[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.
                                 ______