[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 6, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5891-S5897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Stabenow,
and Mr. Reid):
S. 989. A bill to prohibit racial profiling; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise along with the Senator from
New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton,
and others, to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001. This
bill is a package of steps to eliminate racial profiling once and for
all. Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to walk,
drive, or travel on our streets and highways and through our airports
free of discrimination. It is time for us to act.
I am very pleased to be joined by a number of distinguished
colleagues. I simply have to point out that I think almost minutes
after Senators Corzine and Clinton were sworn in, they were already
talking to me and Representative Conyers of the House about how we
could introduce a strong bill to deal with this problem. I thank them
and appreciate the strong work and support they have given. They have
made significant contributions and have offered good ideas to
strengthen the legislation.
I also acknowledge our long-time leader on this issue, Representative
John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. He
is introducing the companion bill in the House today. This is the third
Congress in which Representative Conyers has introduced legislation on
racial profiling. He has fought long and hard to educate the Congress
and all Americans about racial profiling. Before he took on the issue,
I don't think many of us knew what racial profiling was. I thank
Representative Conyers for his tremendous leadership. It is an honor to
be working with him on this bill.
Those who have experienced racial profiling suffer great harm. They
are unfairly treated as suspect, humiliated, and can feel fear, anxiety
or even anger. It is a grave indignity.
U.S. Army Sergeant Rossano Gerald testified during a hearing in the
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution last year about his personal
experience as a victim of racial profiling. Sergeant Gerald is a
veteran of the Persian Gulf war and a law-abiding citizen. In August
1998, he was driving along a major highway in Oklahoma with his 12-
year-old son when he was pulled over and handcuffed. Both he and his
son were thrown into the back seat of a state trooper's car while the
trooper extensively searched Sergeant Gerald's car. When the entire
episode was over, the trooper gave Sergeant Gerald a warning ticket for
changing lanes without signaling and left his car with over $1,000 of
damage.
In moving testimony before the subcommittee, a hearing which then-
Senator Ashcroft chaired and has said influenced his thinking on the
issue, Sergeant Gerald said,
I was very humiliated by this experience. I was embarrassed
and ashamed that people driving by would think I had
committed a serious crime. It was particularly horrible to
[[Page S5892]]
be treated like a criminal in front of my impressionable
young son.
Robert Wilkins also testified before the subcommittee. He and his
family were stopped along a highway in Maryland. He described his
experience as ``humiliating and degrading.'' He said:
So there we were. Standing outside the car in the rain,
lined up along the road, with police lights flashing,
officers standing guard, and a German Shepard jumping on top
of, underneath, and sniffing every inch of our vehicle. We
were criminal suspects; yet we were just trying to use the
interstate highway to travel from our homes to a funeral. It
is hard to describe the frustration and pain you feel when
people presume you to be guilty for no good reason and you
know that you are innocent. I particularly remember a car
driving past with two young children in the back seat, noses
pressed against the window. They were looking at the
policemen, the flashing lights, the German Shepard and us. In
this moment of education that each of us receives through
real world experiences, those children were putting two and
two together and getting five. They saw some black people
standing along the road who certainly must have been bad
people who had done something wrong, for why else would the
police have them there? They were getting an untrue, negative
picture of me, and there was nothing in the world that I
could do about it.
Mr. President, as Americans, we take great pride in our freedom and
independence. Central to our sense of who we are is our firm belief
that we are free to walk the paths of our own choosing, free to move
about as we please, and free from the intrusion of the government in
that movement.
Immigrants came to our nation's shores to escape arbitrary
government. Fleeing the British Government's discrimination based on
religion in the 1600s, Puritans came to Massachusetts, Quakers came to
New Jersey and then Pennsylvania, Catholics came to Maryland, and Jews
came to Rhode Island.
And responding to indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted by
the British, our Founders adopted the fourth amendment, which states:
``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated . . . .''
It is thus fundamental to American history and rooted in American law
that the officers of the state may not arrest or detain its citizens
arbitrarily or without cause.
But this is not the case for all Americans today. Some Americans
still cannot walk where they choose. Some Americans cannot travel free
from the harassment of the government. Some Americans still do not
receive the full benefit of their civil rights.
Although many did come to these shores as immigrants, many came in
chains, because of the color of their skin. They and their descendants
endured our nation's long struggle against slavery and discrimination.
Sadly, even now, skin color alone still makes too many Americans more
likely to be a suspect, more likely to be stopped, more likely to be
searched, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be imprisoned.
Mr. President, I believe that the vast majority of law enforcement
agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally, without bias,
and protect the safety of their communities. But I also believe that
racial profiling is a very real problem. The use by law enforcement
officers of race, ethnicity or national origin in deciding which
persons should be subject to traffic stops, stop and frisks,
questioning, searches and seizures is a problematic law enforcement
tactic.
Mr. President, the bill that Representative Conyers first introduced
in the 105th Congress, and which we introduced again in the 106th
Congress, was a traffic stops study bill. It would have required the
Attorney General to conduct a nationwide study of traffic stops based
on existing data and a sampling of jurisdictions that would provide
additional data to the Attorney General. We proposed a study bill
because, at that time, there was still very much education that needed
to take place in Congress and America. We thought that a study would
provide the facts to show people that racial profiling indeed is very
real in America today.
Mr. President, we no longer need, just a study. We now have facts
that show us that racial profiling is a problem. Statistical evidence
from a number of jurisdictions across the country demonstrates that
racial profiling is a real and measurable phenomenon. For example, data
collected under a federal court consent decree revealed that between
January 1995 and 1997, 70 percent of the drivers stopped and searched
by the Maryland State Police on Interstate 95 were black, while only
17.5 percent of drivers and speeders were black.
A 1992 study of traffic stops in Volusia County, Florida revealed
that 70 percent of those stopped on a particular interstate highway in
central Florida were black or Hispanic, although only 5 percent of the
motorists on that highway were black or Hispanic. Further, minorities
were detained for longer periods of time per stop than whites, and were
80 percent of those whose cars were searched after being stopped.
We also know that racial profiling is a problem not only for
motorists on our nation's highways. Racial profiling, unfortunately,
extends to racial and ethnic minority Americans as pedestrians or
travelers through our nation's airports.
A December 1999 report by New York's Attorney General on the use of
``stop and frisk'' tactics by the New York City Police Department
revealed that between January 1998 through March 1999, 84 percent of
the almost 175,000 people stopped by NYPD were black or Hispanic,
despite the fact that these two groups comprised less than half of the
city's population.
A March 2000 GAO report on the U.S. Customs Service found that black,
Asian, and Hispanic female U.S. citizens were 4 to 9 times more likely
than white female U.S. citizens to be subjected to X-rays after being
frisked or patted down.
Many of those who deny that racial profiling is a problem have argued
that these discrepancies can be justified by the fact that blacks and
other minorities are more likely to commit crimes--especially drug-
related crimes--than whites, and that profiling therefore amounts to a
rational law enforcement tactic. The statistics refute this argument.
Although black motorists were disproportionately stopped on I-95 by
the Maryland State Police, the instances in which police actually found
drugs were the same per capita for white and black motorists.
In Volusia County, Florida, where 70 percent of more than 1000
traffic stops of motorists on an interstate highway were of minority
drivers, only 9 stops resulted in so much as a traffic ticket.
The New York Attorney General's report on NYPD stop and frisk tactics
revealed that stops of minorities were less likely to lead to arrests
than stops of white New Yorkers--the NYPD arrested one white New Yorker
for every 8 stops, one Hispanic New Yorker for every 9 stops, and one
black New Yorker for every 9.5 stops.
The General Accounting Office found that while black female U.S.
citizens were nine times more likely than white female U.S. citizens to
be subjected to x-ray searches by the Customs Service, black females
were less than half as likely to be found carrying contraband as white
females.
In my home state of Wisconsin, racial profiling has touched the lives
of many law abiding citizens, including African Americans, Latino
Americans, and Asian Americans. My state is home to one of the largest
Hmong and Lao populations in the country. They came to our country
seeking safety and freedom. But their dreams of freedom have somehow
been tarnished by unfair stops by police officers.
I am very pleased that during the last year, a Task Force appointed
by former Governor Tommy Thompson developed a set of recommendations
for combating racial profiling and restoring the important trust that
must exist between law enforcement officials and the communities they
are charged to protect and serve.
Because, as we know, racial profiling undermines the willingness of
people to work with the police. As one victim of racial profiling in
Glencoe, Illinois, said: ``Who is there left to protect us? The police
just violated us.''
Mr. President, current efforts by state and local governments to
eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, while
laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient to address this
problem nationwide.
During his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Ashcroft said:
I think racial profiling is wrong. I think it's
unconstitutional. I think it violates the 14th Amendment. I
think most of the men and women in our law enforcement are
good
[[Page S5893]]
people trying to enforce the law. I think we all share that
view. But we owe it to provide them with guidance to ensure
that racial profiling does not happen.
This February in his Address to Congress, President Bush said, ``It's
wrong, and we will end it in America.'' At remarks marking Black
History Month this February in Washington, DC, President Bush said that
he would ``look at all opportunities'' to end racial profiling.
Attorney General Ashcroft then wrote Congress to say that the traffic
stops statistics study bill that we wrote and supported in the last
Congress ``is an excellent starting place for such an enterprise.''
While I welcome the administration's statements, it is now no longer
time simply to study. It is time to move beyond studying whether racial
profiling exists. We know it exists. Now, let's take the right steps to
eliminate it and protect the rights of all Americans to walk or travel
free of discrimination. It is time to act. I urge the Attorney General
and President to support this bill as the best opportunity to translate
our nation's promises into action.
Representative Conyers and I have taken a fresh look at the role
Congress can play in eliminating racial profiling by all law
enforcement agencies. Our bill reflects the President's and Attorney
General's view that racial profiling is wrong and should end. This bill
has two major components. First, the bill explicitly bans racial
profiling. Second, the bill sets out several steps for federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies to take to eliminate racial
profiling. The bill takes a ``carrot and stick'' approach. It
conditions federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies on
their compliance with certain requirements, but also authorizes the
Attorney general to provide incentive grants to assist agencies with
complying with this Act. The bill requires federal, state, and local
law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial
profiling; implement complaint procedures to respond to complaints of
racial profiling effectiely; implement disciplinary procedures for
officers who engage in the practice; and collect data on stops.
Grants awarded by the Attorney general could be used for training to
prevent racial profiling; the acquisition of in-car video cameras and
other technology; and the development of procedures for receiving,
investigating, and responding to complaints of racial profiling.
Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to report to
congress two years after enanctment of the Act and each year thereafter
on racial profiling in the United States. These are the right steps to
take in the interest of better police practices and increased
accountability.
Mr. President, this bill is a priority for the civil rights
community. It has the support of the Leadership Conference on Civil
rights and its member organizations like the NAACP, National Council of
La Raza, and ACLU. This bill reflects a new political reality: both
Republicans and Democrats can agree that racial profiling is wrong and
should be eliminated. Congress can play a role in ensuring that all
police departments do their part and give them the financial assistance
they may need to get the job done. I urge my colleagues to join with
me, Senators Corzine, Clinton, Kennedy, Torricelli, Schumer, Durbin,
and Stabenow in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001.
We Americans take great pride in our freedom and independence.
Central to our sense of who we are is our firm belief that we are free
to walk the paths of our choosing, free to move about as we please, and
free of the intrusion of the Government in that movement.
Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record immediately following my statement.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 989
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``End Racial
Profiling Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
TITLE I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING
Sec. 101. Prohibition.
Sec. 102. Enforcement.
TITLE II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Sec. 201. Policies to eliminate racial profiling.
TITLE III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE AND LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Sec. 301. Policies required for grants.
Sec. 302. Best practices development grants.
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT ON RACIAL PROFILING IN THE
UNITED STATES
Sec. 401. Attorney General to issue report on racial profiling in the
United States.
Sec. 402. Limitation on use of data.
TITLE V--DEFINITIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Severability.
Sec. 503. Savings clause.
Sec. 504. Effective dates.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide
discharge their duties professionally, without bias, and
protect the safety of their communities.
(2) The use by police officers of race, ethnicity, or
national origin in deciding which persons should be subject
to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches,
and seizures is a problematic law enforcement tactic.
Statistical evidence from across the country demonstrates
that such racial profiling is a real and measurable
phenomenon.
(3) As of November 15, 2000, the Department of Justice had
14 publicly noticed, ongoing, pattern or practice
investigations involving allegations of racial profiling and
had filed five pattern and practice lawsuits involving
allegations of racial profiling, with four of those cases
resolved through consent decrees.
(4) A large majority of individuals subjected to stops and
other enforcement activities based on race, ethnicity, or
national origin are found to be law-abiding and therefore
racial profiling is not an effective means to uncover
criminal activity.
(5) A 2001 Department of Justice report on citizen-police
contacts in 1999 found that, although African-Americans and
Hispanics were more likely to be stopped and searched, they
were less likely to be in possession of contraband. On
average, searches and seizures of African-American drivers
yielded evidence only eight percent of the time, searches and
seizures of Hispanic drivers yielded evidence only 10 percent
of the time, and searches and seizures of white drivers
yielded evidence 17 percent of the time.
(6) A 2000 General Accounting Office report on the
activities of the United States Customs Service during fiscal
year 1998 found that black women who were United States
citizens were 9 times more likely than white women who were
United States citizens to be X-rayed after being frisked or
patted down and, on the basis of X-ray results, black women
who were United States citizens were less than half as likely
as white women who were United States citizens to be found
carrying contraband. In general, the report found that the
patterns used to select passengers for more intrusive
searches resulted in women and minorities being selected at
rates that were not consistent with the rates of finding
contraband.
(7) Current local law enforcement practices, such as ticket
and arrest quotas, and similar management practices, may have
the unintended effect of encouraging law enforcement agents
to engage in racial profiling.
(8) Racial profiling harms individuals subjected to it
because they experience fear, anxiety, humiliation, anger,
resentment, and cynicism when they are unjustifiably treated
as criminal suspects. By discouraging individuals from
traveling freely, racial profiling impairs both interstate
and intrastate commerce.
(9) Racial profiling damages law enforcement and the
criminal justice system as a whole by undermining public
confidence and trust in the police, the courts, and the
criminal law.
(10) Racial profiling violates the Equal Protection Clause
of the Constitution. Using race, ethnicity, or national
origin as a proxy for criminal suspicion violates the
constitutional requirement that police and other government
officials accord to all citizens the equal protection of the
law. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development
Corporation, 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
(11) Racial profiling is not adequately addressed through
suppression motions in criminal cases for two reasons. First,
the Supreme Court held, in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S.
806 (1996), that the racially discriminatory motive of a
police officer in making an otherwise valid traffic stop does
not warrant the suppression of evidence. Second, since most
stops do not result in the discovery of contraband, there is
no criminal prosecution and no evidence to suppress.
(12) Current efforts by State and local governments to
eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes,
while laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient
to address this national problem.
[[Page S5894]]
(b) Purposes.--The independent purposes of this Act are--
(1) to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection
of the laws, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment and section 5 of
the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
(2) to enforce the constitutional right to protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures, pursuant to the
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
(3) to enforce the constitutional right to interstate
travel, pursuant to section 2 of article IV of the
Constitution of the United States; and
(4) to regulate interstate commerce, pursuant to clause 3
of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United
States.
TITLE I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING
SEC. 101. PROHIBITION.
No law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall
engage in racial profiling.
SEC. 102. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Remedy.--The United States, or an individual injured by
racial profiling, may enforce this title in a civil action
for declaratory or injunctive relief, filed either in a State
court of general jurisdiction or in a District Court of the
United States.
(b) Parties.--In any action brought pursuant to this title,
relief may be obtained against: any governmental unit that
employed any law enforcement agent who engaged in racial
profiling; any agent of such unit who engaged in racial
profiling; and any person with supervisory authority over
such agent.
(c) Nature of Proof.--Proof that the routine investigatory
activities of law enforcement agents in a jurisdiction have
had a disparate impact on racial or ethnic minorities shall
constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of this title.
(d) Attorneys' Fees.--In any action or proceeding to
enforce this title against any governmental unit, the court
may allow a prevailing plaintiff, other than the United
States, reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs, and
may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.
TITLE II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SEC. 201. POLICIES TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING.
(a) In General.--Federal law enforcement agencies shall--
(1) maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to
eliminate racial profiling; and
(2) cease existing practices that encourage racial
profiling.
(b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in
subsection (a)(1) shall include the following:
(1) A prohibition on racial profiling.
(2) The collection of data on routine investigatory
activities sufficient to determine if law enforcement agents
are engaged in racial profiling and submission of that data
to the Attorney General.
(3) Independent procedures for receiving, investigating,
and responding meaningfully to complaints alleging racial
profiling by law enforcement agents of the agency.
(4) Procedures to discipline law enforcement agents who
engage in racial profiling.
(5) Such other policies or procedures that the Attorney
General deems necessary to eliminate racial profiling.
TITLE III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE AND LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SEC. 301. POLICIES REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.
(a) In General.--An application by a State or governmental
unit for funding under a covered program shall include a
certification that such unit and any agency to which it is
redistributing program funds--
(1) maintains adequate policies and procedures designed to
eliminate racial profiling; and
(2) has ceased existing practices that encourage racial
profiling.
(b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in
subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) A prohibition on racial profiling.
(2) The collection of data on routine investigatory
activities sufficient to determine if law enforcement agents
are engaged in racial profiling and submission of that data
to the Attorney General.
(3) Independent procedures for receiving, investigating,
and responding meaningfully to complaints alleging racial
profiling by law enforcement agents.
(4) Procedures to discipline law enforcement agents who
engage in racial profiling.
(5) Such other policies or procedures that the Attorney
General deems necessary to eliminate racial profiling.
(c) Noncompliance.--If the Attorney General determines that
a grantee is not in compliance with conditions established
pursuant to this title, the Attorney General shall withhold
the grant, in whole or in part, until the grantee establishes
compliance. The Attorney General shall provide notice
regarding State grants and opportunities for private parties
to present evidence to the Attorney General that a grantee is
not in compliance with conditions established pursuant to
this title.
SEC. 302. BEST PRACTICES DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.
(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General may make
grants to States, law enforcement agencies and other
governmental units, Indian tribal governments, or other
public and private entities to develop and implement best
practice devices and systems to ensure the racially neutral
administration of justice.
(b) Uses.--The funds provided pursuant to subsection (a)
may be used to support the following activities:
(1) Development and implementation of training to prevent
racial profiling and to encourage more respectful interaction
with the public.
(2) Acquisition and use of technology to facilitate the
collection of data regarding routine investigatory activities
in order to determine if law enforcement agents are engaged
in racial profiling.
(3) Acquisition and use of technology to verify the
accuracy of data collection, including in-car video cameras
and portable computer systems.
(4) Development and acquisition of early warning systems
and other feedback systems that help identify officers or
units of officers engaged in or at risk of racial profiling
or other misconduct, including the technology to support such
systems.
(5) Establishment or improvement of systems and procedures
for receiving, investigating, and responding meaningfully to
complaints alleging racial or ethnic bias by law enforcement
agents.
(6) Establishment or improvement of management systems to
ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the conduct
of their subordinates.
(c) Equitable Distribution.--The Attorney General shall
ensure that grants under this section are awarded in a manner
that reserves an equitable share of funding for small and
rural law enforcement agencies.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--The Attorney General
shall make available such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section from amounts appropriated for programs
administered by the Attorney General.
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORTS ON RACIAL PROFILING IN THE
UNITED STATES
SEC. 401. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REPORTS ON RACIAL
PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than two years after the
enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report on racial profiling
by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the
United States.
(2) Scope.--The reports issued pursuant to paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) a summary of data collected pursuant to sections
201(b)(2) and 301(b)(2) and any other reliable source of
information regarding racial profiling in the United States;
(B) the status of the adoption and implementation of
policies and procedures by Federal law enforcement agencies
pursuant to section 201;
(C) the status of the adoption and implementation of
policies and procedures by State and local law enforcement
agencies pursuant to sections 301 and 302; and
(D) a description of any other policies and procedures that
the Attorney General believes would facilitate the
elimination of racial profiling.
(b) Data Collection.--Not later than six months after the
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall by
regulation establish standards for the collection of data
pursuant to sections 201(b)(2) and 301(b)(2), including
standards for setting benchmarks against which collected data
shall be measured. Such standards shall result in the
collection of data, including data with respect to stops,
searches, seizures, and arrests, that is sufficiently
detailed to determine whether law enforcement agencies are
engaged in racial profiling and to monitor the effectiveness
of policies and procedures designed to eliminate racial
profiling.
(c) Public Access.--Data collected pursuant to section
201(b)(2) and 301(b)(2) shall be available to the public.
SEC. 402. LIMITATION ON USE OF DATA.
Information released pursuant to section 401 shall not
reveal the identity of any individual who is detained or any
law enforcement officer involved in a detention.
TITLE V--DEFINITIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Covered program.--The term ``covered program'' means
any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds
made available under any of the following:
(A) The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Programs (part E of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3750 et seq.)).
(B) The ``Cops on the Beat'' program under part Q of title
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.), but not including any program,
project, or other activity specified in section 1701(d)(8) of
that Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(d)(8)).
(C) The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program of the
Department of Justice, as described in appropriations Acts.
(2) Governmental unit.--The term ``governmental unit''
means any department, agency, special purpose district, or
other instrumentality of Federal, State, local, or Indian
tribal government.
(3) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement
agency'' means a Federal,
[[Page S5895]]
State, local, or Indian tribal public agency engaged in the
prevention, detection, or investigation of violations of
criminal, immigration, or customs laws.
(4) Law enforcement agent.--The term ``law enforcement
agent'' means any Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal
official responsible for enforcing criminal, immigration, or
customs laws, including police officers and other agents of
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
(5) Racial profiling.--The term ``racial profiling'' means
the practice of a law enforcement agent relying, to any
degree, on race, ethnicity, or national origin in selecting
which individuals to subject to routine investigatory
activities, or in deciding upon the scope and substance of
law enforcement activity following the initial routine
investigatory activity, except that racial profiling does not
include reliance on such criteria in combination with other
identifying factors when the law enforcement agent is seeking
to apprehend a specific suspect whose race, ethnicity, or
national origin is part of the description of the suspect.
(6) Routine investigatory activities.--The term ``routine
investigatory activities'' includes the following activities
by law enforcement agents: traffic stops; pedestrian stops;
frisks and other types of body searches; consensual or
nonconsensual searches of the persons or possessions
(including vehicles) of motorists or pedestrians; inspections
and interviews of entrants into the United States that are
more extensive than those customarily carried out; and
immigration-related workplace investigations.
SEC. 502. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any
person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and
the application of the provisions of such to any person or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 503. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit legal or
administrative remedies under section 1979 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983), section
210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14141), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), and title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.).
SEC. 504. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Conditions on Funding.--Section 301 shall take effect 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise on this special day to talk about
an issue that I think defines our health as a society--the issue of
racial profiling. I thank my colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator
Clinton--particularly Senator Feingold, for his tremendous leadership
on this issue over several Congresses. During the last session he held
a number of hearings on racial profiling, and he and his staff have
worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue on to the
national agenda as a matter of civil rights. I also would be remiss if
I didn't mention Congressman Conyers, who has taken an equally valiant
and effective role in presenting this issue on the floor of the House.
It is one about which I think we all feel passionately.
The practice of racial profiling is the antithesis of America's
belief in fairness and equal protection under the law. Stopping people
on our highways, our streets, and at our borders because of the color
of their skin tears at the very fabric of what it is to be an American.
We are a nation of laws, and everyone should receive equal protection
under the law. Our Constitution tolerates nothing less. We should
demand nothing less. There is no equal protection, there is no equal
justice, if law enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices
that are premised on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after
black and brown people on the hunch that they are more likely to be
criminals.
Let me add that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is also not
effective as a law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping
people of color adds to catching the bad guys. In fact, there is
statistical evidence which points out that singling out black and
Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher
percentage of arrests. Minority motorists are simply no more likely to
be breaking the law than white motorists.
Unfortunately, racial profiling persists. In the last wave of
statistics from New Jersey, minority motorists accounted for 73 percent
of those searched on the New Jersey Turnpike. Even the State attorney
general admitted that State troopers were twice as likely to find drugs
or other illegal contraband when searching vehicles driven by whites.
Take the example of the March 2000 General Accounting Office report
on the U.S. Customs Service. The report found that black, Asian, and
Hispanic women were four to nine times more likely than white women to
be subjected to x rays after being frisked or patted down. On the basis
of x ray results, black women were less than half as likely as white
women to be found carrying contraband.
This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants, no probable cause.
What is the hunch based on? Race, plain and simple.
Nowhere was this more evident than in my own home State 3 Aprils ago.
Four young men on the New Jersey Turnpike in a minivan--on their way to
North Carolina, hoping to get college basketball scholarships--were
stopped by two State troopers. Frightened, the driver lost control of
the van, and two dozens shots rang out and struck the van. Three out of
the four young men were shot.
I spoke to those kids a while ago. One of them told me he was asleep
when his van was pulled over. He told me, ``What woke me up was a
bullet.''
Stories such as this should wake us all up in America. The practice
of racial profiling broadly undermines the confidence of the American
people in the institutions on which we depend to protect and defend us.
Different laws for different people do not work.
Now we know that many law enforcement agencies, including some in my
home State, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have taken
steps to combat it. I commend them for those efforts. Many law
enforcement officials believe this is the step we need to take. It is a
national problem. It is not a local problem, it is not a State problem,
it is a national problem, and it requires a Federal response applicable
to all. That is why my colleagues and I have introduced this
legislation to end this practice. We want to be sure there are no more
excuses, no more bullets waking folks up on questions about what racial
profiling means.
This bill defines racial profiling clearly and then bans it; no
routine stops solely on the basis of race, national origin, or
ethnicity.
We will also require a collection of statistics to accurately measure
whether progress is being made, whether problems exist. By collecting
this data, we will get a fair picture of law enforcement at work.
We use statistics in every aspect of our life. I came from the
financial services industry. We collected statistics. If you go to a
hospital, they collect statistics. We need to do that with regard to
law enforcement so we have the information to detect problems early on.
It is not our intention to micromanage law enforcement. Our bill does
not tell law enforcement agencies what data should be collected.
Instead, we direct the Attorney General to develop the standards for
data collection, and he presumably will work with law enforcement in
developing those particular standards for particular situations.
Our legislation also specifically directs the Attorney General to
establish standards for setting benchmarks against which the collected
data should be measured so that no data is taken out of context that
some in law enforcement rightly fear.
No, it is an indication, a benchmark, not an absolute. If the numbers
reveal a portrait of continued racial profiling, then the Justice
Department or independent third parties can seek relief in Federal
court ordering that remedies be put into effect to end racial
profiling.
Our bill will also put in place procedures to receive and investigate
complaints of alleged racial profiling. By the way, this mirrors
legislation that is now going through the New Jersey State Legislature
on a bipartisan basis. It will require procedures to discipline law
enforcement officers engaging in racial profiling.
Finally, we will encourage a climate of cultural change in law
enforcement with a carrot and stick. We are not trying to say that this
all be done through the law; part of this has to come from a real
cultural change.
[[Page S5896]]
First the carrot. We recognize that law enforcement should not be
expected to do this alone. It is a bigger problem. We are saying if you
do the job right, fairly and equitably, you can be eligible to receive
a best practices development grant to help pay for the programs dealing
with advanced training, to help pay for the computer technology
necessary to collect the data, such as hand-held computers in police
cars, so statistics can be collected. We will help pay for video
cameras and recorders for patrol cars, which protects the person who is
stopped and also the law enforcement officer. It has been very well
received across this country where it has been applied.
It will help pay for establishing or improving systems for handling
complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling and will help to
establish management systems to assure supervisors are held accountable
for subordinates.
If they do not do the job right, there is a stick. If State and local
law enforcement agencies refuse to implement procedures to end and
prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss of Federal law
enforcement funds.
Let me be clear. This bill is not about blaming law enforcement, but
we do believe we need to see change. It is not designed to prevent law
enforcement from doing its job, it is to encourage them to do a better
job. In fact, we believe it will help our law enforcement officers in
this Nation maintain the public trust they need to do their jobs.
If race is part of a description of a specific suspect involved in an
investigation, this law does not prevent them from using that
information or having that information distributed, but stopping people
on a random, race-based hunch will be outlawed.
Race has been a never-ending battle in this country. It began with
our Constitution when the Founding Fathers argued over the rights of
southern slaves. Then we fought a war over race. We fought a war that
ripped our country apart. Our country emerged whole, but discrimination
and Jim Crow laws continued for decades--discrimination sanctioned in
part by our own Supreme Court.
Our country's history has always been about change, about growth,
about getting better, about recognizing things that weaken us from
within. A generation ago, we began to fight another war, a war founded
on peaceful principles, a war that killed our heroes, burned our
cities, and shook us, once again, to the very core. But we advanced
with important civil rights initiatives, such as the Voting Rights Act,
the public accommodation laws. We demanded and gained like laws to
fight discrimination in employment, housing, and education.
It is time for us to take another very important step. Racial
profiling has bred humiliation, anger, resentment, and cynicism
throughout this country. It has weakened respect for the law by many,
not just the offended.
I close by putting it in simple words: Racial profiling is wrong, and
it must end. Today Senator Feingold, Senator Clinton, I, and others in
the House pledge to do just that: to define it, to ban it, and then
enforce that ban.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I cannot help but notice, as I look at
the Presiding Officer and the Senator from New Jersey, how fortunate we
are to have new Members who have immediately come to the Senate and
exerted leadership--the Presiding Officer on education, as well as
other issues; and the Senator from New Jersey, his determination and
hard work on this has been truly striking. I am just delighted to be
working with him on this.
I also thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy in
allowing us to interrupt the education bill for this purpose.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be an original
cosponsor of this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
bipartisan End of Racial Profiling Act of 2001. I believe it is a
thoughtful and balanced effort, designed to bring people together, not
to divide. I also want to express my sincere gratitude to my esteemed
colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator Corzine, for their leadership
and tremendous efforts in crafting this legislation that affects so
many communities throughout this country.
I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Representative Conyers, the
Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and a leader on this
issue. Representative Conyers has worked to obtain the support of both
Democrats and Republicans alike, including Republican Representatives
Asa Hutchinson, Chris Shays, Tim Johnson, Constance Morella, and Jim
Greenwood. I thank them for attending the bipartisan press conference
this morning and showing their support for this legislation. I hope we
will be able to build upon this strong bipartisan support in the
Senate.
I am also pleased that we were joined by Chief Bruce Chamberlin, an
esteemed and experienced member of the national law enforcement
community, who is the Chief of Police of Cheektowaga--in the western
part of the great state of New York.
It was important for Chief Chamberlin to be here with us today to
express his support for the bill because he recognizes, as we all do,
that racial profiling is wrong and that this bill is an important step
in bringing this practice to an end.
Racial profiling is unjust. It relegates honest, law-abiding citizens
to second-class status when they suffer the embarrassment, the
humiliation, the indignity, of being stopped or searched, and in some
cases even physically harmed simply because of their race, ethnicity or
national origin.
Racial profiling is not an effective law enforcement tool. The
experts at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and elsewhere will tell
you that the evidence is unquestionably clear, for example, that the
vast majority of Blacks and Hispanics who are stopped or searched have
committed no crime.
Indeed, racial profiling has an insidious and devastating effect on
entire communities because it increases the level of mistrust between
law enforcement and the communities it is charged with the heavy burden
to protect. That result serves no one. It fails to serve law
enforcement because a critical component of truly effective law
enforcement is strong community-police relations, partnerships in which
law enforcement and our communities are working together to reduce
crime and to make our communities as safe as they can be.
Racial profiling fails to serve prosecutors, because law-abiding
people who don't have faith that their law enforcement will protect
them properly and treat them with dignity will not have faith in law
enforcement when sitting on juries and assessing the credibility of
police officers who often play a key role in getting convictions for
criminals.
What does this bill do and what doesn't it do?
As you, my colleagues consider this legislation, understand that this
bill is not about blaming law enforcement or saying that law
enforcement is bad or doesn't do a good job. We know that this is
simply not true.
Those who uphold our Nation's laws on the streets where we live are
men and women of courage. They go to work each day without the same
degree of certainty that most of us have that they will return home
safely, because they never know when the next traffic stop, the next
domestic dispute, the next arrest will explode in their face. There is
a memorial here in Washington with the names of more than 14,000
American heroes who gave their lives to make ours a safer country.
What this bill does do is make very clear that racial profiling is
wrong and that law enforcement agencies that haven't done so already
should adopt policies and procedures to eliminate and prevent racial
profiling.
Some might ask, how can adopting policies and procedures help stop
racial profiling? Well, the experts at John Jay College will tell you
that in the 1960s and early 1970s, most police departments in this
country left it up to the individual officer to decide when to shoot to
kill. During that time, the racial disparity among persons shot and
killed by police was as high as eight African-Americans for every white
person, and very much higher among victims who were neither armed nor
in the process of assaulting a police officer.
[[Page S5897]]
During the 1970s and early 1980s, police departments promulgated and
enforced strict standards, basically decreeing that deadly force could
be exercised only in defense of the life of the officer or another
person. In the large police departments in this country, these changes
were accompanied by reductions of as much as 51 percent in the number
of civilians killed by police. It also resulted in the significant
reduction in the number of officers killed in the line of duty. This is
just one example of how good policies and procedures can actually save
lives without reducing the effectiveness of law enforcement.
Recognizing the importance of policies and procedures to eliminate
and prevent racial profiling, this bill provides incentives for law
enforcement to promote such policies by providing grants to state and
local law enforcement agencies to use in ways they believe will be most
effective for their communities--whether to purchase equipment and
other resources to assist in data collection or to provide training to
officers to improve community relations and build trust.
Chief Chamberlin spoke eloquently this morning about the importance
of training and building relationships between law enforcement and
communities. His actions, however, have spoken even louder than his
words. He has taken the lead in Western New York in forming the Law
Enforcement and Diversity Team or ``LEAD'' program, which exists to
enhance communication and understanding between suburban law
enforcement agencies and the diverse citizenry of Western New York. The
LEAD team, sponsored by the National Conference for Community and
Justice and the Erie County Chiefs of Police, developed one of the
Nation's leading programs--``Building Bridges'' to start a dialogue
between police officers and people of diverse cultural and racial
backgrounds.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has utilized excerpts from the
LEAD Team's ``What to do When Stopped by Police'' brochure for the
department's national publication. The program has been adopted by the
Buffalo and Cheektowaga school systems in the curriculum for high
schools students. It provides an important educational opportunity for
the entire community and assists in the development of positive
relationships between police and community by eliminating some level of
fear, distrust, and skepticism.
Other New Yorkers have also worked to improve the relationship
between communities and law enforcement. New York's Attorney General,
Elliot Spitzer, has instituted training programs in an effort to try
and prevent racial profiling. In fact, just this past February through
April, the Attorney General's office conducted in-service training of
all members of the New Rochelle, New York Police Department at the
request of that department. The training took place on Thursday
mornings and focused, among other things, on what is meant by ``racial
profiling'' and the perceptions of community members of police
encounters in order to raise awareness. The training also reported on
data collection efforts taking place across the country and the results
of those efforts.
Academia can also play a role in promoting trust between law
enforcement and the community. For example, the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice--whose Master of Public Administration Program was
ranked first in the nation among graduate schools with specializations
in Criminal Justice Policy and Management by U.S. News and World Report
for the second year in a row--has begun to conduct a six-week free
course for members of the New York City Police Department on the racial
and cultural diversity of New York City. More than 600 police officers
from across New York City have enrolled in a course entitled: ``Police
Supervision in a Multiracial and Multicultural City.''
With this bill, efforts like those currently led by Chief
Chamberlain, Attorney General Spitzer, and John Jay College will be
expanded throughout the country.
More than a year ago when I spoke about this issue at the Riverside
Church in New York City, I said, ``we must all be on the same side.'' I
am so proud that today--we are all here together--on the same side,
citizens, officers of the law, Republicans and Democrats--to say that
racial profiling is wrong and must end.
We are here to say that in fighting racial profiling, we can at the
same time forge even better relations between police and the
neighborhoods they patrol, as we wage a common effort to reduce crime
and make our communities safe.
In closing, I hope that as we move forward with the consideration of
this legislation, it will engender a positive and thoughtful dialogue
between and among members of Congress, the President, law enforcement,
and the civil rights community. And that by eliminating the practice of
racial profiling, we can begin to restore the bonds of trust between
communities and the law enforcement officers that serve them.
______