Paul clashes with Booker, Harris over anti-lynching bill

Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulPoll: 58 percent say Fauci should not resign Fauci says he puts 'very little weight in the craziness of condemning me' Senate confirms Biden pick for No. 2 role at Interior MORE (R-Ky.) clashed with Sens. Cory BookerCory BookerThousands sent to emergency rooms every year due to violent police encounters: investigation Democrats fear they are running out of time on Biden agenda Harris casts tiebreaking vote to confirm OPM nominee MORE (D-N.J.) and Kamala HarrisKamala HarrisRick Scott blocks Senate vote on top cyber nominee until Harris visits border Head of Border Patrol resigning from post Migrant children face alarming conditions in US shelter: BBC investigation MORE (D-Calf.) on Thursday, deepening the stalemate on anti-lynching legislation. 

Paul tried twice to amend House-passed legislation that would make lynching a federal hate crime, saying that as currently written it would designate "any bodily injury including a cut, an abrasion, or a bruise, physical pain, illness or any other injury to the body" as lynching.

"I take it seriously and this legislation does not. ... The Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act should be adopted with my amendment which would apply the criminal penalties for lynching only and not other crimes," Paul said.

But Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) blocked Paul's effort, saying they viewed his amendment as an attempt to water down the bill in a way that would make it harder to prosecute lynchings under the the legislation.

"The idea that we would not be taking the issue of lynching seriously is an insult, an insult to Senator Booker, to Senator Tim ScottTimothy (Tim) Eugene ScottThousands sent to emergency rooms every year due to violent police encounters: investigation Democrats fear they are running out of time on Biden agenda White House says Biden crime address won't undercut police reform bill MORE and myself," Harris said.

"It is remarkable and it is painful to be standing here right now especially when people of all races are marching in the streets of America outraged by the hate and the violence and the murder that has been fueled by racism during the span of this country's life," Harris added.

Booker also rebuked Paul's amendment, adding, "I object on substance. I object on the law, and for my heart and spirit and every fiber of my being, I object for my ancestors."

Paul acknowledged this week that he had placed a hold on the anti-lynching legislation, which passed the House earlier this year. Unless he backs down, supporters will need to convince Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellCan Manchin answer his predecessor's call on voting rights? Biden at Sen. John Warner's funeral: He 'gave me confidence' Democrats' narrow chance to retain control after 2022 MORE (R-Ky.) to agree to eat up days of floor time in order for it to get a vote.

Paul added on Thursday that he was trying to make sure there weren't "unintended consequences."

"You think I take great joy in being here? No. ...You think I'm getting any good publicity out of this? No. ...I have worked in an honest way with Senator Booker's office for three months on this bill," Paul said.

"There has to be justice. People are chanting justice. [But] justice has to have a brain and has to have vision and can't be hamstrung into something that could give someone ten years in prison for a minor crime," Paul added.

The floor fight comes after days of protests in the wake of the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man killed while detained by Minneapolis police. Floyd's death put the spotlight back on a national conversation about racial inequality and police violence.

Both Harris and Booker, two of the Senate's three black senators, stressed that if Paul would drop his objection they could pass the legislation through the Senate on Thursday, sending it to Trump's desk. That would allow for it to pass Congress, after months of delay, on the same day as Floyd's memorial service.

"One man is standing in the way of the law of the land changing because of a difference of interpretation," Booker said.