"This bill would cheapen the meaning of lynching by defining it so broadly as to include a minor bruise of abrasion."

Here's the transcript.

I seek to amend this legislation, not because I take it or I take lynching lightly, but because I take it seriously, and this legislation does not. Lynching is a tool of terror that claimed the lives of nearly 5,000 Americans between 1881 and 1968. But 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.... It would be a disgrace for the Congress of the United States to declare that a bruise is lynching, that an abrasion is lynching, that any injury to the body, no matter how temporary, is on par with the atrocities done to people like Emmett Till, Raymond Gunn, and Sam Hose, who were killed for no reason, but because they were black. To do that would demean their memory and cheapen the historic and horrific legacy of lynching in our country.... We have had federal hate crime statutes for over 50 years, and it has been a federal hate crime to murder someone because of their race for over a decade. Additionally, murder is already a crime in 50 states. In fact, rather than consider a good-intentioned but symbolic bill, the Senate could immediately consider addressing qualified immunity and ending police militarization. We can and must do better....

At the link — the heated response from Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Harris accuses Paul of having "no reason... other than cruel and deliberate obstruction on a day of mourning." Booker praises Rand Paul — doesn't "question his heart" — but stresses what it "would mean for America" to pass the bill right now instead of getting hung up on "legalistic issues."

Let’s give a headline tomorrow of something that will give hope to this country.... It may not cure the ills that so many are protesting about but God, it can be a sign of hope. 

Paul responds that he's worried about "unintended consequences":

We’ve fought the battle against mandatory minimums for a decade now because we tie up people in sentencing that makes no sense.... Do we want a black woman who slapped three Jewish women in New Jersey to get 10 years in prison? If there was a group of them, it’s now a conspiracy to lynch. We have to use some common sense here.... So all of us here are advocates on the same side of criminal justice reform, we all have argued on the same side that the law is screwed up, and has incarcerated too many people unfairly. That’s what I’m trying to prevent here, and so the thing is is I understand the emotions on it. You think I take great joy in being here? No. I’m a sponsor of 22 criminal justice bills. You think I’m getting any good publicity out of this? No, I will be excoriated by simple-minded people on the internet who think somehow I don’t like Emmett Till or appreciate the history and the memory of Emmett Till. I’ll be lectured to by everybody....