also believe we 
should be able to work toward a more perfect Union.
  For me, it is not only a practical issue, not only a family issue; it 
is not only a friendship issue; it is not only a basic freedom and 
liberty issue; it is not just a constitutional issue. For me, it is 
also a Biblical issue. You can go back as many pages as you want to in 
Scripture and work your way from beginning to end, and you are going to 
find some very consistent themes. Throughout the book of Deuteronomy, 
there is a statement about how God's affection is ``for equal weights 
and measures.'' His first challenge to government when literally the 
Jews were establishing their first government, God spoke to them, 
saying, make sure there are equal weights and measures. It is a simple 
way of saying, whether you are rich or poor, whether you are a 
foreigner, whether you are a member, whether you are in or out, 
everyone is to be treated the same, equal weights, equal measures. Find 
that passage over and over and over again through the Old Testament. 
Read it all the way to the Book of the Revelation at the end.
  At the Book of Revelation at the end, there is a gathering around the 
throne that is pictured. At the very end, there is the gathering of the 
Kingdom of God. As they gather around the throne, it is described as 
every tribe, every nation, every language, every people, all gathered.
  For me, this is a Biblical issue as well as being a personal issue, 
but for us as a nation, it is a legal issue. It is about where we find 
inconsistencies in the application of the law, we are to correct it, 
and we do what we can to make it right.
  This bill is designed with a simple statement in mind. How can we 
provide accountability, transparency, and training in law enforcement 
so that the good cops shine and those who are bad apples in the mix, 
the light shines on them.
  That is all we are asking. We want to see things change. People in my 
towns across my State want to see things change and want to know that 
this is not just a vote that is a partisan vote; it is a vote to 
actually get something solved.
  It wasn't that long ago that this body was gathering and voted 
unanimously on an almost $3 trillion bill dealing with a major problem 
in America, COVID-19. Why don't we get together again, hash out the 
issues, and unanimously come to some decisions again on a major problem 
in America, injustice?
  We can't pass something that bans racism. I wish we could. We would 
have

[[Page S3043]]

all taken that vote. We can't ban racism. That is passed on through 
families and individuals. Children are not born racist. They are raised 
racist. Families have to make a decision about what they are going to 
do in their family. The national conversation about race doesn't happen 
in this room. The national conversation on race happens in kitchens and 
dining rooms.
  We can do something about justice. There are simple things we tried 
to gather, a set of ideas that aren't partisan. They are ideas and 
solutions that have come from all over the place, some Democratic and 
some Republican, and we pulled these things together, and we are asking 
a simple question: Will our Democratic Members take a vote with us next 
week to move to this bill to amend it, debate it, talk about it, have a 
real dialogue, and pass something that we think will work? Will this 
bill look exactly like this? It probably will look a lot like this 
because there are aspects of this that look like this in the House 
right now. Will there be additional ideas? Probably. Why don't we 
debate it and talk about it? Why don't we both open it up and discuss 
it and why don't we actually try to solve it?
  There are things such as, if there is bodily injury or death in 
police custody, that all of that information has to come in to the FBI 
so we can disseminate it and get transparency in the country. In fact, 
40 percent of the departments report that, but a lot of them do not.
  There are a lot of places that do no-knock warrants. We don't have 
information about that. We know it is happening all over the country, 
and there is some conversation about maybe we should end part of it or 
keep part of it. What would that look like? We don't have the 
information gathered. Why don't we get information on no-knock warrants 
so that we can make an informed decision and then act on it?
  Why don't we deal with some basic problems that are out there that we 
have seen several times in some of the worst moments? Something 
happens, and law enforcement is not wearing a body camera, and it is 
one opinion against another opinion. Why don't we get more body cameras 
in the streets, and why don't we make sure those body cameras are 
actually turned on all the time? There is new technology in body 
cameras so that they automatically turn on when there is a call. Law 
enforcement doesn't have to worry about, ``I forgot to turn it on.'' It 
turns itself on. Why don't we incentivize it to encourage new body 
cameras with automatic features to turn it on so we always 
have footage?

  Why don't we hold people to account if there is a false police report 
that is filed? In several cases of late, when the incident was over, a 
written police report was filed. Later, cell phone video came out that 
was completely different from the original police report. Well, that is 
a false report. Why don't we hold that bad apple to account?
  Why don't we end choke holds? Most departments already have. Why 
don't we just end it nationwide? Why don't we say to departments: If 
you want to get a Federal grant for any law enforcement purpose, you 
can't get that or you get a reduced amount or you get a big deduction 
unless your department has already banned choke holds. Basically, we 
lay the marker out there and say: We expect you to take action on this.
  Why don't we deal with the issues that are before us that people are 
asking questions about, and where we lack information, let's go get it.
  It was several years ago that Senator Peters, on the Democratic side, 
and Senator Cornyn, on the Republican side, put out a proposal to have 
a Commission study these issues and more, to gather information and 
make recommendations and to start passing legislation in a unified way. 
It passed in the Senate unanimously and died in the House. Let's bring 
that legislation back up.
  We tried to do some work in the Senate to head this off. Let's do it 
again and see what we can actually do. Where we find departments that 
are recruiting officers and the department doesn't match the ethnicity 
of their community, why don't we provide grants for that community and 
that police department to be able to have a Black recruiter recruit 
more Black officers and to help them financially in the earliest days 
through the police academy to make sure that department profile matches 
that community?
  One of the great gains of the last 30 years has been community 
policing, allowing officers to be able to get out of their car and meet 
their community and to engage so communities are policing together. Why 
don't we do that?
  I did a ride-along with an officer several years ago, and I will 
never forget it. As we were riding through his community and his 
neighborhood where he always patrolled, we drove by an elderly lady as 
sweet as she could be sitting on her front porch. As we drove by I 
asked: Does she sit out there every day?
  The police officer laughed and said: Yep, she sits out there every 
day.
  I asked: Have you ever stopped to meet her?
  He hesitated for a long time, and he said: No, I never have.
  Community policing does make a difference. When you get a chance to 
meet the people in the community, get to know them, and share the 
responsibility together for actually working to solve problems that we 
face.
  We are laying down a set of ideas that we feel will make a 
difference, not just make a message. Other people have other ideas. 
Bring them. Let's open it up.
  Let's not have heated debate. Let's have debate that solves the 
problems so that at the end of this, we know what we are solving. We 
solve it, and then we keep going.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for one, I would like to say something 
about Senator Scott. I know how hard it is to work on this, and it has 
not been an easy enterprise for Tim. He is a conservative Republican, 
who happens to be African-American, and he has decided to take the lead 
on something that is very important to the country.
  He has had experiences that I don't have. He has been stopped 
multiple times on Capitol Hill. I have never been stopped. One year, he 
was stopped seven times for lane changes. The point is that Tim 
believes--and every African-American male I have talked to in the last 
couple of weeks is told early on, if you are stopped by the cops, watch 
what you do; keep your hands on the wheel and don't go toward the dash 
because that could end badly. I don't know how that happened, but it is 
real. For us not to realize that would be a huge mistake.
  Let me be on record as saying I understand that if you are an 
African-American male, your experience with the police is different 
than mine. It is unacceptable, and it needs to stop.
  So how do you stop it? You bring about change. So what kind of change 
are we looking for? Our Democratic friends have a list of changes. I 
think it is Justice in Policing. The House is marking it up. Here is 
what I would say to my Democratic colleagues: Stop lecturing me. You 
had 8 years under President Obama to do the things in the Justice in 
Policing Act, and 90 percent of it you never brought up. I am not 
saying we are blameless, but there has not been this sense of urgency 
to deal with these problems institutionally like there is today. Why? 
Because of Mr. Floyd and a few other things all happening together.
  Tim said in 2016 we had our chance. These episodes come and they go. 
The question for the country is, Will anything ever change? The only 
way it is going to change is to find common ground. So the proposal 
Senator Scott has collected, along with other colleagues, has 
bipartisan support, but if it is not enough, I am willing to listen 
regarding doing more.
  Senator Sasse was with me yesterday. We had a 5-hour hearing, and I 
learned a lot. I learned that a police department looking like the 
community is important, Senator Lankford, but, more importantly, is 
that you live where you police.
  I asked a gentleman from New Jersey: What is more important, race or 
community attachment? He said: Community attachment. You are less 
likely to hurt somebody in a community you feel a part of.
  Now, having said that, we need more African-American police 
personnel. We need more women. Apparently, women do their jobs a lot 
better than men. I haven't heard one person come forward and say: I had 
a bad experience with a

[[Page S3044]]

policewoman. More women would be helpful. But the main thing is, we 
need people from the community being in charge of policing that 
community with a system that is more accountable.
  So Cory Booker and I have worked together on a lot of things--great 
guy. Tim and Cory are good friends, and I admire the heck out of Tim 
Scott. I am not going to take any more time. He is one of the most 
decent people I have ever met, and we are lucky to have him in South 
Carolina and the country is lucky.
  The bottom line, as Cory said, there are two issues that have to be 
addressed or everything else doesn't matter--242 and qualified 
immunity. I wrote them down. For those who are not conversant in 242 or 
qualified immunity, there is nothing wrong with you. This is a very 
archaic area of the law. Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine that 
has developed over time that relates to the 1983 civil rights statute 
that allows people to sue governmental entities for abuse of force, for 
excessive force.
  There is nothing in the statute about an objective standard where the 
reasonably prudent police officer in the same circumstances acted 
accordingly. There is nothing about good faith.
  Justice Thomas is a pretty conservative guy. He wanted to revisit 
qualified immunity. I don't know how he would substantively come out on 
the issue, but in his dissent denying certiorari of the concept, he 
explains how this judicial concept has exploded beyond every attachment 
of common law analysis. This is Clarence Thomas. If you presented to me 
qualified immunity in its current form as a legislative proposal, I 
would vote hell, no. Police officers need not worry about losing their 
house or being sued if they act in good faith in performing duties that 
are hard on any good day, but when police departments time and again 
fail to do the things necessary to instill good policing, I think they 
should be subject and accountable like any other business. There is 
common ground here.
  Not one Democrat has suggested to me to make the individual officer 
civilly liable under 242, but I had Democrats suggest to me that the 
standard has become almost absolute immunity.
  The Presiding Officer has run all kinds of businesses. Being in the 
policing business is not your normal business. There needs to be a 
filter when it comes to lawsuits. It can't be about outcome. But it is 
now time, in my view, to look at the development of the qualified 
immunity doctrine as it relates to the 1983 underlying statute and see 
if we could make it better, not gut it.
  To my Democratic friends, if you want to eliminate qualified 
immunity, it will be a very short conversation. If you want to reform 
it so that municipalities and agencies and organizations running police 
departments will have some protection but not absolute immunity, let's 
talk. Maybe we can get there if it is that important. Let's at least 
try. That is what the legislative process is all about.
  Section 242 allows the Federal Government to bring charges against an 
individual for denying another American their constitutional rights. 
This is about policing but not exclusive to policing.
  The Presiding Officer is from Georgia. I am from South Carolina. 
There was a time in the South where juries would nullify all the 
evidence in front of them because the victim was a Black man and the 
perpetrator was White. A mountain of evidence could be presented, and 
there would be an acquittal in like 15 minutes. So we came up with a 
concept to allow the Federal Government to intervene in cases like that 
and hold somebody liable for violating the constitutional rights of 
another American under law Federal law.
  The standard to prosecute is ``willful.'' You have to prove that the 
police officer willfully understood the constitutional right and 
violated it. My friends on the other side want to lower the standard to 
``reckless.'' What I would say is, this is not 1965. The police officer 
involved in Mr. Floyd's death is going to be prosecuted. So while it is 
important to talk about section 242, most States where these events 
have occurred have acted responsibly. We don't need the Federal 
Government sitting in judgment of every cop in the country. What we do 
need is a system of accountability. I will talk to you about 242, but I 
think that is not the issue.
  What is the issue? It is that police departments that are immune from 
liability when they engage in abusive conduct over and over are 
unlikely to change until that changes. You can throw all the money you 
want to at training and improving best practices, and they will gladly 
accept your money. If they don't do it right, they don't get the money. 
Add one thing to the mix. By the way, if you shoot a dog and you wind 
up killing a kid--your police officer shouldn't have shot the dog 
anyway in a fashion to kill the kid who was right by the dog--you are 
going to wind up having your ass in court. That will change things.
  I have been a lawyer, and I know how people feel about this. If you 
are exposed, in terms of your conduct being subject to a review by a 
court and a jury, you are all of a sudden going to think differently.
  Don't misconstrue what I am saying. I am not for abolishing qualified 
immunity; I am for revisiting the concept because I think it has grown 
too much from judicially created fiat. It is time for the legislative 
body--for us to speak as to what we would like to have happen to the 
statute that we create that now has a component to it that was never 
envisioned when it was originally passed. That is what Clarence Thomas 
is telling us as a nation we need to do.
  To my friends on the other side, if it is about qualified immunity, 
let's talk. If it is about 242, let's talk. If it is about keeping this 
issue alive, don't waste my time. We have all had plenty of time around 
here to do better. Now we have a chance to actually do some good. The 
only way we are going to do some good is talk. The only way you get a 
law passed is to engage in debate. If you don't want to debate the 
topic, if you don't want to have amendments about the topic, that tells 
me all I need to know about where you are coming from.
  I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I want to start by saying thank you to my 
friend from South Carolina--Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee spoke, but I mean my desk mate, Senator Scott from South 
Carolina--not only for his leadership and hard work and the hard work 
of Jennifer and the rest of that their team. Over the course of the 
last 2 weeks, they have been working around the clock to lead our six-
person working group on this project.
  I want to thank Tim, not just for his leadership, but for his speech 
30 minutes ago and for his spirit. That speech is a speech that needs 
to be watched by every American.
  I sincerely hope that the 100 people in this room will come together 
and try to get an outcome and not just maintain a political issue as 
has happened so often around here. I think if we had the process that 
was the custom in the Senate until a few decades ago of committees 
happening in the morning and the Senate convening for most of the 
afternoon--if this room were actually full when Tim Scott delivered his 
speech, it would be real tough for people to be talking about not 
voting on the motion to proceed next week and getting on this piece of 
legislation where we could then debate it and argue about it and fight 
about technical pieces here and there and figure out how we make it 
better. We would be on a piece of legislation, and we would be trying 
to get an outcome. I sincerely hope that is true. I sincerely hope 
people listen to Tim Scott's speech from today.
  George Floyd's murder, obviously, shocked the nation. It shocked us 
in two ways. It shocked us, on the one hand, because we saw a man being 
murdered for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, and we saw three other police 
officers stand by while he was murdered. But it also shocked us because 
it reminded us, yet again, that America's struggle for equal justice 
under the law is far, far from over.
  The American creed is a beautiful thing. The American creed 
celebrates the dignity, the inherent self-worth, the fact that we 
believe, as so many of our Founders believed, that people were created 
Imago Dei--created in the image of God as image bearers. That

[[Page S3045]]

dignity is male and female, Black and White. Every man, woman, and 
child in this country is created with inherent dignity. They are 
beautiful, and that creed is beautiful. That proposition that all men 
are created equal should inspire every generation of Americans. We 
aren't doing a very good job right now of passing on the glories of 
that creed to the next generation. It is a beautiful and profound 
creed, but throughout our history, our failures to live up to that 
creed have been ugly over and over again.
  George Floyd's murder was horrific for that man and for his family 
and for everyone in his communities--Minneapolis, Houston, and other 
places where that man had made a mark. But it was also horrific because 
it was yet another reminder of all the ways that we fail to live up to 
our creed. The creed is beautiful, and our execution has so often been 
ugly.
  When communities of color have lost faith in law enforcement, we 
aren't living up to that creed. When an American tells you that he 
fears being pulled over for driving while Black, we need a lot more 
conversations in a lot more communities so people know this experience.
  Again, Senator Scott is one of my closest friends in this body. The 
experiences he has had with law enforcement in South Carolina are 
different from the ones I have had with law enforcement in Nebraska. 
The experiences he has on Capitol Hill with law enforcement have been 
different from the experiences I have had on Capitol Hill. No one 
should be wearing skin pigment or racial heritage as something that 
changes our experience of law enforcement, yet it is regularly the 
case. That is ugly. The creed is beautiful.
  Our attempts to become and to be a more perfect Union and to live up 
to the glories of that creed are an important part of our shared 
project together. At the risk of sounding too theological, east of 
Eden, sin is always ugly, and that includes America's original sin. 
That tells us that we have work to do together.

  We have work to do as 330 million Americans, but we have work to do 
as 100 Senators. What that should mean is that next week we are going 
to be in this body trying to live up to that creed and to do more.
  There is a lot of technical stuff inside this bill. As Senator Scott 
said, 70 percent of what is in this bill is pretty darn 
noncontroversial, largely because it is lifted and summarizing many 
pieces that are also in the House of Representatives' Democrat bill.
  The JUSTICE Act puts forward a number of commonsense reforms that 
seek to force more accountability. This has been stated on the floor 
many times today, but I want to say it again: When police use lethal 
force, there is a voluntary opportunity today for them to report that 
to the FBI. We want to make that mandatory. We want all that data to be 
captured and to be passed along so there is a lot more transparency on 
all lethal uses of force.
  The commonsense reforms include increasing police resources. There is 
a lot of training that needs to be done better across this country. 
There are a lot of practices in local law enforcement--when you look at 
the 15,000, 16,000, whatever the current number is of local entities 
that have the capability and capacity to have law enforcement 
authorities, those policing powers, there is a lot of diversity in 
their practices. Some of those practices are improving but are still 
bad. Senator Scott and our legislation want to try to use the Federal 
grant-making powers to squeeze out some of those bad practices.
  We want to see trust rebuilt between this Nation's communities and 
the police. We reject the false binary that you have to make a choice 
between being on the side of communities of color or being on the side 
of law enforcement. No, we don't want that to be the choice. We want 
the choice to be law enforcement to get better and communities of color 
to have more trust. We want to see more collaboration. We want to see 
more progress. Frankly, that is what the vast majority of individual 
police and that is what the vast majority of police departments want.
  The overwhelming majority of Americans--Republican and Democrat, 
women and men, Black and White--the overwhelming majority of Americans 
want us to build more trust. We can do that in this body next week.
  We want to strive toward equal protection under the law. That starts 
with trying to narrow the differences and figuring out what we can do 
to move forward together. That is what this bill does. This bill is an 
architectural frame to do a bunch of good things that are pretty darn 
noncontroversial and to do a bunch of things that we can build on in a 
debate and amendment process.
  We should be passing something 100 to 0. There will be debate. There 
will amendment votes underneath that will be contentious, but we should 
ultimately be getting onto a piece of legislation to start the process 
100 to 0, and at the back end we should be passing something 100 to 0 
even though, in the middle, there should be a bunch of amendments where 
people argue about the best way that we do the particulars.
  There is no reason we shouldn't be moving forward. We can get this 
done. We can take another step to make America's beautiful creed a 
reality for every single one of God's children. That is what we should 
do, and we should do it without delay.
  I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from West Virginia
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with my fellow 
Senator from Nebraska and the other Members of the small team that was 
really blessed to be asked to join Senator Scott as he led us to where 
we are today, which is introducing the JUSTICE Act.
  I am thinking about where the great talents lie in the Senate. One of 
the things we all know all of us do well is talk. We know how to talk. 
Sometimes we talk too much. Senator Scott doesn't talk that much. He 
even said that about himself. I can tell you the skill that he has that 
a lot of us need more of. Always, when I am asked by school children 
``What is the best skill to have?'' I say it is the ability to listen. 
He has listened for years and years. He has not just lived this; he has 
listened. He said, just yesterday, he was with the family of one of the 
victims, and it was a very moving day for him.
  I am here today to rise with my colleagues in support of the JUSTICE 
Act. I join the overwhelming majority of Americans and West Virginians 
who, in sadness and frustration and sorrow, witnessed the horrifying 
video of the murder of George Floyd by the Minneapolis Police 
Department. It was absolutely unacceptable.
  The vast majority of our law enforcement officers here and around the 
country are just like us. They want to have a great and peaceful 
nation. They want to have great and peaceful communities. They want 
their families to feel safe in their homes and out in the streets of 
their communities just as we do. A lot of them take their oath 
seriously and do their best to protect our communities.
  It is not enough to say that the death of George Floyd was a 
terrible, isolated tragedy because we know many of these have preceded 
this date. I have said it is almost like popping a balloon and 
revealing all of this unrest underneath, all the questions and sorrow 
that have been festering.
  Here we are today. I think the great majority of us want to put all 
this energy and frustration into action. We want to have something 
substantive so we can tell the American people: We listened. We heard. 
We feel this. And we want to find solutions.
  We have to recognize that every time force is used inappropriately by 
law enforcement, our justice system has eroded. We have to understand 
our history, wherein Black Americans have been too frequently denied 
their basic rights. It is our job to make sure that Americans, 
regardless of race, can feel that law enforcement is there to protect 
them and their families and that they trust that. The trust factor is 
where the erosion has been most remarkably in view of all of us--the 
lack of trust.
  It is our job to hear these voices and to act. In my opinion, it 
doesn't mean defunding the police; it means improving the police and 
improving equal protections so that everybody has basic protections and 
we are all equal in the eyes of justice and the law.
  We have seen the looting. We have seen officers who have lost their 
lives.

[[Page S3046]]

We have seen an underbelly to our country that has been difficult to 
watch. Yet what we have seen, too, is an outcry of the American 
citizens peacefully protesting what they see as inequities in their 
lives. When I look in the crowd--I was right there in Washington last 
week when a crowd of about 150 protesters walked by me very peacefully 
with signs and chanting in solidarity. Most of the people in that group 
were probably under 30 years old. There were a lot of Black faces, a 
lot of White faces, men and women, young people who felt that lack of 
trust. We look at how people have exercised their First Amendment 
rights. It is a beautiful thing to see. Unfortunately, it has been 
eroded by some of the destructive things that have come along with it, 
but at the base of it, we are hearing the same things in our States 
every day.
  While we want to know that our Declaration of Independence has lived 
up to--and that the 14th amendment, which guarantees that no 
government, including State and local governments, can deny basic 
constitutional rights, we haven't quite lived up to all of that.
  A century passed before we passed major civil rights legislation in 
1964. One of the sources of great pride for me is that my father was 
one of the leading Republicans in the House of Representatives 
representing West Virginia in 1964 who helped make sure that passed. In 
my office, I actually have a pen that was used in signing that and a 
picture of my dad at the White House when it was signed.
  Our job is not done. When I hear the voices of mothers who say that 
they are fearful their son might not survive a simple traffic stop or 
they must have certain behaviors--as Senator Sasse said, it is so 
different from what he learned growing up as a young man about how to 
interact with police officers in that situation. We can't have those 
anguished cries and that double system anymore. That is what this bill 
is about.
  I am proud to be with Senator Scott introducing the JUSTICE Act. It 
has been interesting to watch him and all of us listen to the different 
segments of our society who have talked to us--friends, neighbors, 
police, members of communities of color, our religious communities, our 
news commentators. I did six interviews today on the TV about this. 
Every single one of them asked me one fundamental question, and I wish 
some of my friends on the other side of the aisle would be here. They 
asked: You don't have a very good history in this body of having 
Republicans and Democrats joining together to get something done. How 
do you think you can do this now? I said: Well, today we did. We did 
the Great American Outdoors Act. Several months ago we did the CARES 
Act. We can do it. Where there is a will, we can do it.

  If we don't do it, we are failing so many people. We are failing 
ourselves. We are failing our country, our communities, failing our law 
enforcement communities. I would say that we need to begin this job of 
a difficult conversation and make sure that we get this bill onto the 
Senate floor and debate it in front of the general public.
  When we start debating things on the Senate floor in front of the 
general public, do you know what happens? The same thing that happened 
during the impeachment trial. I know all of us were getting all kinds 
of input from people all around. People are watching it. They are 
seeing what is actually going on. That is what we need. If we want to 
have discussions on qualified immunity, if we want to ban choke holds, 
which I want to do and our bill does, essentially, but if you want 
something more definitively, yes, I am all for that. Let's have the 
discussion and talk about it in front of the American people.
  I believe that law enforcement has a lot of great people who work in 
and around law enforcement. They need the equipment. They need the 
cameras. They need to have the realtime evidence--the realtime evidence 
of wrongdoing and evidence of doing it right. It is a protective 
device. Everybody should have the availability of that in law 
enforcement.
  We also require that law enforcement agencies retain disciplinary 
records on officers and make sure that they check an officer's record 
from other agencies before making a hiring decision. I kind of thought 
that was going on anyway. I sort of did. We need to make sure and make 
clear that is what we absolutely want to do.
  The bill incentivizes State and local police agencies to ban choke 
holds. As I mentioned earlier, I am for even more definitive language 
on that.
  It also provides training in all kinds of areas--deescalation or if 
an officer is in a situation where another officer is using 
overwhelming force improperly, that officer is trained on how to 
interdict that situation. We saw that happen in Minneapolis. Sadly, the 
officers did not, but maybe they didn't know how to do it, when to do 
it, what form it should take. Let's explore that.
  To keep our communities safe, we need our police officers. We need 
trust in our law enforcement. There should be no conflict between a 
pro-civil rights bill and a pro-law enforcement bill. They should be 
able to be joined together. This supports our police officers while 
bringing about positive change that will guarantee equal protection to 
all of our citizens. The police reform bill will make a real difference 
in advancing our constitutional ideals and in making our communities 
safer.
  I am proud to stand with Senator Scott, but I want to stand with the 
entire body to talk about the ways to make this bill even better, to 
take the 70 percent of this bill that we have shared ideals on and 
shared ideas and put those into action and to not dither here, to not 
score political points, and to say to the American people: These are 
tough decisions, and we are going to make them. We are going to have 
this where you can see it, right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  So thank you very much. I am proud to be with my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.