[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 24, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3161-S3162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE JUSTICE ACT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, today was supposed 
to bring progress for an issue that is weighing heavily on the minds of 
Americans. In the wake of the killings of Breonna Taylor and George 
Floyd, following weeks of passionate protests from coast to coast, the 
Senate was supposed to officially take up police reform on the floor 
today. Instead, our Democratic colleagues are poised to turn this 
routine step into a partisan impasse.
  Frankly, to most Americans, the situation would sound like a satire 
of what goes on in the Senate: a heated argument over whether to invoke 
cloture on a motion to proceed to a proposal--a heated argument over 
whether to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to a proposal. We are 
literally arguing about whether to stop arguing about whether to start 
arguing about something else.
  I can stand here for an hour and extol the virtues of Senator Tim 
Scott's JUSTICE Act. His legislation has already earned 48 cosponsors 
because it is a straightforward plan based on facts, based on data, and 
based on lived experience. It focuses on improving accountability and 
restoring trust. It addresses key issues like choke holds and no-knock 
warrants. It expands reporting, transparency in hiring, and training 
for deescalation.
  I am proud to stand with this legislation, but the reality is that 
nobody thought the first offer from the Republican side was going to be 
the final product that traveled out of the Senate. What is supposed to 
happen in this

[[Page S3162]]

body is that we vote or agree to get onto a bill, and then we discuss, 
debate, and amend it until at least 60 Senators are satisfied, or it 
goes nowhere. It goes nowhere at the end until 60 Senators are 
satisfied.
  So what are they giving up? Nothing. They don't want an outcome. The 
vote we will take in a few hours is just the first step. We aren't 
passing a bill. We aren't making policy decisions. It is just a 
procedural vote to say that police reform is the subject the Senate 
will tackle next. That is all it says--that police reform is the 
subject the Senate will tackle next.
  Alas, our Democratic colleagues have suddenly begun to signal they 
are not willing to even begin the discussion on police reform. They are 
threatening to block the subject from even reaching the Senate floor.
  Yesterday, in a letter to me and on the floor, the Democratic leader 
and the junior Senators from New Jersey and California put forward an 
argument that was almost nonsensical. First, they explained a number of 
policy differences they have with Senator Scott's proposal. No problem 
there. The Senate has a handy tool for settling such differences; it is 
called legislating. We take up bills. We debate them. We consider 
amendments from both sides. And only if and when 60 Senators are 
satisfied can we even vote on passage.
  But this time, Senate Democrats say the legislative process should 
not happen. This time, the Democratic leader is saying he will not let 
the Senate take up the subject of police reform at all--at all--unless 
I pre-negotiate with him in private and rewrite our starting point 
until he is satisfied.
  This last-minute ultimatum is particularly ironic given the weeks of 
rhetoric from leading Democrats about how very urgent--how very 
urgent--it was that Congress address police reform and racial justice. 
For weeks, the Democratic leader has blustered that the Senate simply 
had to address this issue before July 4. Well, that is what the vote 
this morning is about.
  Last week, Speaker Pelosi said: ``I hope there's a compromise to be 
reached in the Congress. . . .'' because ``How many more people have to 
die from police brutality?'' So, as recently as last week, leading 
Democrats called it a life-or-death issue for the Senate to take up the 
subject this month. Well, here we are. Here we are. We are ready to 
address it. But now, in the last 48 hours, this bizarre, new ultimatum. 
Now they don't want to take up the issue. They don't want to debate. 
They don't want amendments. They will filibuster police reform from 
even reaching the floor of the Senate unless the majority lets the 
minority rewrite the bill behind closed doors in advance. Let me say 
that again. They will filibuster police reform from even reaching the 
floor unless the majority lets the minority rewrite the bill behind 
closed doors in advance.
  Yesterday, the Speaker of the House told CBS News that because Senate 
Republicans do support Senator Tim Scott's reform bill, we are all--
listen to this jaw-dropping comment--``trying to get away with murder . 
. . the murder of George Floyd.'' That is the Speaker of the House 
accusing Senate Republicans of trying to get away with murder.
  Are you beginning to see how this game works? Two weeks ago, it was 
implied the Senate would have blood on our hands if we didn't take up 
police reform. Now Democrats say Senator Scott and 48 other Senators 
have blood on our hands because we are trying to take up police reform.
  What fascinating times we live in. Armies of elites and Twitter mobs 
stand ready to pounce on any speech they deem problematic. Yet unhinged 
comments like these get a complete free pass--a complete free pass.
  When our country needs unity, they are trying to keep us apart. When 
our Nation needs bipartisan solutions, they are staging partisan 
theater. This is political nonsense elevated to an art form.
  In a body that has amendments and substitute amendments, it is 
nonsense to say a police reform bill cannot be the starting point for a 
police reform bill. It is nonsense for Democrats to say that, because 
they want to change Senator Scott's bill, they are going to block the 
Senate from taking it up and amending it. If they are confident in 
their positions, they should embrace the amendment process. If they 
aren't confident their views will persuade others, that just 
underscores why they don't get to insert these views in advance--in 
advance--behind closed doors.
  No final legislation can pass without 60 votes. If Democrats do not 
like the final product, it will not pass. The only way there is any 
downside for Democrats to come to the table is that they would rather 
preserve this urgent subject as a live campaign issue than pass a 
bipartisan answer.
  The majority has done everything we can to proceed to this issue in 
good faith. I have fast-tracked this issue to the floor this month, as 
our Democratic colleagues said they wanted until 48 hours ago. I have 
expressed my support for a robust amendment process, as our Democratic 
colleagues said they wanted until 48 hours ago.
  So make no mistake about it: Senate Republicans are ready to make a 
law. We are ready to discuss and amend our way to a bipartisan product, 
pass it, and take it to conference with the House. The American people 
deserve an outcome, and we cannot get an outcome if Democrats will not 
even let us begin--not even let us begin.
  I hope our colleagues reconsider and let the Senate consider police 
reform later today. If they do not, the next time another appalling 
incident makes our Nation sick to its stomach with grief and anger yet 
again, Senate Democrats can explain to the Nation why they made sure 
the Senate did nothing

                          ____________________