THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display

[Page: E833]  GPO's PDF
---

• 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.

  [Page: E834]  GPO's PDF

  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.
  

  ---

  THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
  Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
  Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
  Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                  Contents Display
  

  ---