[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 8512]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                RACIAL PROFILING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 17, 2001

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today we introduce the Racial Profiling 
Prohibition Act of 2001 (RPPA). Congress is decades late in doing its 
part to insure that law enforcement officers no longer stop or detain 
people on the street because of their color or their apparent 
nationality or ethnicity.
  It was not until 37 years ago that Congress passed the first civil 
rights law that had any teeth. The 1964 Civil Rights Act finally barred 
discrimination against people of color in employment, public 
accommodations and funding of public institutions. Yet, today, 
irrefutable, and widespread evidence from every state confirms racially 
and ethnically motivated stops by police officers and shows that 
Congress has urgent, unfinished business to update the nation's civil 
rights laws.
  This bill, which is overwhelmingly supported by both the 
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus 
(CHC) as original co-sponsors, seeks to eliminate both legal and 
constitutional problems that arise when a person is stopped by a police 
officer because of skin color, nationality or ethnicity. Title VI of 
the 1964 Civil Rights Act (CRA), enacted in part to implement the 14th 
Amendment requirement of equal protection, forbids the use of public 
money for discriminatory purposes. The bill we introduce today, is 
based on both the 14th Amendment, which gives power to Congress to 
implement its equal protection responsibilities and on the spending 
clause of the Constitution, which allows Congress to put conditions on 
the receipt of federal funds.
  The federal funds that are the focus of our bill today are the vast 
sums contained in our transportation legislation. The last 
transportation bill, known as TEA-21 (Transportation Equity for the 
21st Century Act) authorized $172 billion for highways in 1998. The new 
transportation bill, which Congress will enact next year, will 
authorize at least $250 billion in highway funding. By introducing our 
racial profiling bill today, we serve notice that Congress must not 
authorize another huge highway bill that does not effectively bar the 
use of transportation money to fund racial profiling stops on those 
highways.
  The strength of our bill lies in what it requires and what it would 
do. The bill requires three important obligations if states are to 
qualify for federal transportation funds. First, law enforcement 
officers may not use race, national origin, or ethnicity in making 
decisions concerning a stop unless they are relying on a physical 
description that may include race to determine that a particular 
individual may be the person sought. Second, states must adopt and 
enforce standards prohibiting the use of racial profiling on streets or 
roads built with federal highway funds. Third, states must maintain and 
allow public inspection of statistical information on the racial 
characteristics and circumstances of each stop. Only three states even 
prohibit racial profiling today; ten others require only racial and 
ethnic data collection.
  As important as information concerning who gets stopped is, what 
makes our bill effective is its sanction: the withholding of federal 
funds from states that fail to meet the three obligations of the 
statute. Money for streets, roads, bridges and other infrastructure is 
ardently pursued in the Congress. Each state and locality receives 
funds that are indispensable to building and maintaining major parts of 
its infrastructure. Next year's authorization will mean nearly 50 
percent more in transportation funding to states and localities. These 
funds will either reinforce pervasive racial profiling or help 
eliminate it.
  The power of transportation funding to command the necessary 
attention and bring quick results has been repeatedly demonstrated. 
Congress has successfully used federal highway funding to compel states 
to attack some of our most urgent problems, for example, reducing drunk 
driving among minors; requiring the revocation or suspensions of 
driving licenses of convicted drug offenders; and establishing a 
national minimum drinking age. Police stops of people on the streets 
because they are black or Hispanic or of any other non-majority 
national origin requires the same urgent action.
  Withholding federal highway funds works because it hurts. The threat 
of losing highway funds has proven to be a powerful incentive. We saw 
the power of this incentive as recently as last year's Transportation 
appropriation. Congress enacted a provision requiring states to enact 
.08 blood alcohol content (BAC) laws by 2004 or being forfeiting their 
highway funds. In only the first six months after that provision was 
enacted, six states have already passed .08 BAC laws. Many more are 
sure to follow in order to preserve precious highway funds. A racial 
profiling provision in the 2003 federal highway funding bill would give 
the same set of alternatives to the states--effective enforcement of 
racial profiling legislation or loss of federal funds. If Congress is 
serious about eliminating this last disgraceful scar of overt 
discrimination in our country, let us put our money where our mouth is.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________