[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 17, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3049-S3050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Justice in Policing Act

  Ms. SMITH. Madam President, it has been a little bit over 3 weeks 
since my constituent, George Floyd, was murdered by the Minneapolis 
police, and for a little over 3 weeks, millions of people have marched 
on the streets, raising their voices in grief and anguish to protest 
the police brutality and systemic racism that killed George Floyd, 
Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Philando Castile, Jamar Clark, and so 
many others. But the killing hasn't stopped.
  Just last Friday, police in Atlanta killed Rayshard Brooks, shooting 
him twice in the back. Just moments ago, it was announced that this 
officer will be charged.
  The killing will not stop until we take action. The Senate needs to 
act now to take up and pass the Justice in Policing Act.
  I joined my colleagues, Senators Booker and Harris, in introducing 
this bill last week. I am grateful for their strong leadership toward 
creating a more fair and equitable justice system.
  The scale of the injustice can feel overwhelming, and the path can 
seem very long, but passing the Justice in Policing Act would provide 
concrete steps on that path. It is a necessary step toward stopping the 
killing and advancing our work to make transformative changes that we 
need to fulfill the promise of freedom and equality in America.
  The Justice in Policing Act would make some of the changes that we 
urgently need to stop the scourge of police violence against 
communities of color. This legislation would prohibit some of the most 
dangerous police practices. It would strictly limit the use of force, 
and it would begin holding law enforcement accountable in a system that 
was designed to shield them from accountability.
  First, the bill prohibits the most dangerous police practices. It 
would ban the use of choke holds like the ones the police used to kill 
George Floyd and

[[Page S3050]]

Eric Garner. It would also ban no-knock warrants like the one the 
police used when they killed Breonna Taylor in her own bed.
  Choke holds pose an unacceptable risk, and that risk is not borne 
equally. Black men are nearly three times more likely to be killed by 
police use of force than White men.
  The use of no-knock warrants also disproportionately harms 
communities of color. The practice was popularized in the 1990s as a 
tool in the war on drugs so that officers pursuing drug charges could 
enter a person's home unannounced, with guns drawn, inherently and 
unnecessarily endangering their lives.
  Communities and activists have been warning us about the inherent 
danger and injustice of choke holds and no-knock warrants for decades. 
It is long past time to end the debate and to ban these practices 
nationally, but experience has shown us that it is not enough to ban 
egregious practices. When Los Angeles banned choke holds in 1982, 
officers took up batons to beat and subdue civilians.
  In 1991, the officers who beat Rodney King actually argued that their 
actions were necessary because they weren't permitted to use a choke 
hold, and those officers were never held fully accountable.
  American policing resists reform and accountability, so it is not 
enough for us to ban the most dangerous practices; we need to set a 
national standard for police use of force. That is what the Justice in 
Policing Act does.
  Today, the current standard in law asks only if an officer's use of 
force was reasonable, and this makes it nearly impossible to hold 
officers accountable because the system--a system designed to protect 
officers, not Black and Brown bodies--has built up decades of precedent 
excusing officers from the harm that they cause. So if we are serious 
when we say that Black lives matter, if we are serious about our 
commitment to equal justice, we need to hold police officers to a 
higher standard of care in their use of force. That is why the Justice 
in Policing Act would set a national use of force standard that asks 
whether the force was necessary and hold officers accountable for 
exhausting other options before resorting to violence.
  The Justice in Policing Act would eliminate qualified immunity for 
law enforcement officers and reset the impossibly high standard for 
convicting law enforcement officers of a crime. Today, our system 
effectively puts cops above the law by insulating them from civil and 
criminal liability when they violate the rights of those who they are 
sworn to serve. No one should be shielded from accountability for their 
actions in a free society.
  When we change these rules, we will finally be able to provide long 
denied justice for victims of police brutality, their families, and 
their communities. But we will also be able to prevent such brutality 
in the first place.
  When law enforcement officers believe that they will never face 
consequences for crossing the line, they will continue to ignore that 
line. The Justice in Policing Act will begin to make this change
  The House is poised to pass the Justice in Policing Act next week, 
and I urge this Senate to take it up. Let's debate it, and let's pass 
it.
  We are at a crossroad, and we cannot fail to act. Four hundred years 
of structural racism cannot be erased by a single piece of legislation 
or with a single generation of legislators, but passing this bill is a 
crucial step toward ending the killing and the violence against 
communities of color. It is a necessary step on the path toward racial 
justice.
  The path toward justice leads us toward transformative changes to 
redefining the role of policing in America. Reimagining policing means 
recognizing that not every social ill and every emergency is answered 
by calling in the armed officers. We have other better and more 
effective tools when dealing with the hurt of mental illness, of 
substance abuse, of homelessness, of economic insecurity. Reimagining 
policing means asking whether outfitting officers with military-grade 
weapons and equipment makes it safer--or does it escalate conflict and 
violence and encourage officers to see the communities they serve as 
hostile enemies?
  Reimagining policing means addressing the overpolicing of communities 
of color. It means that we ask questions about whether anyone is really 
safer when we surveil neighborhoods, searching for possible violations. 
This only feeds the system of mass incarceration.
  Reimagining policing means that we reassess our criminal code, our 
justice system, and our sentencing laws that irrevocably disrupt lives 
and communities for minor offenses with minimal impacts on public 
safety.
  Above all, reimagining policing means recognizing that our current 
system is not inevitable; it is the result of thousands and thousands 
of policy choices made over, literally, hundreds of years, designed to 
control and punish Black and Brown and indigenous communities--choices 
that compound injustice and unequal opportunity.
  As we imagine a new way forward, we need to face some uncomfortable 
truths about the history of policing in our country. We can, and we 
must, make different choices this time. We know better, and we have to 
do better.
  I want to close by thanking the community leaders and young activists 
who are showing us the path forward. This path requires us to be 
courageous. It requires us to be humble. It requires us to be 
uncomfortable. It requires us to listen. But it is a path rooted in 
love and in trust and in hope.
  I am committed to walking this path with my constituents, and I am 
hopeful that my colleagues and my fellow American citizens will join 
me.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee