write_parts.c-54 : failed to open = [/local/etc/httpd/cgi-lis/txt_templates/compr_reg_crumb.txt]

Committee Reports

108th Congress (2003-2004)

House Report 108-321 - Part 1

Committee Reports for the 108th Congress
House Report 108-321 - Part 1 1 of 1
Search Results  > House Report 108-321 - Part 1
New Search Help  |  Contact Us
This Report: To Accompany H.R.3214     Printer Friendly: HTML  |  PDF


{link: 'http://www.congress.gov:80/cgi-bin/cpquery?%26dbname=cp108%26r_n=hr321p1.108%26sel=DOC',title: 'THOMAS - Committee Report - House Report 108-321 - Part 1' }

ADVANCING JUSTICE THROUGH DNA TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2003

29-006

108TH CONGRESS

REPT. 108-321

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1st Session

Part 1

--ADVANCING JUSTICE THROUGH DNA TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2003

OCTOBER 16, 2003- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 3214]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

CONTENTS Page
The Amendment 2
Purpose and Summary 19
Background and Need for the Legislation 19
Hearings 21
Committee Consideration 21
Vote of the Committee 21
Committee Oversight Findings 23
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 23
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 23
Performance Goals and Objectives 25
Constitutional Authority Statement 25
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion 26
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 31
Committee Jurisdiction Letters 49
Markup Transcript 50

THE AMENDMENT

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--RAPE KITS AND DNA EVIDENCE BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT OF 2003
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.
Sec. 103. Expansion of Combined DNA Index System.
Sec. 104. Tolling of statute of limitations.
Sec. 105. Legal assistance for victims of violence.
Sec. 106. Ensuring private laboratory assistance in eliminating DNA backlog.
TITLE II--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2003
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Ensuring public crime laboratory compliance with Federal standards.
Sec. 203. DNA training and education for law enforcement, correctional personnel, and court officers.
Sec. 204. Sexual assault forensic exam program grants.
Sec. 205. DNA research and development.
Sec. 206. FBI DNA programs.
Sec. 207. DNA identification of missing persons.
Sec. 208. Enhanced criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure or use of DNA information.
Sec. 209. Tribal coalition grants.
Sec. 210. Expansion of Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program.
Sec. 211. Report to Congress.
TITLE III--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2003
Sec. 301. Short title.
Subtitle A--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing
Sec. 311. Federal post-conviction DNA testing.
Sec. 312. Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program.
Sec. 313. Incentive grants to States to ensure consideration of claims of actual innocence.
Subtitle B--Improving the Quality of Representation in State Capital Cases
Sec. 321. Capital representation improvement grants.
Sec. 322. Capital prosecution improvement grants.
Sec. 323. Applications.
Sec. 324. State reports.
Sec. 325. Evaluations by Inspector General and administrative remedies.
Sec. 326. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle C--Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted
Sec. 331. Increased compensation in Federal cases for the wrongfully convicted.
Sec. 332. Sense of Congress regarding compensation in State death penalty cases.

TITLE I--RAPE KITS AND DNA EVIDENCE BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT OF 2003

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 102. DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.

`SEC. 2. THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.';

SEC. 103. EXPANSION OF COMBINED DNA INDEX SYSTEM.

SEC. 104. TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

`Sec. 3297. Cases involving DNA evidence

`3297. Cases involving DNA evidence.'.

SEC. 105. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE.

SEC. 106. ENSURING PRIVATE LABORATORY ASSISTANCE IN ELIMINATING DNA BACKLOG.

TITLE II--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2003

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 202. ENSURING PUBLIC CRIME LABORATORY COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL STANDARDS.

SEC. 203. DNA TRAINING AND EDUCATION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, CORRECTIONAL PERSONNEL, AND COURT OFFICERS.

SEC. 204. SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAM PROGRAM GRANTS.

SEC. 205. DNA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

SEC. 206. FBI DNA PROGRAMS.

SEC. 207. DNA IDENTIFICATION OF MISSING PERSONS.

SEC. 208. ENHANCED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OR USE OF DNA INFORMATION.

SEC. 209. TRIBAL COALITION GRANTS.

SEC. 210. EXPANSION OF PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM.

SEC. 211. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

TITLE III--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

Subtitle A--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing

SEC. 311. FEDERAL POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING.

`CHAPTER 228A--POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING

`Sec.
`3600. DNA testing.
`3600A. Preservation of biological evidence.

`Sec. 3600. DNA testing

`Sec. 3600A. Preservation of biological evidence

`228A. Post-conviction DNA testing
3600'.

SEC. 312. KIRK BLOODSWORTH POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING GRANT PROGRAM.

SEC. 313. INCENTIVE GRANTS TO STATES TO ENSURE CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE.

Subtitle B--Improving the Quality of Representation in State Capital Cases

SEC. 321. CAPITAL REPRESENTATION IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.

SEC. 322. CAPITAL PROSECUTION IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.

SEC. 323. APPLICATIONS.

SEC. 324. STATE REPORTS.

SEC. 325. EVALUATIONS BY INSPECTOR GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.

SEC. 326. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Subtitle C--Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted

SEC. 331. INCREASED COMPENSATION IN FEDERAL CASES FOR THE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED.

SEC. 332. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COMPENSATION IN STATE DEATH PENALTY CASES.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 3214 addresses three interrelated problems: the elimination of backlogs of DNA evidence that has not been analyzed, the lack of training, equipment, technology, and standards for handling DNA and other forensic evidence, and the conviction of innocent persons. Title I addresses the backlogs by reauthorizing and expanding the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. It increases the authorized funding levels for the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination program to $151 million annually for the next five years. Title II authorizes funding for training for law enforcement, correctional, court, and medical personnel on the use of DNA evidence. Title II also authorizes grant programs to reduce other forensic science backlogs, research new DNA technology, and promote the use of DNA technology to identify missing persons. Title II provides funds to the FBI for the administration of its DNA programs.

Title III establishes rules for post-conviction DNA testing of Federal prison inmates and requires the preservation of biological evidence in federal criminal cases while the defendant remains incarcerated. The legislation provides incentive grants to States that adopt adequate procedures for providing post-conviction DNA testing and preserving biological evidence. Additionally, it authorizes funding to help States provide competent legal services for both the prosecution and the defense in death penalty cases and provides funds for post-conviction DNA testing.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

A. BACKGROUND

News stories extolling the successful use of DNA to solve crimes abound. To give just a few examples, consider the following. In 1999, New York authorities linked a man through DNA evidence to at least 22 sexual assaults and robberies that had terrorized the city. In 2002, authorities in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Fort Collins, Colorado, used DNA evidence to link and solve a series of crimes perpetrated by the same individual. In the 2001 `Green River' killings, DNA evidence provided a major breakthrough in a series of crimes that had remained unsolved for years despite a large law enforcement task force and a $15 million investigation.

DNA is generally used to solve crimes in one of two ways. In cases where a suspect is identified, a sample of that person's DNA can be compared to evidence from the crime scene. The results of this comparison may help establish whether the suspect committed the crime. In cases where a suspect has not yet been identified, biological evidence from the crime scene can be analyzed and compared to offender profiles in DNA databases to help identify the perpetrator.

Crime scene evidence can also be linked to other crime scenes through the use of DNA databases. In the late 1980s, the federal government laid the groundwork for a system of national, state, and local DNA databases for the storage and exchange of DNA profiles. This system, called the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), maintains DNA profiles obtained under the federal, state, and local systems in a set of databases that are available to law enforcement agencies across the country for law enforcement purposes. CODIS can compare crime scene evidence to a database of DNA profiles obtained from convicted offenders. CODIS can also link DNA evidence obtained from different crime scenes, thereby identifying repeat offenders.

To take advantage of the investigative potential of CODIS, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, states began passing laws requiring offenders convicted of certain offenses to provide DNA samples. Currently, all 50 states and the federal government have laws requiring that DNA samples be collected from some categories of offenders for inclusion in CODIS. However, only certain types of profiles authorized under Federal law may be uploaded to the national system. When used to its full potential, DNA evidence will help solve and may even prevent some of the most serious violent crimes.

In short, DNA technology is increasingly vital to ensuring accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system. It can identify criminals with incredible accuracy when biological evidence exists, and it can clear suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly accused or convicted of crimes.

B. NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Despite DNA's enormous potential, the current federal and state DNA collection and analysis system suffers from a variety of problems. In many instances, public crime laboratories are overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples--samples that could be used to solve violent crimes if the states had the funds to eliminate this backlog. Some estimates indicate that DNA evidence from at least 300,000 rape crime scenes has been collected but never analyzed by a crime lab. In addition, many of the laboratories are ill-equipped to handle the increasing flow of DNA samples and evidence.

The problems of backlogs and the lack of up-to-date technology result in significant delays in the administration of justice. The system needs more research to develop faster methods to analyze DNA evidence. Legal and medical personnel need additional training and assistance in order to ensure the optimal use of DNA evidence to solve crimes and assist victims. The criminal justice system needs the means to provide DNA testing in appropriate circumstances for individuals who assert that they have been wrongly convicted.

In addition to the benefits of DNA analysis, there are benefits from the use of other forensic technology. Additional funds are needed to allow grants to laboratories that perform research and analysis in other types of forensic disciplines such as firearms examinations, latent prints, toxicology, controlled substances, forensic pathology, questionable documents, and trace evidence.

DNA testing has the capacity not only to identify the perpetrators of crimes but also to exonerate the innocent. DNA testing has also revealed wrongful convictions around the country; however, DNA alone will not eliminate wrongful convictions. However, greater access to DNA testing is essential. Biological evidence that can establish guilt or innocence is available in fewer than 20 percent of violent crimes.

In addition to correcting the erroneous convictions that DNA testing reveals, there are steps that can be taken to prevent wrongful convictions in the first place. The single most important of these is to ensure that every indigent defendant has a competent attorney, particularly in capital cases. Many of the most egregious cases of wrongful convictions have involved attorneys who failed to inquire into the facts, failed to present or challenge evidence at trial, or worse--were drunk or asleep during key portions of the proceedings.

The provision of competent counsel benefits the prosecution as well as the defense. As Oklahoma City prosecutor Beth Wilkinson testified before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security last year, providing defendants with a competent defense is the best way to ensure `that the right person is convicted and justice is served,' that reversible error is avoided at trial, and that verdicts for the government are upheld on appeal. However, such a system must be funded. The Committee believes the federal government should offer affirmative assistance and encouragement to the States to adopt effective systems for the appointment and performance of counsel, rather than imposing new unfunded federal mandates.

HEARINGS

The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held one day of hearings on DNA issues on July 17, 2003. Testimony was received from four witnesses, representing three organizations, with additional material submitted by several other individuals and organizations. In the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 912, the `Innocence Protection Act of 2001' on June 18, 2002. This hearing addressed many of the issues addressed in Title III of H.R. 3214. Testimony was received from four witnesses.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On October 8, 2003, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3214 with an amendment by a recorded vote of 28 to 1, a quorum being present.

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the following rollcall vote occurred during the committee's consideration of H.R. 3214. The motion to report H.R. 3214 favorably as amended passed by a rollcall vote of 28 to 1:

Insert graphic folio 28 HR321.001

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because H.R. 3214 does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 3214, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

October 16, 2003.

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3214, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz.

Sincerely,

Douglas Holtz-Eakin,

Director.

Enclosure.

H.R. 3214--Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003

Summary: H.R. 3214 would authorize the appropriation of $1.85 billion over the 2005-2009 period to expand the use of DNA analysis in the criminal justice system. The bill would establish six new grant programs and extend two current grant programs that provide funding for states to improve forensic analysis of crime scene evidence, collect DNA samples from offenders, and train law enforcement personnel. The bill also would authorize appropriations for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to carry out its DNA programs, including the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), and would require the collection of DNA samples from persons convicted of felonies.

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3214 would cost about $1.1 billion over the 2005-2008 period (with additional amounts spent after 2008). This legislation could affect direct spending, but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be significant.

H.R. 3214 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would benefit state, local, and tribal governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3214 is shown in the following table. The cost of this legislation falls within budget function 750 (administration of justice). 



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                   By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--                          


                                                                                                                       2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 1                                                                                                                  


Spending under current law for the programs that would be authorized by H.R. 3214:                                                                   


Budget authority/authorization level 2                                                                                   82  153   57   42    0    0 


Estimated outlays                                                                                                        78  113   92   74   27   11 


Proposed changes:                                                                                                                                    


Estimated authorization level                                                                                             0   10  360  360  380  380 


Estimated outlays                                                                                                         0    9  106  234  349  372 


Spending under H.R. 3214:                                                                                                                            


Estimated authorization level                                                                                            82  163  417  402  380  380 


Estimated outlays                                                                                                        78  122  198  308  376  383 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Basis of estimate: Assuming appropriations of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3214 would cost $1.1 billion over the 2005-2008 period. This legislation could affect direct spending, but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be significant.

Spending subject to appropriation

H.R. 3214 would authorize the appropriation of $358 million for 2005 and for 2006, and $378 million for each of 2007, 2008, and 2009. For this estimate, CBO assumes that the authorized amounts will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year and that outlays will follow the historical spending rates for these or similar activities.

In addition, implementing H.R. 3214 would require the federal gvernment to collect DNA samples from each person in federal custody or on federally supervised release who has been convicted of a felony. Currently, the government collects DNA samples only from persons convicted of certain violent crimes. Based on information from the Bureau of Prisons, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the Department of Defense, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3214 would require the collection of roughly 160,000 additional samples in 2004 and about 40,000 samples in each subsequent year. We expect that it would cost about $60 to take each DNA sample, so collection costs would total $10 million in fiscal year 2004 and nearly $3 million a year for the 2005-2008 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.

Direct spending

Enacting H.R. 3214 could increase direct spending by raising the maximum compensation from $5,000 to $50,000 per year of imprisonment that could be paid to certain persons wrongly convicted of crimes by the federal government. Any such payments would be made from the U.S. Treasury's Judgment Fund and would be considered direct spending. CBO does not expect the number of such cases or any increase in payments for this purpose to be significant.

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3214 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would benefit state, local, and tribal governments by authorizing the appropriation of over $1.5 billion in grants to those governments over fiscal years 2005-2009. It would create six new grant programs and reauthorize and expand two existing grants under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. Any costs to grant recipients would be incurred voluntarily as conditions of receiving federal aid.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz. Impact on State, Local and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell. Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.

Estimated approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES


H.R. 3214 authorizes a variety of grants to State and local governments to combat crimes with DNA and other forensic technology and provides safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions.

Titles I and II of the bill include the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which authorizes $755 million over five years to address the DNA backlog crisis in the nation's crime labs. Additional grant programs are authorized to reduce other forensic science backlogs, train criminal justice and medical personnel in the use of DNA evidence, and promote the use of DNA technology to identify missing persons. The Committee expects State and local governments to use these grants to the maximum extent possible to reduce DNA backlogs and to improve their DNA and other forensic capabilities.

Title III of the bill, the Innocence Protection Act, provides access to post-conviction DNA testing in Federal cases and provides $100 million over 5 years for a grant program for States to improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases, and increases compensation in Federal cases of wrongful conviction. In addition, the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program authorizes $25 million for the States over five years to defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing. The Committee expects Federal, State, and local authorities to use this money to the maximum extent possible to reduce wrongful convictions and increase the quality of representation in capital cases.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT


Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION


TITLE I--RAPE KITS AND DNA EVIDENCE BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT


Sec. 101. Short title

Section 101 provides that this title may be cited as the `Rape Kits and DNA Evidence Backlog Elimination Act of 2003.'

Sec. 102. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant program

Section 102 renames the Backlog Elimination Act grant program in honor of Debbie Smith, a rape survivor and leader in promoting the use of the DNA technology to solve crimes. It amends and expands the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 in a variety of ways. It expands the program to allow grants to units of local governments as well as states. It clarifies that grants should go toward timely analyses of DNA samples including samples from rape kits, samples from other sexual assault evidence and samples taken in cases without an identified suspect.

This section also converts the DNA Backlog Elimination grant program to a formula grant program. The Attorney General will develop a formula that maximizes the effective use of DNA technology to solve crimes and protect public safety and that addresses areas where significant backlogs exist. A minimum grant amount of 0.50 percent is to be awarded to each State, and a specified percentage of funds will be awarded to conduct DNA analyses of samples from casework or victims of crime.

Conversion of the program into a formula grant program will ensure that funds will be fairly distributed among all eligible jurisdictions. The Committee expects that the formula will consider the following factors: the magnitude and nature of the DNA backlogs and current DNA work demands in the jurisdiction; deficits in public laboratory capacity for the analysis of DNA samples in the jurisdiction and cost requirements for remedying these deficits; and the ability of the jurisdiction to use the funds to increase DNA analysis and public laboratory capacity for such analysis. The Committee further expects that the formula will direct funding to solve the most serious violent crimes, including rapes and murders, thereby getting the greatest return in promoting public safety.

This section adds the collection of DNA from convicted offenders as a specific program purpose and clarifies that funds can be used to increase the capacity of public laboratories.

Additionally, recognizing the importance of obtaining quality DNA samples and the requirement for auditing and accreditation in section 202 of this Act, this section allows 1% of the funds to be used by states or units of local governments to prepare for accreditation or to perform audits of programs to ensure compliance with Federal quality assurance standards.

This section authorizes $151 million for these purposes for each year from FY 2005 through FY 2009.

Sec. 103. Expansion of Combined DNA Index System

Section 103 amends the statute governing the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) to allow states to include in CODIS the DNA profiles of all persons whose DNA samples have been collected under applicable legal authorities, including those authorized by State law, all felons convicted of Federal crimes, and all persons convicted of qualifying military offenses.

An amendment to this section was adopted at markup. This provision would allow a State or the Federal government to search the National DNA Index System (NDIS) for a match to any DNA sample that was lawfully obtained by the State. Currently, a search can be made only when the sample can be lawfully loaded into NDIS. However, some States allow lawful collection of a broader group of samples, which should be able to be searched for matches. This amendment would not change the rules for loading samples into NDIS, and when a search is conducted, the sample will only be loaded into NDIS if it otherwise qualifies under the NDIS rules.

Sec. 104. Tolling of statute of limitations

Section 104 provides that, in a case where DNA testing implicates an identified person in the commission of a felony, except for a felony offense under chapter 109A, no statute of limitations would preclude prosecution of the offense until a time period equal to the limitations period has elapsed from the date of identification of the perpetrator.

Sec. 105. Legal assistance for victims of violence

Section 105 expands the Violence Against Women Act to allow the grant programs to be used to provide legal assistance for victims of dating violence. `Dating violence,' is defined as violence committed by a person: (1) Who is or has been in a romantic or intimate relationship with the victim; and (2) where the existence of such relationship is determined based upon consideration of the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved.

Sec. 106. Ensuring private laboratory assistance in eliminating DNA backlog

Section 106 amends the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to ensure that states and local units of government may use grant funds to contract with private for-profit or non-profit companies to expedite DNA collection, analyses of DNA from crime scenes, and elimination of any backlog.

TITLE II--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2003


Sec. 201. Short title

Section 201 provides that this title may be cited as the `DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003.'

Sec. 202. Ensuring public crime laboratory compliance with federal standards

Section 202 requires that State and local government crime laboratories undergo accreditation within two years after enactment. It further requires that laboratories undergo auditing at least every two years to ensure compliance with federal standards that will be established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sec. 203. DNA training and education for law enforcement, correctional personnel, and court officers

Section 203 authorizes $12.5 million per year for five years to provide grants for training and education relating to DNA evidence for law enforcement personnel; correctional personnel; court officers, including prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges; and forensic scientists.

Sec. 204. Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program grants

Section 204 authorizes $30 million per year for five years to create a grant program to provide training, technical assistance, education, equipment, and information to medical personnel including doctors, medical examiners, coroners, nurses, victim service providers, and other medical professionals, including existing sexual assault and sexual assault examination programs (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner or SANE, Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner or

SAFE, and Sexual Assault Response Team or SART) relating to the identification, collection, preservation, analysis, and use of DNA samples and evidence.

Sec. 205. DNA research and development

Section 205 authorizes $15 million per year for five years for grants for research and development to improve forensic DNA technology, including funding of demonstration projects involving law enforcement agencies and criminal justice participants to evaluate the use of forensic DNA technology. The section also authorizes the Attorney General to establish a new Forensic Science Commission, composed of members from the forensic science and criminal justice communities, which will be responsible for examining various issues, including: (1) Use of forensic sciences to solve crimes and protect public safety; (2) increasing the number of qualified forensic scientists; (3) disseminating best practices concerning the collection and analyses of forensic evidence; and (4) assessing Federal, State and local privacy protection statutes, regulations and practices relating to DNA samples and DNA analyses.

Sec. 206. FBI DNA programs

Section 206 authorizes $42.1 million per year for five years in additional funds for the FBI to carry out its DNA programs including nuclear DNA analysis; mitochondrial DNA analysis; regional mitochondrial DNA laboratories; the Combined DNA Index System; the Federal convicted offender DNA program; and DNA research and development.

Sec. 207. DNA identification of missing persons

Section 207 authorizes $2 million per year for five years for grants to State and local governments for DNA identification of missing persons and unidentified human remains.

Sec. 208. Enhanced criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure or use of DNA information

Section 208 expands the criminal code provisions which criminalize unauthorized disclosure of DNA information to criminalize the unauthorized `use' of such information and increases the potential fine to $100,000 for each criminal offense.

Sec. 209. Tribal coalition grants

Section 209 authorizes grants to nonprofit, nongovernmental tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions in Indian country for domestic violence and sexual assault awareness programs under the Violence Against Women Act.

Sec. 210. Expansion of Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program

Section 210 extends the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program by authorizing $20 million per year for fiscal years 2007-09. This money will be used for grants to states, units of local governments, and tribal governments to eliminate forensic science backlogs including backlogs in the analysis of firearms examinations, latent prints, toxicology, controlled substances, forensic pathology, questionable documents, and trace evidence. It also requires that the laboratories have a process for investigating serious negligence or misconduct affecting the integrity of forensic results.

Sec. 211. Report to Congress

Section 211 requires the Attorney General to provide a report to Congress within two years of the date of enactment on the implementation of this Act.

TITLE III--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT


Sec. 301. Short title

Section 301 provides that this title may be cited as the `Innocence Protection Act of 2003.'

SUBTITLE A--EXONERATING THE INNOCENT THROUGH DNA TESTING


Sec. 311. Federal post conviction DNA testing

Section 311 establishes new procedures for applications for DNA testing by inmates in the Federal system. The new procedures require a court to order DNA testing if an applicant for testing asserts that he or she is actually innocent of a qualifying offense, that the proposed DNA testing would produce new material evidence that would support such an assertion and create a reasonable probability that the applicant did not commit the offense, and meets various other requirements. Criminal penalties are established in the event that testing inculpates the applicant. If test results are exculpatory, the court must grant the applicant's motion for a new trial or resentencing if the evidence establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal of the offense at issue.

Additionally, this section prohibits the destruction of biological evidence in a federal

criminal case while a defendant remains incarcerated, without a waiver by the defendant or prior notification to the defendant that the evidence may be destroyed. Knowing and intentional violations of this section to prevent evidence from being tested or used in court are subject to criminal penalties.

This section further requires the Attorney General to establish a system for reporting and tracking motions under this section and to report to Congress on their use within two years. Finally, this section specifies that it applies to any offense committed, or judgment entered, before, on, or after the date of enactment.

Sec. 312. The Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program

Section 312 authorizes $5 million per year for five years to provide grants to states for post conviction DNA testing.

Sec. 313. Incentive grants to states to ensure consideration of claims of actual innocence

This section reserves the grant funds in sections 203, 205, 207, and 303 of this bill for States that do the following: (1) Make post-conviction DNA testing available to persons convicted of a State crime; (2) allow post conviction relief if DNA testing excludes the defendant; and (3) preserve biological evidence in relation to State criminal cases.

SUBTITLE B--IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF REPRESENTATION IN STATE CAPITAL CASES


Sec. 321. Capital representation improvement grants

Section 321 establishes a grant program to ensure effective representation in state capital cases. Grants under this section shall be used to establish, implement, or improve an effective system for providing competent legal representation in capital cases. An effective system is one in which a public defender program or other entity establishes qualifications for attorneys who may be appointed to represent indigents; establishes and maintains a roster of qualified attorneys and assigns such attorneys in cases (or provides the trial judge with a choice of such attorneys to assign); trains and monitors the performance of such attorneys; and ensures funding for the full cost of competent legal representation by the defense team and any outside experts that may be employed.

Grants provided under this program may not be used to fund representation in specific cases. The Committee further intends that they should not be used to create or fund death penalty resource centers or to fund public advocacy.

Sec. 322. Capital prosecution improvement grants

Section 322 authorizes grants to improve the representation of the public by prosecutors in state capital cases by establishing training programs for capital prosecutors; developing, implementing, and enforcing appropriate standards and qualifications for such prosecutors and assessing their performance; establishing programs under which prosecutors conduct a systematic review of cases in which a defendant is sentenced to death in order to identify cases in which post-conviction DNA testing is appropriate; and assisting the families of murder victims. Grants provided under this program may not be used for individual cases. The Committee further intends that they should not be used to fund public advocacy.

Sec. 323. Applications

Section 323 requires States applying for grants under this subtitle, to provide a long-term strategy and detailed implementation plan that reflects consultation with the judiciary, the organized bar, and State and local prosecutor and defender organizations. It further establishes as a priority improvement in the quality of trial-level representation of indigents charged with capital crimes and trial-level prosecution of capital crimes in order to enhance the reliability of capital trial verdicts. This section also requires that funds received under this subtitle shall be allocated equally between the capital prosecution and capital representation improvement grants.

Sec. 324. State reports

Section 324 requires states receiving funds under this subtitle to provide an annual report to the Attorney General explaining the activities funded under the grant and their relationship to the grant program.

Sec. 325. Evaluations by Inspector General and administrative remedies

Section 325 requires the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to evaluate the States receiving funds under this title and submit reports to the Attorney General regarding compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant. In conducting such evaluations, the Inspector General must give priority to States at the highest risk of noncompliance. If, after receiving a report from the Inspector General, Attorney General finds that a State is not in compliance, the Attorney General shall take a series of steps to bring the State into compliance and report to Congress on the results.

Sec. 326. Authorization of appropriations

Section 326 authorizes $100 million per year for five years to provide grants under this subsection.

SUBTITLE C--COMPENSATION FOR THE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED


Sec. 331. Increased compensation in federal cases for the wrongfully convicted

Section 331 increases the maximum amount of damages an individual may be awarded for being wrongfully imprisoned by the Federal Government from $5,000 to $50,000 per year in non-capital cases and $100,000 per year in capital cases.

Sec. 332. Sense of Congress regarding compensation in State death penalty cases

Section 332 states that it is the sense of Congress that States should provide reasonable compensation to any person found to have been unjustly convicted of an offense against the State and sentenced to death.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED




DNA ANALYSIS BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT OF 2000


* * * * * * *

 [Struck out->][ SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS. ][<-Struck out]


SEC. 2. THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.


















* * * * * * *



















































* * * * * * *





















* * * * * * *















* * * * * * *















































SEC. 3. COLLECTION AND USE OF DNA IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFENDERS.




* * * * * * *



































* * * * * * *

SEC. 10. PRIVACY PROTECTION STANDARDS.




* * * * * * *











* * * * * * *

-

SECTION 210304 OF THE DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT OF 1994


SEC. 210304. INDEX TO FACILITATE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCHANGE OF DNA IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.










* * * * * * *













* * * * * * *









* * * * * * *

-

SECTION 1565 OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE


Sec. 1565. DNA identification information: collection from certain offenders; use




* * * * * * *











* * * * * * *

-

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE


* * * * * * *

PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE




Chap.
Sec.


201. General provisions

3001

* * * * * * *

228A. Post-conviction DNA testing

3600



* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 213--LIMITATIONS




Sec.

3281.  Capital offenses.

* * * * * * *

3297.  Cases involving DNA evidence.



* * * * * * *

Sec. 3297. Cases involving DNA evidence




* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 228A--POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING




Sec.

3600.  DNA testing.

3600A.  Preservation of biological evidence.



Sec. 3600. DNA testing










































































































































Sec. 3600A. Preservation of biological evidence






























* * * * * * *

-

SECTION 1201 OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 2000


SEC. 1201. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS.
















































* * * * * * *

-

OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968


* * * * * * *

TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT


* * * * * * *

PART J--FUNDING


AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS




* * * * * * *



































* * * * * * *

PART T--GRANTS TO COMBAT VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN


SEC. 2001. PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM AND GRANTS.




* * * * * * *



















* * * * * * *

PART BB--PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT GRANTS


* * * * * * *

SEC. 2802. APPLICATIONS.












* * * * * * *

SEC. 2804. USE OF GRANTS.














* * * * * * *







* * * * * * *

-

SECTION 2513 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE


Sec. 2513. Unjust conviction and imprisonment




* * * * * * *



COMMITTEE JURISDICTIONAL LETTERS


Committee on Armed Services,


House of Representatives,


Washington, DC, October 15, 2003.


Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,

Chairman, House Judiciary Committee,

Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN SENSENBRENNER: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Armed Services in matters being considered in H.R. 3214, Advancing Justice through the DNA Technology Act of 2003. Section 103(c) of H.R. 3214, as ordered reported by your committee amends section 1565 of title 10, United States Code. This amendment to title 10, United States Code, addresses military criminal offenses, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services.

Under current law, a DNA sample must be collected from each member of the armed forces who is or has been convicted of a qualifying military offense (QMO). At the present time, the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Attorney General determines those felony and sexual offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that are to be treated as qualifying military offense. In making that determination, `comparable' federal offenses are considered as qualifying military offenses under the UCMJ.

The amendment made by your committee in section 103 of H.R. 3214 would expand the Department of Defense qualifying military offense list by requiring the Department to include all offenses with maximum confinement over a year without regard to comparability with a federal QMO. I have reviewed the provision as ordered reported by your committee on October 8, 2003 and find it acceptable.

I recognize the importance of H.R. 3214 and the need for this legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, at this time I will waive further consideration of this provision by the Committee on Armed Services. However, the Committee on Armed Services asks that you support our request to be conferees on the provision over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. Additionally, I request that you include this letter as part of your committee's report on H.R. 3214.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

With best wishes.

Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter,

Chairman.

-

House of Representatives,


Committee on the Judiciary,


Washington, DC, October 15, 2003.


Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: This letter responds to your letter concerning H.R. 3214, the `Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2001.'

I agree that the bill contains matters within the Armed Services Committee's jurisdiction and appreciate your willingness to be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3214 so we may proceed to the floor. I acknowledge that by being discharged, your committee in no way waives its jurisdiction over these matters. I will also support your request for conferees on the parts of the bill over which the Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction should this matter go to conference.

Pursuant to your request, a copy of your letter and this letter will be included in the Committee on the Judiciary's report on H.R. 3214 and in the Congressional Record during House floor consideration of the bill. I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman.

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT


The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A working quorum is present.

Pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill H.R. 3214, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003 for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes to explain the bill.

Through my years in Congress on the Judiciary and Science Committees I have seen the potential for DNA testing to improve our criminal justice system. DNA can identify criminals with pinpoint accuracy. It can clear suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly convicted of crime. DNA technology ensures accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system. However, if DNA samples are not tested that potential is wasted. Sadly, the reality is that many samples are not being tested. To have this tool available and not to fully use it is tragic. Many crimes could be solved, many guilty people could be taken off the streets, and many victims could be spared from future crimes.

The current Federal and State DNA collection and analysis systems need improvement. Public crime labs are overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples that could solve violent crimes if the States had the funds to process them. Experts have estimated that DNA evidence from more than 180,000 rape crime scenes have been collected but never analyzed.

In addition, many of the labs are ill-equipped. Backlogs and the lack of equipment significantly delay the administration of justice. Faster methods for analyzing DNA evidence are needed. Criminal justice professionals need additional training and assistance to ensure the optimal use of DNA evidence. In appropriate circumstances, individuals who may have been wrongly convicted need the means to get DNA tests.

This bill, which 31 members of this Committee have co-sponsored will help fix these problems. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation authorizes $755 million over five years to eliminate the current backlog of rape kits and other crime scene evidence awaiting DNA analysis in crime labs. It authorizes funding for training for law enforcement, correctional, court, and medical personnel on the use of DNA evidence. The bill funds research to improve forensic technology and authorizes $10 million per year in grants to States, local governments and tribal governments to eliminate forensic backlogs.

It also authorizes funding for the use of forensic DNA technology to identify missing persons and unidentified human remains. Most of these provisions are part of the President's DNA initiative.

H.R. 3214 also addresses those who may wrongly be convicted. The Innocents Protection Act provisions of H.R. 3214, which are also the result of bipartisan and bicameral negotiations, will ensure that our justice system is working. They establish rules for post-conviction DNA testing of Federal prison inmates and require the preservation of biological evidence in Federal criminal cases while the defendant remains incarcerated. The Innocents Protection Act provisions authorize funding to help States provide competent legal services for both the prosecution and defense in capital cases, and they provide funds for post-conviction DNA testing.

Additionally, the provisions provide bonus grants to States that adopt adequate procedures for providing post-conviction DNA testing and preserving biological evidence.

I also wish to note that I will be offering a manager's amendment which has been worked out on both sides of the aisle in both Houses which I will describe when I offer it. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues on this Committee have recognized the benefits of this legislation and are co-sponsors, and I urge the Committee to pass the manager's amendment and to pass the bill.

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is the ranking member on the subcommittee. Do you have an opening statement?

Insert graphic folio 74 HR321.002

Insert graphic folio 75 HR321.003

Insert graphic folio 76 HR321.004

Insert graphic folio 77 HR321.005

Insert graphic folio 78 HR321.006

Insert graphic folio 79 HR321.007

Insert graphic folio 80 HR321.008

Insert graphic folio 81 HR321.009

Insert graphic folio 82 HR321.010

Insert graphic folio 83 HR321.011

Insert graphic folio 84 HR321.012

Insert graphic folio 85 HR321.013

Insert graphic folio 86 HR321.014

Insert graphic folio 87 HR321.015

Insert graphic folio 88 HR321.016

Insert graphic folio 89 HR321.017

Insert graphic folio 90 HR321.018

Insert graphic folio 91 HR321.019

Insert graphic folio 92 HR321.020

Insert graphic folio 93 HR321.021

Insert graphic folio 94 HR321.022

Insert graphic folio 95 HR321.023

Insert graphic folio 96 HR321.024

Insert graphic folio 97 HR321.025

Insert graphic folio 98 HR321.026

Insert graphic folio 99 HR321.027

Insert graphic folio 100 HR321.028

Insert graphic folio 101 HR321.029

Insert graphic folio 102 HR321.030

Insert graphic folio 103 HR321.031

Insert graphic folio 104 HR321.032

Insert graphic folio 105 HR321.033

Insert graphic folio 106 HR321.034

Insert graphic folio 107 HR321.035

Insert graphic folio 108 HR321.036

Insert graphic folio 109 HR321.037

Insert graphic folio 110 HR321.038

Insert graphic folio 111 HR321.039

Insert graphic folio 112 HR321.040

Insert graphic folio 113 HR321.041

Insert graphic folio 114 HR321.042

Insert graphic folio 115 HR321.043

Insert graphic folio 116 HR321.044

Insert graphic folio 117 HR321.045

Insert graphic folio 118 HR321.046

Insert graphic folio 119 HR321.047

Insert graphic folio 120 HR321.048

Insert graphic folio 121 HR321.049

Insert graphic folio 122 HR321.050

Insert graphic folio 123 HR321.051

Insert graphic folio 124 HR321.052

Insert graphic folio 125 HR321.053

Insert graphic folio 126 HR321.054

Insert graphic folio 127 HR321.055

Insert graphic folio 128 HR321.056

Insert graphic folio 129 HR321.057

Insert graphic folio 130 HR321.058

Insert graphic folio 131 HR321.059

Insert graphic folio 132 HR321.060

Insert graphic folio 133 HR321.061

Insert graphic folio 134 HR321.062

Insert graphic folio 135 HR321.063

Insert graphic folio 136 HR321.064

Insert graphic folio 137 HR321.065

Insert graphic folio 138 HR321.066

Insert graphic folio 139 HR321.067

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the reasons you have outlined, and to help convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent, I would hope we would pass the bill. I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I will be very brief.

I just want to note that this particular proposal before us is really the culmination of many months, actually years now, of discussion, negotiations, as the Chairman indicated, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. I particularly want to acknowledge the efforts of Chairman Coble, my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Green, Mr. Weiner. Also I want to acknowledge the ranking member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, for allowing me to represent the minority in those discussions.

But it would be remiss if I did not note the efforts, and time and patience of the staff on both sides, particularly on our side my own legislative director. I am looking for him now. I do not see him here--but Mark Agrast. And in terms of the majority side, the chief of staff, chief counsel, et cetera, Phil Kiko, is an extraordinary example of what can happen when folks sit down with good intentions to come up with a product that I believe we can all be extremely proud of and look back upon as one of the best efforts that this Committee has put forth.

Again, I would be remiss not to acknowledge that we clearly would not have this bill before us today without the leadership of Jim Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I believe that anyone interested in the integrity of the justice system of the United States owes you a debt of gratitude. With that I will yield back.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I would like to ask unanimous consent that my full statement be inserted in the record.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. And without objection, all members, opening statements will be placed in the record, as well as any extraneous material. Hearing none, so ordered.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.


I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Representative Delahunt and Members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in developing this bipartisan, bicameral compromise. H.R. 3214 takes the first of hopefully many steps towards improving the integrity of our criminal justice system.

First and foremost, the bill provides federal inmates with access to DNA testing, thereby enabling them to establish their innocence after being subjected to a wrongful conviction. As many of you know, over the past few years, more than 110 innocent Americans have already been exonerated thanks to post-conviction DNA testing. This provision will ensure that others wrongfully convicted will also have an equal chance at obtaining justice.

Second, the bill authorizes grants to be awarded to States with the express purpose of improving the quality of legal representation afforded indigent defendants in capital cases. Experts have indicated that many of the most egregious cases in which an innocent person was wrongfully convicted involved attorneys who were incompetent, ill-trained or simply ineffective. These grants will dramatically alter this situation by providing defendants with defense counsel that meet a minimum standard of competency.

Finally, the bill contains a provision--not often mentioned--but of extreme importance to those that have been subjected to a wrongful conviction. I'm speaking of the provision in the bill that increases the maximum amount of damages an individual may be awarded for being wrongfully imprisoned from $5,000 to $50,000 per year in non-capital cases and up to $100,000 per year in capital cases.

Having pointed out the many virtues of the bill, I must admit this bill remains far from perfect. I would prefer the legislation to include an outright ban on the use of the federal death penalty. I also think the bill would have been considerably better if it addressed some of the many factors that contribute to the unacceptably high rate of wrongful convictions, including eyewitness error, perjury, false confessions and police torture.

Nevertheless, I strongly support the delicate compromise that has been reached today. And, I urge my colleagues to support this worthy initiative, so that we can move this legislation to the House floor for its ultimate passage.

-

STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR SMITH


I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 3214, the `Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003.'

In recent years, we have seen the vital role that DNA testing can play in criminal justice. DNA offers us more certainty in convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent.

This bill would increase the availability of DNA testing both in the state and federal criminal justice systems. It would also help crime labs reduce the backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples, and provide enhancements in the way that DNA data is shared in the law enforcement community.

This Committee has worked for several years on passing a bill that would improve the use of DNA technology in the criminal justice system. I was a part of those negotiations during the last Congress and am pleased that we have a bill that many of us can support.

-

STATEMENT OF HON. JERROLD NADLER


Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation, and this amendment.

I want particularly to congratulate Mr. Delahunt who first introduced the Innocence Protection Act several years ago, and has worked tirelessly on this matter ever since. I want to thank the Chairman and the Members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle for working together to put politics and sound bites aside and to pass meaningful legislation to fight crime and advance the cause of justice.

I am pleased that this bill includes the modified Innocence Protection Act that aims to reduce the possibility that innocent people will be put to death. I understand this is a delicate compromise, but I must say that this bill is only a first step, not a final step, in our efforts to reform our nation's capital punishment laws. These laws are broken and major reform and full funding of this legislation is necessary to prevent the innocent from being wrongfully convicted and executed.

It is imperative that we eliminate the shameful backlog of untested rape kits, and this bill will go a long way towards that goal. On the issue of rape kits, again, let me say, `It's about time.' Many Members have been personally involved in the fight to test rape kits for the past 19 months. I have worked with NOW, RAINN, and Lifetime Television to raise awareness of this issue and to build consensus for decisive action. Together, we have pushed, prodded, and demanded that federal funding be provided to test these kits right away. Today, we are one step closer to our goal.

But we are not there yet. These programs will need to be funded, and I am hopeful that the members of this Committee who support this bill now, will join me in asking that the bill be fully funded by the Appropriations Committee.

It is too important an issue to ignore. Police Departments must have the resources they need to solve crimes and put criminals behind bars.

I am pleased that this bill includes a provision similar to the `Rape Kit DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act' which I introduced back in March of 2002, which would have provided $250 million to eliminate the rape kit backlog two years ago. The bill before us today acknowledges that we were right back then when we requested major increases in funding, since this bill offers even more funding for this task. In addition, I am pleased to see that the phrase `rape kits' has been specifically added to our current law to further underscore the need for this funding to address rape crimes in particular. These heinous crimes deserve  our full attention and the victims of these crimes deserve the certainty that DNA evidence can bring to them.

Once again, I am pleased to support this bill because it represents a serious effort to combat crime, locate and apprehend rapists, and use powerful evidence to put them in prison.

I am for unanimous consent to insert extraneous material into the record.

-

TIMELINE OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY REPRESENTATIVE NADLER TO PROMOTE THIS LEGISLATION


In February of 2002, Representative Nadler fought for an amendment that was adopted to the Judiciary Committee's Budget Views and Estimates that put the Committee on the record of fully supporting funding to eliminate the backlog of DNA evidence that have not yet been analyzed.

In March of 2002, Nadler introduced the Rape Kit DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act, which would provide $250 million in funding to eliminate the backlog of rape kits that have not been analyzed by police departments nationwide. The announcement was made at a Capitol Hill press conference, where the Congressman was joined by Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women and Scott Berkowitz of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.

In April of 2002, shortly after Representative Nadler introduced the legislation in the House, Senator Hillary  Clinton introduced the Senate version of the bill and the bill earned the endorsement of the New York Times and Lifetime television.

In May of 2002, with pressure mounting for action to be taken, the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Crime and Drugs, Senator Biden, held hearings on DNA evidence and rape kits. The House, which was still controlled by the Republicans, did not hold hearings on the rape kit issue. Senator Biden then pushed comprehensive sexual assault legislation forward, and he was able to get the bill to pass the Senate by unanimous consent in September.

Representative Nadler immediately seized the opportunity to urge Majority Leader Armey to bring up the Senate passed bill for consideration in the House. He organized a dear colleague letter to the entire House urging them to join him in pushing for the bill and got more than 20 Members of Congress to sign on to his letter to Armey. Armey never acted on the legislation. Congress failed to act before the end of 2002.

In 2003, with Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate, Representative Nadler joined forces with his House colleagues to push for a bipartisan solution to the problem. In March, Representative Nadler was an original cosponsor of H.R. 1046, `To assess the extent of the backlog in DNA analysis of rape kit samples, and to improve investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases with DNA evidence,' which was similar to the Biden bill passed by the Senate the year before. In October, Representative Nadler joined his colleagues to introduce the latest version of the bill, which has the greatest chance of becoming law.

`This issue is too important not to pursue, because everyone knows that DNA evidence is essential to solving crimes. It can lead to punishment of the guilty and the freeing of the innocent. We must commit the necessary resources to empower law enforcement to analyze all of the DNA evidence they collect, so that they can solve cases and bring justice to American families,' concluded Representative Nadler.

-

STATEMENT OF HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE


Mr. Chairman and Ranking member, I do support of H.R. 3214, `Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act,' of which I am a co-sponsor. We of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security had the opportunity to examine this bill in an Oversight Hearing in July of this year. As I expressed at that time, once this technological tool is improved as to the areas that I discuss below, it will play such a key role in streamlining and expediting our criminal justice system. As evidenced by the testimony given at the oversight hearing, our law enforcement agencies are becoming increasingly more adept at analyzing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to verify or rule out the identity of a suspect or a charged individual in processing a criminal case. The more adept we become, the closer we get to having a fair and accurate system. We must, however, significantly raise the bar of our standards of review for DNA and ballistics crime lab accreditation.

CRIME LAB ACCREDITATION


The certification of our crime labs for conformance to our accepted standards is done by groups such as the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD). The Crime Laboratory Accreditation Program of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) is a voluntary program in which any crime laboratory may participate to demonstrate that its management, operations, personnel, procedures, equipment, physical plant, security, and personnel safety procedures meet established standards. The accreditation process is part of a laboratory's quality assurance program that should also include proficiency testing, continuing education and other programs to help the laboratory give better overall service to the criminal justice system. Certification and accreditation are done via a process of self-evaluation led by individual crime laboratory directors. Our labs are not functioning at optimum levels, and this sub-par performance translates to the potential miscarriage of justice and prosecution of innocent people. Improvement of lab performance begins with tighter employment policies for the lab staff. For example, the ASCLD's Credential Review Committee has a DNA Advisory Board and codified standards for its technical staff. The following was taken from its website:

`DNA Advisory Board Standard 5.2.1.1 provides a mechanism for waiving the educational requirements for current technical leaders/technical managers who do not meet the degree requirements of section 5.2.1 but who otherwise qualify based on knowledge and experience. Consequently ASCLD has established this procedure for obtaining a waiver.

`One waiver is available per laboratory if the current technical leader/technical manager does not meet the degree requirements of DAB Standard 5.2.1. Waivers are available only to current technical leaders/technical managers. Waivers are permanent and portable for the recipient individual. A laboratory may request a second waiver if the first recipient leaves the employ of the laboratory.'

Although experience is quite important in selecting staff, formal education is vital when it comes to technical performance and the legal implications of that performance. We are in desperate need of appropriate legislation to set forth and maintain the standards of DNA/ballistics lab accreditation.

TEXAS LAW AND CRIME LAB ACCREDITATION


In 2001, Texas passed a law formalizing a process for post-conviction access to DNA testing. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, however, has not applied the law as it was designed to work and has denied access to testing in a number of cases. The version of this bill that passed is HB 1011 by Scott Hochberg (D-Houston).

The Texas House passed a bill in April of this year requiring crime laboratories that test DNA to meet accreditation standards, a law designed to prevent future scandals like the one that recently plagued the Houston Police Department. State Rep. Kevin Bailey and other members of the House Committee on General Investigating wrote State HB 2703, which will require the Department of Public Safety to develop accreditation standards and a timetable for police labs to meet them. It will also ban the use of forensic evidence from unaccredited laboratories. Our work ethic in establishing and maintaining high standards of performance in the labs must be as technical and tenacious as we would like the overall performance.

In Texas, polls have shown strong public support for DNA testing. In June a 2000 Scripps-Howard Texas Poll, 87 percent of Texans surveyed supported giving inmates the right to free DNA testing to try to prove their innocence if the genetic evidence exists,

and 76 percent supported a moratorium on death sentences for inmates whose cases might be affected by DNA testing. Ninety-two percent of Americans surveyed for a March 2000 Gallup Poll said that prisoners convicted before the availability of DNA tests should be allowed to obtain the tests now if they were innocent.

However, oftentimes the hoopla of new technology causes our work ethic and our sense of duty to fall by the wayside to the detriment of innocent individuals. In fact, one of the panelists featured in today's Oversight Hearing, Peter Neufeld, Esquire of Innocent Project at the Cardozo School of Law, spoke out regarding the case of Josiah Sutton in my Houston District, Harris County. The Houston Court convicted Sutton in 1998 for the rape of a woman whose body was dumped in a Fort Bend County field. But the Court eventually granted him bail in March after an independent lab determined that he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit. An audit and an ongoing series of retesting of DNA samples by the Texas Department of Public Safety and a crime lab professional from Tarrant County revealed potential contamination problems at the subject lab as well as poor working conditions and inadequate training. Attorney Neufeld remarked that `[t]he most important question for the people of Houston and the people of Texas is, `What went wrong that allowed this young man to be convicted for a crime he didn't commit? And it is absolutely clear that what you have going on is a system of malpractice by the Houston crime laboratory that allows its criminalists to distort and conceal evidence.' What I fear about the dangers of poor training and placement of checks may be summed up by what Neufeld added, `One of the biggest problems of * * * [crime labs] is that they [are] much more concerned with being a servant to the police and prosecutors than they [are] to science * * * [a]nd if people want to pursue a career in science, the word science has to come before law enforcement.' The objectivity that is required to make forensic science effective must be divorced from the latitude exercised by some of our law enforcement personnel. Therefore, in fashioning and considering a bill that proposes the implementation of a comprehensive and aggressive DNA forensic criminal justice plan, we must include

adequate control mechanisms to prevent injustice and the ruination of young lives like the young Houston man, Josiah Sutton.

Furthermore, other problems with DNA testing in criminal cases affect the inmate directly. The discretion with which the decision whether to use DNA testing leaves room for inconsistent adjudication and differential treatment of convicted persons. Statutory guidelines regarding when to order the test would exclude some cases that might not meet the standards but still might deserve testing. Moreover, some inmates who seek exoneration may request executive clemency. In addition to requiring very difficult measures to achieve justice, some argue that the tests administered are inadequate because they do not provide specific, clear, and fair procedures for inmates to bring claim of innocence.

In addition to negligent handling or unskilled analysis of DNA evidence, the backlog of cases causes our criminal justice system to crumble despite the level of sophistication of our technology. Houston police have turned over about 525 case files involving DNA testing to the Harris County district attorney's office, which has said that at least 25 cases warrant re-testing, including those of seven people on Death Row. The numbers will grow significantly as more files are collected and analyzed, according to the assistant district attorney supervising the project.

The Fort Worth police crime lab's serology/DNA unit has been criticized recently for a backlog that was slowing down court cases. The unit's performance suffers from understaffing and overworking.

I commend the Committee on its work to include the important provisions of the Innocence Protection Act of 2003 in Title III of this bill. It will protect the rights of an incarcerated defendant who maintains his/her innocence. This provision is extremely important in terms of preserving individual's due process rights.

Overall, my concern as to the prospect of using these DNA tests is that the inmates' civil liberties and rights to due process will be in jeopardy or subject to excessive law enforcement and judicial discretion. Furthermore, our own human error threatens to undermine the boons of technology. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I advocate the use of DNA tests in criminal procedure; however, the use of these tests must achieve justice for all. I do support H.R. 3214.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KING


Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you and your staff for the work you have done to negotiate a bipartisan compromise in the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, H.R. 3214. I am pleased to be able to cosponsor this legislation.

As a State Senator in Iowa, I helped to improve Iowa's DNA data collection and database capability. I firmly believe that the use of technology and information sharing in this legislation will help us find criminals and bring them to justice. Science can also exonerate the innocent once and for all. Every criminal that is taken off the street as a result of DNA evidence will make our communities safer. Crime imposes significant personal, emotional and financial costs on victims. We must do all we can to give law enforcement the tools they need to solve these crimes and bring criminals to justice. I believe the information sharing encouraged by H.R. 3214 will help law enforcement to track down serial criminals. We must all work together to fight crime and secure justice for victims.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA T. SANCHEZ


Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member for convening this markup today and for your collaborative efforts, as well as the efforts of Mr. Delahunt, to bring this important legislation before the Committee.

We cannot overstate the importance of improving the use of DNA technology in our criminal justice system. High rates of crime continue to be a problem nationally, as well as in my district of Southeast Los Angeles County. While we all want to see a national reduction in crime, it doesn't help if the wrong person is convicted and jailed. DNA technology is crucial to ensuring that criminal cases are processed accurately, and that innocent citizens are not prosecuted and incarcerated for crimes they did not commit.

This is particularly true in capital cases where there continues to be debate on how fairly our capital punishment system is applied. In September of 2000, the Department of Justice reported that African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities were considered for the federal death penalty more often than whites. At the time of the study, of 682 defendants charged with federal capital offenses between 1995 and 2000, 80 percent were minorities and 20 percent were white. During the same period of time, 20 federal defendants were sentenced to death, of which again, 80 percent were minorities and 20 percent were white.

This bill is an important first step in improving the accuracy and reliability of our criminal justice system, and reducing the impact of racial bias, unreliable witnesses, or poor legal representation that cause innocent people to be convicted. DNA evidence has been used over 100 times to exonerate innocent Americans wrongly accused of crimes, and will no doubt be used to exonerate many more.

Once again, I than the Chairman, Ranking Member, and Mr. Delahunt, for their efforts to introduce the very important bill that will make significant improvements to our criminal justice system.

-

[FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, OCT. 8, 2003]


WASHINGTON, DC- Today, The National Center for Victims of Crime, The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), and Lifetime Television released the following statement on the mark-up of H.R. 3214, `The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003,' in the House Judiciary Committee: `For more than a year, we have been working together, along with rape survivor Debbie Smith, to raise awareness about the staggering number of rape kits in this country waiting to be tested. We are honored to stand with you as you work to pass this critical legislation that will provide $1 billion in funding to eliminate the DNA backlog and significantly improve the collection and processing of DNA evidence, bringing relief to countless victims of sexual assault and putting more rapists behind bars where they belong. On behalf of our organizations, our members and on behalf of the nearly 100,000 Lifetime Television viewers who have signed an online petition in support of this legislation, we commend you for your commitment to this new bill and urge swift passage.'

The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network is the nation's largest anti-sexual assault organization, RAINN operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline. At 1.800.656.HOPE, the hotline has helped more than half a million victims of sexual assault since 1994. RAINN also carries out extensive education and outreach programs to ensure that more than 100 million Americans each year receive vital information about sexual assault prevention, prosecution and recovery. After researching the nation's 819,000 charities, Worth Magazine selected RAINN as one of `America's 100 Best Charities.' Additional information is at www.rainn.org.

The National Center is the nation's leading resource and advocacy organization for victims of crime. Since its founding in 1985, the National Center has worked with local, state, and federal organizations and agencies across the country, and provided information, support, and assistance to hundreds of thousands of victims, victim service providers, allied professionals, and advocates. The National Center's toll-free helpline, 1-800-FYI-CALL, offers supportive counseling, practical information about crime and victimization, referrals to local community resources, as well as skilled advocacy in the criminal justice and social service systems.

LIFETIME is the leader in women's television and has been the #1 cable television network in primetime for the last two years. LIFETIME is committed to offering the highest quality entertainment and information programming, and advocating a wide range of issues affecting women and their families. Launched in 1984, LIFETIME serves over 86 million households nationwide. In 1998 LIFETIME launched a 24-hour sister service, the Lifetime Movie Network, now in 37 million homes, and a second sister service, Lifetime Real Women, launched in August 2001. On the web, Lifetime Online (www.lifetimetv.com) features informational resources and interactive entertainment. Lifetime magazine, a new women's lifestyle title, launched in April 2003. LIFETIME Television, Lifetime Movie Network, Lifetime Real Women and Lifetime Online, are part of LIFETIME Entertainment Services, a 50/50 joint venture of The Hearst Corporation and The Walt Disney Company, as is Lifetime magazine.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield back.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair has a manager's amendment at the desk and the clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 3214 offered by Chairman Sensenbrenner.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3214 OFFERED BY MR. SENSENBRENNER




























































































































































Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes to explain it.

As I have already noted, this bill is the product of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. The manager's amendment is also the product of these negotiations. The vast majority of this amendment is technical, clarifying, or stylistic in nature and I will not take the time to describe all of those changes now.

However, it does include one substantive provision that has been worked out with the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, to address concerns that he has raised. This provision would allow a State or the Federal Government to search the national DNA index system for a match to any DNA sample that was lawfully obtained by the State. Currently, a search can be made only when the sample can be lawfully loaded into the NDIS. However, some States allow the lawful collection of a broader group of samples and they should be able to search for matches to that broader group. This amendment would not change the rules for loading samples into the NDIS, and when a search is conducted the sample will only be loaded into NDIS if it otherwise qualifies under the NDIS rules.

I understand that there may still be concerns about this language and I will work with interested members to reach a consensus on it before we go to the floor. I urge the adoption of the manager's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler.

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation and this amendment. I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle for working together to put politics and sound bites aside and to pass meaningful legislation to advance the cause of justice. I want particularly to congratulate Mr. Delahunt who first introduced the Innocents Protection Act several years ago and has worked tirelessly on this matter ever since.

I am pleased that this bill includes the modified Innocents Protection Act that aims to reduce the possibility that innocent people will be put to death. I understand this is a delicate compromise, but I must say that this bill is only a first step, not a final step, in our efforts to reform our Nation's capital punishment laws. These laws are broken and major reform, and in particular, full funding of this legislation, is necessary to protect the innocent from being wrongfully convicted and executed. It is also necessary to watch to see how many States sign up for this since this bill is all carrot, not stick. Hopefully all the States will sign up for it.

It is imperative, in addition, that we eliminate the shameful backlog of untested rape kits, and this bill will go a long way towards that goal. Let me say that on this issue it is about time. I have personally been involved in the fight to test rape kits for the past 19 months. Many members have worked with NOW, RAIN, and Lifetime Television to raise awareness of this issue and to build consensus for decisive action. Together we have pushed private and demanded that Federal funding be provided to test these kits right away.

Today we are one step closer to our goal. But we are not there yet. These programs still need to be funded and I am hopeful that the members of this Committee who support this bill now will join in asking that the bill be fully funded by the Appropriations Committee. It is too important an issue to ignore. Police departments must have the resources they need to solve crimes and put criminals behind bars.

I am pleased that this bill includes a provision similar to the Rape Kit DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act which I introduced in March of last year which would have provided $250 million to eliminate the rape kit backlog two years ago. The bill before us today acknowledges that we were right back then when we requested major increases in funding because it authorizes even more funding for this task. I am pleased also to see that the phrase rape kits has been specifically added to our current law to further underscore

the need for this funding to address rape crimes in particular. These heinous crimes deserve our full attention, and the victims of these crimes deserve the certaintly that DNA evidence can bring to them.

Once again, I am pleased to support this bill because it represents a serious effort to combat crime, locate and apprehend rapists, and use powerful evidence to put them in prison, as well as, of course, to protect the innocent. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to insert the full statement and extraneous material into the record.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. The other gentleman from--the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to voice concerns that I have about the bill. I am opposed in its current form. I would love to be able to vote for this. There are a lot of good parts of it. We certainly want those who are innocent to be protected, and there are a lot of things in this bill which it will help. But unfortunately, there are some things that should concern all of us. They concern the Senate Republicans so much that they opposed the bill last year, and this form from now is not much changed from that.

Of particular concern to me is the granting or the authorization of $100 million in Federal funds to operate State programs. This is a departure from the principle of Federalism that we try to adhere to in this Committee and elsewhere. We earlier in the 1990s actually got rid of some of these capital resource centers. They were de-funded by Congress in 1996 because we know that some of the hard-core death penalty opponents gravitate toward these jobs and it makes it far more difficult to move necessary cases through. We should not force States to turn over their capital defender systems to a new version of these resource centers, and that is what I fear happening with this bill in its current form.

So I just wanted to raise those concerns. I know that it is unlikely to stop this bill but I hope that these concerns get a full airing as this moves through the process.

I yield back.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for promptly scheduling today's markup and I would like to take a few moments to put today's bill in context.

In 1999, I took a tour of a refrigerated warehouse in Long Island City in New York. What I saw there I will never

forget. What I saw there I will never forget. In this warehouse was row after row of small boxes, roughly the size of shoeboxes, 16,000 in total. Each and every one was filled with a rape kit, which is a collection, as you know, of semen, hair, saliva, or any other crime scene evidence that could potentially identify the assailant.

As I stood there I quickly realized this was not just 16,000 boxes. It was not just 16,000 rape kits. It was 16,000 people's lives. It was 16,000 women who were still living in doubt, not knowing if their assailant were still on the loose. It was 16,0000 people like Debbie Smith who were so paralyzed with fear that they found it difficult at times to get out of their car and go inside their house after work. It was 16,000 women who were being denied justice because of a system that was broken.

As anyone familiar with this issue knows, the process for collecting these rape kits is not a pleasant one. But it is one that women are willing to endure because they are willing to do whatever it takes to see that their rapist is brought to justice, and they rightfully assume that this evidence will be analyzed.

But too often this evidence simply sat on a shelf. The primary reason this evidence was neglected was simple. It was money. The more I studied this issue, the more I realized that the New York example I witnessed was not an isolated one. Consequently, I introduced legislation to provide Federal funding to eliminate the backlog and eventually worked with former Crime Subcommittee chairman McCollum and other members of this Committee to pass the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act. To date, more than $100 million has been provided under the 2000 law to analyze backlog DNA evidence and convicted offender samples. With the help of this funding more than 470,000 offender samples have been analyzed and more than 24,000 casework samples have also been tested.

But this was just a first step. To really address this problem once and for all we needed an accurate assessment of how bad it was. Remarkably, in 2002, all we had was best guesses. Some people thought it might be as many as 180,000 untested DNA rape kits around the country. But no one really knew for certain because we had never bothered to conduct a nationwide survey of all the Nation's law enforcement agencies.

Further compounding the problem is that many of the agencies that held this evidence were reluctant to share the backlog with Federal authorities. That is why we included a provision in last year's DOJ authorization bill requiring Justice to conduct the first-ever nationwide survey of the backlog of DNA evidence. This March the preliminary results came back putting the backlog in early 2003 at roughly

350,000 untested rape kits and other casework samples around the country. This survey gave us the hard data we needed not only to justify reauthorizing our 2000 law but significantly expanding it. I introduced legislation with Representative Green to do so earlier this Congress and shortly thereafter the Bush Administration released its own DNA initiative, which took a number of the proposals in our legislation and built upon them.

Today, we are marking up legislation that contains the best elements of these proposals. In particular, the bill would reauthorize the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 and triple the annual funding for casework to $75 million a year. It would provide an additional $75 million a year over the next five years to analyze convicted offender samples and enhance the capacity of labs to analyze the DNA evidence. By expanding this lab capacity we hopefully will drive down the price of testing each of these kits, making it easier to test them all.

The bill would also allow cities to receive DNA grant funding directly rather than having to go through their States, expend the Federal DNA offender database to include all lawfully collected samples. It would waive the statute of limitation in cases involving DNA identification. When I stood in that warehouse looking at the 16,000 samples in 1999, it was within 12 months after 4,000 of them would have reached the statute of limitation rendering the information therein moot.

It would provide $30 million a year for five years to support sexual assault nurse examiner programs. These are programs which train nurses in hospital emergency rooms with the special care dealing with those who have been victims of sexual assault and rape. It would amend the Coverdell Forensic Improvement Program to allow funding to be used to clear out the backlog of other forensic evidence like firearms, fingerprints, toxicology and other controlled substances. And of course, the bill includes a version of Mr. Delahunt's Innocents Protection Act.

Mr. Chairman, I contend that this piece of legislation we will pass today is the most important that this panel will approve all year, because it will not only save lives by getting criminals off the street but help thousands of crime victims reclaim theirs. A lot of people deserve credit for making this bill possible. Mr. Coble and Mr. Scott should be commended for making DNA legislation a priority of their subcommittee. Mr. Green has been a true leader and a great partner on this issue. And of course, Mr. Delahunt has worked for years for the rights of the innocent and this bill is a testimony to his dedication.

The Bush Administration also deserves great praise for proposing an aggressive proposal that will not only eliminate

the DNA backlog but will put us in a better position to utilize DNA evidence in the future.

Finally, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for understanding that we must not only use DNA evidence to put the right people behind bars, but we also need to make sure the wrong people are not incarcerated. I think that your decision to link the DNA backlog elimination legislation to the Innocents Protection Act was wise and necessary to ensure that we will realize the full potential of DNA to solve crimes. I look forward to moving this bill quickly through Committee today and hopefully onto the floor next week, and to the President's desk before the year is out. Thousands of crime victims have waited for too long for justice and with today's action we are one step closer to bringing that wait to an end.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas seek recognition?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. To strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me echo, I think, what has been the general sense of this Committee, and the way that we have proceeded, is to again emphasize that this is a very monumental occasion. It culminates a number of incidents that have occurred over the last couple of years as is related to the death penalty, and a number of them have occurred in the State of Texas. I think Texas has been on the map for a case that involved inefficient counsel, and thereby resulted in the death penalty being given to that individual. Texas has been on the map in the case of Gary Graham when sufficient evidence suggested that there was a necessity for a new trial. And certainly, Texas is on the map for having the largest number of individuals on death row.

I am gratified that in the course of the discussions we had the kind of focus that the former Governor of Illinois gave to the number of individuals on death row that may be there by way of incorrect evidence or insufficient evidence or lack of being able to provide counter-evidence. This legislation that has been brought forward by the Subcommittee on Crime, both in terms of Mr. Scott and Mr. Coble's work, I want to applaud them, as I do Mr. Delahunt's work and leadership, and of course, his co-sponsor as well.

It is important to note that the work of this legislation will cover more than just finding out whether or not you have been erroneously convicted on death row. To know that women who have suffered the greatest injustice and heinous crime of

rape no longer have to wait years and years and years for the determination and/or the prosecution of such is a step in the right direction.

Coming from Houston, Texas, I believe the provision that deals with DNA research and development, that set up a commission of standards--and I wish to review this further--but I support the idea of having compulsory standards for DNA labs across the Nation, particularly those that are governed by local and State jurisdictions. What we faced in Houston, which I think can be indicative of jurisdictions around the Nation, is a lab that was crumbling under its own weight, lack of qualified persons in the lab, and hundreds of cases that had to be reviewed by our prosecutor as to whether or not those convictions were in actuality fair convictions. We saw the release of individuals who had been in prison for six to 10 years who were wrongly convicted.

If anything occurs out of this Committee, I believe that we should be a Committee that has as its highest priority, justice for all. That means justice for the victims, but also justice for those who are ultimately charged. This particular legislation, I think, balances its role by recognizing that there are people who are convicted falsely, but also recognizing that victims can be victimized by not having their cases brought to justice. I cannot say how important it is in a capital prosecution case to have fairness. Nor can I say how important it is to be able to have a DNA lab that you can rely upon.

I hope as we move this legislation forward we will be able to look also at an option that includes a focus on child predators. I believe it is important to focus on child predators because the numbers have been increasing. I have legislation that sets aside a separate DNA bank just for those who have been previously convicted of a child predator act, sexual abuse, so that they can be immediately determined by a national DNA bank. I would hope that as we become more comfortable with legislation like this we will be able to address other issues that confront the fairness of making sure that the victim is responded to and that person who perpetrated the crime is immediately brought to justice.

So I rise to support this legislation on the quality that it brings to DNA labs, the funding that it will allow for improvement of local DNA labs, and I would also like to promote the idea----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman's time has expired.

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. That we have compulsory standards in place. I yield back.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.

Mr. CONYERS. I would like to thank a former State prosecutor, Bill Delahunt, in this enterprise. I would like to express appreciation for the Chairman of the full Committee on Judiciary, and the close cooperation that we are enjoying in this measure with the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think this is very important legislation and I will return my time and put my statement in the record.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues and thank you for your leadership on this along with Mr. Coble, Mr. Smith, Mr. Delahunt, and others.

As a former prosecutor, it really has never been far from my thoughts that here we have one of the most powerful tools for solving crimes and it is also one of the most underutilized. It is as if we have the opportunity to take countless numbers of murderers and rapists off the street but we do not allow ourselves the tools to do that. I am glad the Committee has taken such a strong action today to change that dynamic.

I am pleased to be one of the original co-sponsors of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act. This is landmark legislation that will assist law enforcement in

solving crimes, and also protect the innocent. In 1998, FBI created a system of DNA profile indexes, CODIS, to allow participating forensic laboratories to compare DNA profiles with a goal of matching case evidence to other previously unrelated cases or persons already convicted of specific crimes. The database now contains about 1.5 million DNA samples and has yielded thousands of matches in criminal investigations.

It is hard to really comprehend what an incredible advance this is. We wrestle in this Committee, and State legislatures do the same, with ways of attacking the problem of crime. Often our response has been to increase sentences, too incapacitate people, to deter people. We have also made every effort to rehabilitate those coming out of prison.

But through this legislation today we use yet another, perhaps even more powerful tool, and that is to address the very short terms, the very short sentences, and indeed the nonexistent terms of all those who have committed murder, rape and never been apprehended. That is the most promising sentencing reform of all, to find those that have committed these violent crimes through the use of technology and take them off the street.

It also, at the same time wonderfully, almost symmetrically, helps us with the most persistent fear in the criminal justice system, that is the fear of convicting the wrong person. Mr. Delahunt has really been a great champion of this portion of the bill and I want to add my voice to those who have already congratulated him on his efforts.

So here we have taken some very important and phenomenal steps in changing policies that will allow us to make much greater, more powerful use of DNA profiles. I introduced legislation earlier this year to increase the effectiveness of the DNA database by expanding the national database. This legislation was also aimed at facilitating information-sharing and increasing searching capabilities among State and local law enforcement agencies. I am very pleased that many of these policy changes have been included in the bill before us today.

States have taken the lead in the use of DNA and expanding that use. For example, Virginia, as we heard during the testimony at the subcommittee, has led a tremendous effort making over 1,000 cold hits; finally providing resolution to a great number of unsolved crimes. The legislation before us today makes important changes in Federal law in order to replicate these tremendous successes on a nationwide basis.

In addition, the legislation authorizes much-needed funding to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs. And finally, as I alluded earlier, the important innocents protection provisions will help ensure eligible Federal and State inmates access to DNA testing to establish their innocence.

I want to applaud the tremendous bipartisan and bicameral efforts on this legislation and join my colleagues in urging overwhelming support for this reform. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment offered by the chair. Those in favor will say aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.

Are there further amendments?

The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 3214 offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin. Page 14, lines 15, 16 strike `except for a felony offense under Chapter 109(a.)'.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3214 OFFERED BY MR. GREEN OF WISCONSINPAGE 14, LINES 15-16, STRIKE `EXCEPT FOR A FELONY OFFENSE UNDER CHAPTER 109A,'.


Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by offering my voice or adding my voice to those of others here in praise for your work, the work of Congressman Delahunt and Congressman Weiner and so many others who have worked on this legislation.

The Debbie Smith grants in this bill will help eliminate the rape kit backlog and will help put hundreds of thousands of criminals behind bars. We can bolster that effort by giving prosecutors the best tools available and removing impediments in good cases that prevent those cases from being indicted and prosecuted. In my original bill, the Debbie Smith Act, we included a provision for John Doe indictments that allows prosecutors to indict a DNA sample instead of an actual person in a sexual assault case. This provision was enacted into law as part of the Protect Act earlier this year. It is a great measure that can help prosecutors build strong cases against the assailant.

Now as referenced by my friend and colleague Mr. Weiner, the legislation before us properly tolls the statute of limitations for crimes with a DNA sample until that sample is matched to a person. Once the sample is matched to a person, the statute begins to run. However, it exempts sexual assault crimes like aggrevated sexual abuse, abuse of a minor, and abusive sexual contact from this important reform.

We should give prosecutors the ability to charge the true perpetrator in these types of cases as well whenever he is accurately identified through DNA. My amendment will allow Chapter 109(a) crimes, along with all other crimes, to be

eligible for DNA matching before the statute of limitations would run.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you are sympathetic to the issue that I have raised in this amendment. If you would be willing to work with me to try to address this matter as this bill leaves the Committee and moves to the floor, I would be willing to----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, I would.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I will be happy to work with the gentleman on this. I think he has identified an important issue.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.

Are there further amendments?

If there are no further amendments, the chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 3214 favorably, as amended. All in favor will say aye.

Opposed, no?

I think everybody would like a roll call on this. The clerk will call the roll.

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Coble.

Mr. COBLE. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Jenkins.

Mr. JENKINS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller.

Mr. KELLER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, aye. Ms. Hart.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Flake.

Mr. FLAKE. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence.

Mr. PENCE. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes.

Mr. FORBES. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King.

Mr. KING. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Carter.

Mr. CARTER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Carter, aye. Mr. Feeney.

Mr. FEENEY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mrs. Blackburn.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers.

Mr. CONYERS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler.

Mr. NADLER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott.

Mr. SCOTT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt.

Mr. WATT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan.

Mr. MEEHAN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin.

Ms. BALDWIN. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner.

Mr. WEINER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff.

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there members in the chamber who wish to cast or change their votes? The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further members who wish to cast or change their votes? The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters.

Ms. WATERS. Aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further members who wish to cast or change their votes? If not, the clerk will report.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Jackson Lee is recorded as aye.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Clerk will report.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 28 ayes and one no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The motion to report favorably is agreed to. Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amendment offered and adopted here today. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes and all members will be given two days, as provided by the House rules, in which to submit additional dissenting supplemental or minority views.

Let me quote Ronald Reagan before shutting this meeting down. One of the more wise sayings that President Reagan made during his term of office is that you really do not know how much you can accomplish around here if you do not care who takes credit for it. This piece of legislation, I think that every member of this Committee can take credit for because of the hard work that was done in reaching a compromise. Thank you for being so prompt and I am hopeful that we can get to the floor very promptly on this piece of legislation because it does have the potential of really revolutionizing and making more accurate our criminal justice system.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you have quoted someone that was not from California this morning? [Laughter.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I like California a lot better today.

The committee stands adjourned.











 




 
  
     

        
 
          


          


          

         

      		
    





  
     

       

          This Report: 
To Accompany H.R.3214


              Printer Friendly: 
HTML  |  PDF


       

      

    		
  

 



  

    
       

         

           
Search Results  > House Report 108-321 - Part 1 


     

    

   		
  





    
      

        

          
New Search


      
Help  |  Contact Us


      

     

   		
 



  

    1 of 1