The JUSTICE Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to block consideration of the JUSTICE bill. This happened to be the first major piece of police reform legislation in years.

To be clear, this vote wasn't a vote to pass the bill in the Senate. It wasn't even a vote to limit debate on police reform. It was a vote on whether we could simply begin debate on police reform.

We are standing now on the floor of what is called the world's greatest deliberative body, the U.S. Senate. Yet my colleagues on the other side wouldn't even entertain a debate on an issue that has stirred our Nation and shaken it to its core.

We know why we are here. There was a murder of a citizen in Minneapolis--George Floyd. There have been peaceful demonstrations all over the country since then, and Congress's time to respond probably-- probably should have responded years ago, but this has brought to a head that we need police reform.

Yes, we are in the world's greatest deliberative body, we are told. The Senate's legacy and prestige are built on our ability to debate and discuss legislation, to address the most pressing issues before our country. My colleagues on the other side have robbed the American people of the opportunity to pass meaningful police reform.

On the other side, they argue that the JUSTICE Act doesn't go far enough and that their version of police reform is the only bill worth considering. All the brains in the U.S. Senate are on the other side of the aisle, is more or less what they are saying. I want to remind them that we live in a country with diverse ideas and varying opinions. Debating those differences is the only way to make meaningful reform.

Democrats complain that their views weren't represented in this bill. Well, the JUSTICE Act contains a number of proposals that actually have bipartisan support. Even if that wasn't enough for them, every Democrat would still have an opportunity to make additional changes.

On our side, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina led this effort for all of us. Forty-six of us are joining him. I hope the other seven will join in as well. But that is just Republicans, and this is a bipartisan bill--presumably not bipartisan enough to satisfy the other side but still bipartisan--and they wouldn't let us move ahead.

Senator Scott made clear when the bill was introduced last week that he was interested and willing to discuss changes. Leader McConnell pledged an open amendment process. Even Speaker Pelosi noted that she welcomed the opportunity to conference the Democratic House police reform bill with Senator Scott's JUSTICE Act.

Instead of letting our time-honored legislative process work, my colleagues sent a letter calling the JUSTICE Act ``unsalvageable.'' Let's remember--these are the same Senators who insisted that the Senate consider a police reform bill before the July recess, which starts next week. Now that they are getting what they asked for, they say they don't want it anymore--at least that is what their vote tells me today.

My question is, What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of losing control of the process if it goes to a vote? Well, then, they are afraid of democracy. They are afraid of the American people who elected each Senator in this body and trusts each Senator to represent them by voting on legislation.

Are they afraid that their ideas won't be adopted? The JUSTICE Act has many similarities to the Justice in Policing Act. We want to find a way forward on a bipartisan basis. If ideas have merit, they will have to be voted on and be included.

Are they somehow afraid that if we make progress, it will be perceived as giving the President and his party a win? I have been around here long enough to know that in an election year, it gets harder and harder to get things done because neither party wants the other to get any credit for anything or have an advantage. But on an issue as important as this, it is the height of cynicism and hypocrisy to prevent progress to gain political advantage.

I am reminded of a Scripture: ``For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world but lose his soul?''

The American people expect better. I know that my fellow Iowans expect better. Frankly, I expect better as well.

I hope my colleagues reconsider their obstruction and let us get on with crafting a bipartisan police reform bill. I know my colleagues on the other side share our desire to deliver for our constituents. I don't doubt their sincerity about wanting to address inequities in the communities or unfairness in policing. I don't doubt they would have had legitimate ideas on how to improve this legislation if it had come before the Senate. But at the very least, we can't accomplish any of those things unless we start debate.

We have done it before on other issues. Only 18 months ago, this Chamber passed the FIRST STEP Act, the most significant criminal justice reform bill in a generation. That was a strong bipartisan bill. It wasn't easy, but Senator Durbin and I and Democrats and other Republicans in addition to the two of us found a path forward and are giving thousands of Americans a chance to improve their lives when they leave prison.

I am frustrated that the Senate can't consider this JUSTICE Act, but I promise Iowans and the American people that this partisan exercise doesn't represent my last hope for meaningful change. I stand ready to work with any Democrat or any Republican on the issue of police reform, and, for sure, I am not alone in the willingness to do that.

In fact, at the Judiciary Committee, just last week, the issue was police use of force and community relations. At that meeting, Chairman Graham indicated that he wants to hold more hearings on this issue.

So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to let today's vote be the end of the story. There is and has been an evergreen issue. George Floyd's murder was the spark that ignited a national outcry. We must rise to the occasion. We cannot let election-year politics and differences of opinion prevent us from even discussing how best to improve justice and safety in our community. Flynn Investigation

Mr. President, I will speak just a short period of time on another issue that was resolved today by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Finally, justice has been done to a person that has been very unjustly treated, a person by the name of Lieutenant General Flynn, who served this country 33 years in the military.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the district court to grant the government's motion to dismiss the Flynn case. Remember, this has been going on for almost 4 years.

I am pleased the appeals court upheld what it rightfully called ``clearly established legal principles.'' The appeals court said that the first ``troubling indication'' of the district judge's ``mistaken understanding'' of his role was to appoint a former judge, and now a private citizen, to argue against the government's proposal to District Judge Sullivan to dismiss the Flynn case. Remember, the reason for that was that he was mistreated in the first place.

As the majority opinion said: ``The court has appointed one private citizen to argue that another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is willing to pursue those charges.''

The DC Circuit is ordering an end to this charade, and let Lieutenant General Flynn get back to his life and his family. Remember, this is a case where we set up--and you saw the emails from people that were going to prosecute him. Is this to get him fired--to get Flynn fired? Or is it to get him prosecuted? That is how open it was, but we didn't know about that until a few months ago.

So, today, Flynn's legal team released Strzok's notes regarding a meeting between Obama, Biden, Comey, Sally Yates, and Susan Rice. These notes appear to show several important things. The first one is, Comey said the Flynn calls with the Russian Ambassador ``appear legit.'' Two, President Obama ordered Comey to ``look at things.'' Three, President Obama directed that ``the right people'' investigate Flynn. Four, Vice President Biden appeared to raise the Logan Act.

Those four things lead to these questions. Well, if it was legit, then, why ``look at things''? If it was legit, why would Biden mention the Logan Act? These notes raise legitimate questions. For example, did President Obama and Vice President Biden deliberately take steps in the final hours of their administration to undermine the incoming administration? It sure looks like that is what they were up to.

It also is reasonable to question the extent of President Obama's and Vice President Biden's knowledge about Russia and the Flynn investigation. I give this to you as an example. We know that on January 4, 2017, the same day that Strzok allegedly wrote the meeting notes, the FBI wrote a closing memorandum on Flynn, who was code named ``Crossfire Razor'' by the FBI, that said the intelligence community could find no derogatory information on him.

So they couldn't find any derogatory information on him, a person who had served in the military for 33 years, got out as a lieutenant general, and was going to be the National Security Advisor for this new administration. They could find no derogatory information, but for the next 3\1/2\ years, he has been fighting for his freedom. Then, on that very same day, January 4, 2017, the FBI was ready to close this Flynn case--probably based on the fact that Comey said that all this connection between Flynn and the Russian ambassador was probably legit.

But that doesn't matter to somebody by the name of Strzok, who was kind of leading all of this. He asked another FBI agent: ``Hey if you haven't closed Razor don't do it yet.'' The case was still open at the moment and Strzok asked that it be kept open ``for now.'' Strzok then messaged his lover, Lisa Page, saying that Razor still happened to be open because of some oversight and said to her--I don't know whether this is tongue in cheek or whether it was real serious, but he said: ``Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. . . . ''

So what is helping us? It seems like any excuse to keep going in getting Flynn. At that point, we all know the case should have been closed, but 3\1/2\ years later, it is just solved by a decision of the DC Court of Appeals. So, instead, even in light of Comey apparently saying that the calls between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador appear legit, President Obama--still President of the United States--directed Comey to ``look at things'' and make sure ``the right people'' investigate it.

That has kind of been questionable, the extent to which President Obama was involved in this, but it seems like those quotes make it pretty clear. And then, at this very same conversation, Vice President Biden chimed in as well by bringing up the Logan Act, which was used as a pretext to interview Flynn weeks later. Mind you, all of this happened after the election. Now people are raising questions about: Why are you worried about things that happened 3 years ago? An injustice was done to Flynn, and if you let people run wild over the freedoms and liberties of the American people, if it can happen to a lieutenant general, it can happen to anybody else, and we saw it happen to George Floyd. He was murdered because of justice and the constitutional rights of people not being followed.

So then we have the incoming Trump administration and all this going on, having no idea that Obama, Biden, Comey, and Strzok were busy setting the stage for what would become a multiyear struggle to show that Trump didn't collude with the Russian Government--so much for a peaceful transition of power from one President to another and from one political party to another. It was something that for 240 years we prided ourselves in, but not in this case. Ever since the election, November of 2016, think of all the things that have been done to get Trump out of office, and it started even before he was sworn in.

Well, thankfully, the DC Circuit stepped in to restore a bit of justice after the government's multiyear campaign to destroy Flynn's reputation. The FBI and the Department of Justice's actions to frame an American citizen, drag that citizen into court, setting him up to plead guilty to lying, and then doing everything they can to cover up their transgressions should never happen and should never have happened either.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source