Democratic senators decried a proposed amendment on an anti-lynching bill put forward by Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul in a raw, emotional exchange on Thursday.
Paul has been holding up bipartisan legislation to make lynching a federal crime, arguing that the bill was too broad. Paul’s holdup comes amid the backdrop of protests about racial injustice that erupted over the death of George Floyd, a black man from Minneapolis who died in police custody.
Floyd was memorialized on Thursday as lawmakers debated Paul’s amendment, who said the legislation “would apply the criminal penalties for lynching only and not for other crimes.”
Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California, both of whom are black, strongly disagreed with Rand’s amendment.
“Senator Paul is now trying to weaken a bill that was already passed — there’s no reason for this,” Harris said. “There’s no reason for this.”
Booker also discussed the timeliness of the day and talked about his own experiences visiting historical landmarks of black Americans.
“It would speak volumes for the racial pain and the hurt of generations,” Booker said. “I do not need my colleague, the senator from Kentucky, to tell me about one lynching in this country. I’ve stood in the museum in Montgomery, Alabama, and watched African American families weeping at the stories of pregnant women lynched in this country and their babies ripped out of them while this body did nothing.”
Booker called Paul his friend but said that he disagreed with his actions and that he felt extremely “raw” in the moment.
A Senate anti-lynching measure was previously pushed by Booker and Harris, as well as Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina.
The Justice for Victims of Lynching Act passed the Senate in June 2018, but like all remaining bills, died at the conclusion of the last Congress.
The House did not immediately take up the anti-lynching bill for more than a year after Democrats took power.
Paul argued that he felt contrary to his colleagues, believing the legislation was too weak.
“I seek to amend this legislation not because I take lynching lightly but because I take it seriously, and this legislation does not,” Paul said. “This bill would cheapen the meaning of lynching by defining it so broadly as to include a minor bruise or abrasion. Our nation’s history of racial terrorism demands more seriousness from us than that.”
