STATEMENT BY SENATOR STROM THURMOND (R-SC), RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, REGARDING HEARING ON S.989, THE END RACIAL PROFILING ACT, DIRKSEN 226, AUGUST 1, 2001, 10:00 AM.

MR. CHAIRMAN:
I appreciate your commitment to the issue of racial profiling. It is clearly unconstitutional for law enforcement to stop or search people solely because of their race, and this cannot be tolerated.
However, there is widespread agreement that the vast majority of law enforcement officers are dedicated professionals who act without bias of any kind. There is no consensus on how common the problem is, and we are still trying to understand how to measure this complex issue and interpret the data that is being collected. We need to learn much more about racial profiling before we develop sweeping solutions that reach across every aspect of law enforcement on the federal and state levels. It is hard to conclude that current efforts across America to address racial profiling are inadequate when we are still learning what they are.
I am concerned that the legislation we are considering today proposes a solution that is based on lawsuits and federal mandates that would micromanage law enforcement at all levels. While I respect the Chairman's intentions, I do not believe that this is the right approach.
Last year, members including the current Chairman proposed a Justice Department study of traffic stops to better understand this issue. Attorney General Ashcroft supports such a study, and is actively reviewing all federal law enforcement practices in this area. The Justice Department is also providing grants to law enforcement in many related areas, such as for the installation of video cameras in police cars to record traffic stops. I think there is bipartisan support for this type of approach, which we could enact without further delay if all of us on the Committee worked together.
The legislation we are considering today is very different from the approach that was promoted just last year. We must keep in mind that the question is whether any person is discriminated against because of his or her race, but the bill goes far beyond this worthy goal. It defines racial profiling so broadly that it will interfere in legitimate law enforcement efforts to locate and apprehend criminal suspects. Also, in its effort to promote lawsuits, it creates legal presumptions that make law enforcement officers prove that they are innocent, making lawsuits much easier. Discrimination should not be assumed simply based on statistics that show a racial disparity in a given population. In any event, lawsuits are already an option today for unconstitutional racial profiling even without this legislation.
I do not believe we should view lawsuits as the favored way to solve problems in America, and this issue should be no exception. More lawsuits will not promote cooperation and the search for common ground; they will discourage it. Moreover, lawsuits will divert scarce law enforcement resources away from solving crime and into the pockets of lawyers.
Further, the bill would take much-needed federal grants away from states and localities if they do not fall in line with federal mandates. We should help states in their legitimate, innovative efforts to address this issue, but we should not micromanage them from Washington.
I am afraid that this bill would handcuff the vast majority of police on the federal and state levels who treat all citizens fairly and equally. In the past few years, law enforcement has started to turn the tide against violent crime and drugs in America. This is evident in many predominately minority communities, where the citizens have demanded that the police help them take their streets back from the criminal element. We should not act in such a way that we reverse this success, even unintentionally. We should not make the fight against crime harder to win.
I appreciate our witnesses being here today to discuss this important topic.