Republican side, had a very open conversation with the press about the fact that voting for this motion to proceed is voting for an open process. He said, and i agree, that this process must be open. Ive asked that we have amendments and, speaker, the leader said yes. So to my friends on the other side who believe somehow, some way this process does not include an actual open process where you have a chance over several days in the sight of the public to talk about and offer your amendments, that is wrong. If you want to want a process where you have an opportunity to persuade those in this body and the American People about the value of your amendments, this motion to proceed is a motion you should vote for. But more important than persuading the American People that this is a motion to proceed that you should vote for if you really want to get into Police Reform, we need a vehicle to get there, the justice act is that vehicle. Speaker pelosi, herself, and im not often quoting Speaker Pelosi or even paraphrasing Speaker Pelosi about something she and i might agree here, that it would be important for us to have a conference that requires this body to pass legislation that goes to a conference with the house. The only way we pass legislation in this body is is for there to be a Bipartisan Coalition of republicans and democrats working together because a majority in the senate is not 51 out of 100. From a legislative purpose, the majority of the senate is 60 votes. And that means we require 60 votes for us to even start the process of saying to little boys and girls in communities of color around this country, we see you. We hear you. I grew up in some impoverished communities in a singleparent household, mired in poverty. I understand how it feels to leave your home and get in a car and be afraid of getting stopped. I get that. Ive spoken about that too many times already. But what i will say is that this body has a chance to say to those, we see you, we hear your concerns. And a motion to proceed is simply a procedural motion that simply says lets debate the underlying bill. Lets have a conversation in front of all of the American People about the importance of doing Police Reform the right way. If you dont trust the republicans or if you dont trust democrats, you get to watch the process play out right here within the worlds greatest deliberative body. Right here, you can watch it play out live on cspan and come to your own conclusions about the seriousness of this issue. But if we miss that golden opportunity, if we miss the opportunity to debate the underlying issues, all you wind up with is talking points and campaigns. You see, some believe that one side would rather campaign on Police Reform than solve police issues. I believe that both sides of the aisle have a vast majority of people who are willing to come to the table to have a serious debate on the underlying issues that have brought combustion into this chamber and solve it, not have it explode because those of us on this sacred ground, were all here now. All of us do not have to tackle the issues like i did when i was 16 and 17 and 18 and 25 and 26 and 30. We have the ability to say to that young man and to that young lady, we dont just see you, we didnt just hear you. We acted on it. And by doing so, i believe, madam president , that we can make a difference in the lives of americans that we actually save. Theres been some criticism. Ive sat in my office and listened to some of the criticisms about our justice act from my friends on the other side. And one of the criticisms was that the justice act does not require new reporting measures on use of force. What . I sat in my office speechless because, madam president , our legislation absolutely, positively, unequivocally requires more information. And the house bill has a 10 penalty. Our legislation has a 20 penalty, or twice the penalty. I heard that our legislation does not ban noknock warrants, and this is critically important because in louisville, kentucky, the conversation on noknock warrants took a drastic turn in the wrong direction that led to the killing of breonna taylor. My friends were talking about how the house bill, their bill, bans, bans noknock warrants in drug cases. But when you open the legislation and read the pages, what it does is it bans noknock warrants for federal agents. Louisville, kentucky, those were not federal agents. So the complaint and the concerns about what actually helps situations in places like louisville, kentucky, isnt answered by the house bill. This is a chance for these two bodies and ill be honest, our legislation, we want to get the data around noknock warrants so that we can actually direct the resources and the decisions in the right way. So, yes, you can say ours take a more deliberative process. Well, lets debate that. Lets come to an agreement. Next, youve heard and i heard that the justice act would not end choke holds, and their legislation actually bans choke holds. Well, lets take a closer look, madam president. Thats false. With strict penalties facing local police departments, they go after choke holds by holding off on grant dollars for a local agencies and state agencies. Our legislation does the exact same thing. We go after local departments and state agencies by withdrawing some grant dollars. What theirs says about the ban on choke holds only applies to federal agents. Thats really important. Why is that important . Well because if youre watching at home, you hear a ban on choke holds, but you dont necessarily have the correlation, the information to reach the conclusion that theyre only talking about federal agents. Why is that important . Because eric garner was not an incident with a federal agent. It was not. So the conversation around banning choke holds for federal agents is let me say it differently. For 700,000 of the 800,000 Law Enforcement officers, the ban would not apply. Thats really Important Information to share with the American People. Why is this so, why is this so . Its called the constitution. Its a pesky little thing sometimes, but its a fact. The constitution does not allow for the federal government to dictate to local Law Enforcement what they can and cannot do, so they use the inducement of resources on the federal level. I told my friends earlier today, i talked to ten democrat senators today. I told them all the same. Lets get on the floor. Take money away as a penalties for federal democratic. We an the same. Heres what may be just as important as the distinctions that i hope i cleared up on the differences that are not necessarily the biggest differences on the important issues of what they said this morning was not what we were doing. I think selling something is important, but you can sell by manipulating or you can sell by motivating. I the want to be clear that our legislation says what it says, not what others say it doesnt say. So what does why am i so passionate about this issue beyond my 18 stops as a person of color, beyond my issues near the senate, beyond the fact that im the one that grew up in poverty in a singleparent household, beyond that point . In my legislation and the Republican Senate legislation and the house legislation, there is so much Common Ground of and to lose this moment to lose this moment for the kids and the young adults watching this process would be terrible. Let me give you a couple of examples of what i mean of things we have in common. Both sides agree on more deescalation training and the duty to intervene training. Both sides agree on ending choke holds. Both sides agree on passing the antilynching legislation. Oh, by the way, that myself and senator grassley, the chairman then of the Judiciary Committee worked with senator harris and senator booker to get it passed not once in this chamber, but twice. It stalled in the house before, before it stalled over here. We got it done twice, another area of agreement. Both sides agree on the importance of more minority hiring in Law Enforcement. Both sides agree that more bodyworn cameras are a good thing. We actually go further and have penalties for not having your body cameras on. But both sides agree. Both sides agree on the creation of a National CriminalJustice Commission which, by the way, was the numberone recommendation of president obamas 21st Century Policing task force. So why . Why cant both sides agree on a motion to proceed . If theres that much commonality in the underlying legislation, if were all watching the same pictures that we have all found disgusting and unbelievable, why cant we agree to tackle the issues in a substantive way here on the floor of the worlds greatest deliberative body . Because thats what were supposed to do here. We debate the issues. I want the nation to see. I want the public to see. I want the world to see. I want all of america to see us debating this issue. Mr. Wyden madam president. The presiding officer the senator from oregon. Mr. Wyden madam president , across the country there has been a National Outcry for justice, for real changes in law to address Police Brutality and reflect the undeniable truth that black lives matter. This week should be our opportunity in the United States senate to come together, republicans and democrats, to begin