Transportation, Housing, Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to prohibit the use of Federal funds to stop, investigate, detain, or arrest people on highways based on their physical appearance in violation of the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the same amendment I successfully offered to the fiscal year 2015 T-HUD appropriations bill and was agreed to by a voice vote on the House floor and was included in the fiscal year 2015 omnibus bill. I ask the same for the current amendment, which, like the one passed by the House last year, seeks to prevent profiling by law enforcement officials and to ensure that citizens are not stopped, investigated, or detained based on their color or other inherent physical appearance.
The Supreme Court, in Whren v. United States, held that profiling based on physical appearance on highways violates equal protection of the laws. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, whose 50th anniversary we celebrated in 2014, enforces the 14th Amendment and applies to funding for all Federal agencies and departments. My amendment carries out this title VI mandate as expressed in transportation funding in particular.
Federal guidance regarding the use of race by a Federal law enforcement official finds that racial profiling is not merely wrong, but is also ineffective. Not only Blacks and Hispanics are affected, but many others in our country as well, given the increasing diversity of American society.
The United States Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that Whites are stopped at a rate of 3.6 percent, but Blacks at 9.5 percent and Hispanics at 8.8 percent, more than twice that of Whites. The figures are roughly the same regardless of region or State.
In Minnesota, for example, a statewide study of racial profiling found that African American, Hispanic, and Native American drivers were stopped and searched far more often than Whites, yet contraband was found more frequently in cars where White drivers had been stopped.
In Texas, where disproportionate stops and searches of African Americans and Hispanics were found to have taken place, it was also found that Whites more often were carrying contraband.
Earlier this Congress, I reintroduced the Racial Profiling Prevention Act, my bill to reestablish a popular Federal program aimed at reducing racial profiling. This bill permits States to apply for grants to develop racial profiling laws, to collect and maintain data on traffic stops, to fashion programs to reduce racial profiling, and to train law enforcement officers.
Nearly half the States participated in the program when it was in existence, which shows both the need and the interest in our country in tackling this civil rights issue. I got this program included in the surface transportation law in 2005, but that program expired in 2009. I will try to get this bill included in the surface transportation reauthorization bill we will be writing this year, but in the meantime, a formal prohibition on racial profiling is in order. Meanwhile, Congress should have no hesitation in carrying out the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act mandate regarding Federal funding of transportation, and neither the House nor the Senate hesitated last year.
Considering our country's history and increasing diversity, we are late in barring profiling at the national level. At the very least, Federal taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize the unconstitutional practice of profiling by law enforcement officials in the States.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment, especially in light of recent issues in cities like Ferguson and Baltimore.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would prohibit Federal funds from being used to permit airline service between midnight and 6 a.m. at Ronald Reagan National Airport.
Last month, I held a widely attended community meeting with standing room only on airport airplane noise with residents of Palisades, Foxhall, Georgetown, Hillandale, and other impacted neighborhoods in the District of Columbia. Representatives of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the Federal Aviation Administration, and residents sat on a panel while we discussed airplane noise that has completely disrupted the life of this community.
Over the last 18 months, D.C. residents have reported an increase in air traffic activity during nighttime and early morning hours, breaking the sleep of children and adults alike. During this time period, one airline added two flights that arrive at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport after midnight and three flights that depart before 5 a.m.
As of now, there is no congressional prohibition, none whatsoever, on nighttime flights at Ronald Reagan National Airport. Until recent years, however, flights at this airport could not land after 10 p.m. or take off before 7 a.m.
My amendment gives airlines greater latitude without introducing continuing sleepless nights for residents. Congress can settle this issue in the Nation's Capital to provide relief to those residents who suffer from airline noise night after night and early morning after early morning.
I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source