Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

106th Congress                                            Rept. 106-900
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1

======================================================================



 
              DNA ANALYSIS BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT OF 2000

                                _______
                                

 September 26, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4640]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 4640) making grants to States for carrying out DNA 
analyses for use in the Combined DNA Index System of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, to provide for the collection 
and analysis of DNA samples from certain violent and sexual 
offenders for use in such system, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                  

                                                                 Page
The Amendment..............................................           2
Purpose and Summary........................................           8
Background and Need for the Legislation....................           8
Hearings...................................................          11
Committee Consideration....................................          12
Vote of the Committee......................................          12
Committee Oversight Findings...............................          12
Committee on Government Reform Findings....................          12
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures..................          12
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate..................          12
Constitutional Authority Statement.........................          16
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.................          16
Agency Views...............................................          23
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported......          44
Minority Views.............................................          53

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 
of 2000''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.

    (a) Authorization of Grants.--The Attorney General may make grants 
to eligible States for use by the State for the following purposes:
            (1) To carry out, for inclusion in the Combined DNA Index 
        System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, DNA analyses of 
        samples taken from individuals convicted of a qualifying State 
        offense (as determined under subsection (b)(2)).
            (2) To carry out, for inclusion in such Combined DNA Index 
        System, DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes.
            (3) To increase the capacity of laboratories owned by the 
        State or by units of local government within the State to carry 
        out DNA analyses of samples specified in paragraph (2).
    (b) Eligibility.--For a State to be eligible to receive a grant 
under this section, the chief executive officer of the State shall 
submit to the Attorney General an application in such form and 
containing such information as the Attorney General may require. The 
application shall--
            (1) provide assurances that the State has implemented, or 
        will implement not later than 120 days after the date of such 
        application, a comprehensive plan for the expeditious DNA 
        analysis of samples in accordance with this section;
            (2) include a certification that each DNA analysis carried 
        out under the plan shall be maintained pursuant to the privacy 
        requirements described in section 210304(b)(3) of the Violent 
        Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
        14132(b)(3));
            (3) include a certification that the State has determined, 
        by statute, rule, or regulation, those offenses under State law 
        that shall be treated for purposes of this section as 
        qualifying State offenses;
            (4) specify the allocation that the State shall make, in 
        using grant amounts to carry out DNA analyses of samples, as 
        between samples specified in subsection (a)(1) and samples 
        specified in subsection (a)(2); and
            (5) specify that portion of grant amounts that the State 
        shall use for the purpose specified in subsection (a)(3).
    (c) Crimes Without Suspects.--A State that proposes to allocate 
grant amounts under paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) for the 
purposes specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) shall use 
such allocated amounts to conduct or facilitate DNA analyses of those 
samples that relate to crimes in connection with which there are no 
suspects.
    (d) Analysis of Samples.--
            (1) In general.--The plan shall require that, except as 
        provided in paragraph (3), each DNA analysis be carried out in 
        a laboratory that satisfies quality assurance standards and 
        is--
                    (A) operated by the State or a unit of local 
                government within the State; or
                    (B) operated by a private entity pursuant to a 
                contract with the State or a unit of local government 
                within the State.
            (2) Quality assurance standards.--(A) The Director of the 
        Federal Bureau of Investigation shall maintain and make 
        available to States a description of quality assurance 
        protocols and practices that the Director considers adequate to 
        assure the quality of a forensic laboratory.
            (B) For purposes of this section, a laboratory satisfies 
        quality assurance standards if the laboratory satisfies the 
        quality control requirements described in paragraphs (1) and 
        (2) of section 210304(b) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
        Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132(b)).
            (3) Use of vouchers for certain purposes.--A grant for the 
        purposes specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) 
        may be made in the form of a voucher for laboratory services, 
        which may be redeemed at a laboratory operated by a private 
        entity approved by the Attorney General that satisfies quality 
        assurance standards. The Attorney General may make payment to 
        such a laboratory for the analysis of DNA samples using amounts 
        authorized for those purposes under subsection (j).
    (e) Restrictions on Use of Funds.--
            (1) Nonsupplanting.--Funds made available pursuant to this 
        section shall not be used to supplant State funds, but shall be 
        used to increase the amount of funds that would, in the absence 
        of Federal funds, be made available from State sources for the 
        purposes of this Act.
            (2) Administrative costs.--A State may not use more than 
        three percent of the funds it receives from this section for 
        administrative expenses.
    (f) Reports to the Attorney General.--Each State which receives a 
grant under this section shall submit to the Attorney General, for each 
year in which funds from a grant received under this section is 
expended, a report at such time and in such manner as the Attorney 
General may reasonably require, which contains--
            (1) a summary of the activities carried out under the grant 
        and an assessment of whether such activities are meeting the 
        needs identified in the application; and
            (2) such other information as the Attorney General may 
        require.
    (g) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the end of 
each fiscal year for which grants are made under this section, the 
Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report that includes--
            (1) the aggregate amount of grants made under this section 
        to each State for such fiscal year; and
            (2) a summary of the information provided by States 
        receiving grants under this section.
    (h) Expenditure Records.--
            (1) In general.--Each State which receives a grant under 
        this section shall keep records as the Attorney General may 
        require to facilitate an effective audit of the receipt and use 
        of grant funds received under this section.
            (2) Access.--Each State which receives a grant under this 
        section shall make available, for the purpose of audit and 
        examination, such records as are related to the receipt or use 
        of any such grant.
    (i) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``State'' 
means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American 
Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
    (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--Amounts are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Attorney General for grants under subsection (a) as 
follows:
            (1) For grants for the purposes specified in paragraph (1) 
        of such subsection--
                    (A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
                    (B) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
                    (C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
            (2) For grants for the purposes specified in paragraphs (2) 
        and (3) of such subsection--
                    (A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
                    (B) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
                    (C) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
                    (D) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.

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

    (a) Collection of DNA Samples.--
            (1) From individuals in custody.--The Director of the 
        Bureau of Prisons shall collect a DNA sample from each 
        individual in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons who is, or 
        has been, convicted of a qualifying Federal offense (as 
        determined under subsection (d)) or a qualifying military 
        offense, as determined under section 1565 of title 10, United 
        States Code.
            (2) From individuals on release, parole, or probation.--The 
        probation office responsible for the supervision under Federal 
        law of an individual on probation, parole, or supervised 
        release shall collect a DNA sample from each such individual 
        who is, or has been, convicted of a qualifying Federal offense 
        (as determined under subsection (d)) or a qualifying military 
        offense, as determined under section 1565 of title 10, United 
        States Code.
            (3) Individuals already in codis.--For each individual 
        described in paragraph (1) or (2), if the Combined DNA Index 
        System (in this section referred to as ``CODIS'') of the 
        Federal Bureau of Investigation contains a DNA analysis with 
        respect to that individual, or if a DNA sample has been 
        collected from that individual under section 1565 of title 10, 
        United States Code, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons or 
        the probation office responsible (as applicable) may (but need 
        not) collect a DNA sample from that individual.
            (4) Collection procedures.--(A) The Director of the Bureau 
        of Prisons or the probation office responsible (as applicable) 
        may use or authorize the use of such means as are reasonably 
        necessary to detain, restrain, and collect a DNA sample from an 
        individual who refuses to cooperate in the collection of the 
        sample.
            (B) The Director of the Bureau of Prisons or the probation 
        office, as appropriate, may enter into agreements with units of 
        State or local government or with private entities to provide 
        for the collection of the samples described in paragraph (1) or 
        (2).
            (5) Criminal penalty.--An individual from whom the 
        collection of a DNA sample is authorized under this subsection 
        who fails to cooperate in the collection of that sample shall 
        be--
                    (A) guilty of a class A misdemeanor; and
                    (B) punished in accordance with title 18, United 
                States Code.
    (b) Analysis and Use of Samples.--The Director of the Bureau of 
Prisons or the probation office responsible (as applicable) shall 
furnish each DNA sample collected under subsection (a) to the Director 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who shall carry out a DNA 
analysis on each such DNA sample and include the results in CODIS.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``DNA sample'' means a tissue, fluid, or other 
        bodily sample of an individual on which a DNA analysis can be 
        carried out.
            (2) The term ``DNA analysis'' means analysis of the 
        deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification information in a 
        bodily sample.
    (d) Qualifying Federal Offenses.--(1) The offenses that shall be 
treated for purposes of this section as qualifying Federal offenses are 
the following offenses under title 18, United States Code, as 
determined by the Attorney General:
            (A) Murder (as described in section 1111 of such title), 
        voluntary manslaughter (as described in section 1112 of such 
        title), or other offense relating to homicide (as described in 
        chapter 51 of such title, sections 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 
        1119, 1120, and 1121).
            (B) An offense relating to sexual abuse (as described in 
        chapter 109A of such title, sections 2241 through 2245), to 
        sexual exploitation or other abuse of children (as described in 
        chapter 110 of such title, sections 2251 through 2252A), or to 
        transportation for illegal sexual activity (as described in 
        chapter 117 of such title, sections 2421, 2422, 2423, and 
        2425).
            (C) Kidnapping (as defined in section 3559(c)(2)(E) of such 
        title).
            (D) Burglary.
            (E) Attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above 
        offenses.
    (2) The initial determination of qualifying Federal offenses shall 
be made not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
    (e) Regulations.--
            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this 
        section shall be carried out under regulations prescribed by 
        the Attorney General.
            (2) Probation officers.--The Director of the Administrative 
        Office of the United States Courts shall make available model 
        procedures for the activities of probation officers in carrying 
        out this section.
    (f) Commencement of Collection.--Collection of DNA samples under 
subsection (a) shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, 
commence not later than the date that is 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. COLLECTION AND USE OF DNA IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION FROM 
                    CERTAIN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFENDERS.

    (a) Collection of DNA Samples.--
            (1) From individuals in custody.--The Director of the 
        Bureau of Prisons shall collect a DNA sample from each 
        individual in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons who is, or 
        has been, convicted of a qualifying District of Columbia 
        offense (as determined under subsection (d)).
            (2) From individuals on release, parole, or probation.--The 
        Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 
        for the District of Columbia shall collect a DNA sample from 
        each individual under the supervision of the Agency who is on 
        supervised release, parole, or probation who is, or has been, 
        convicted of a qualifying District of Columbia offense (as 
        determined under subsection (d)).
            (3) Individuals already in codis.--For each individual 
        described in paragraph (1) or (2), if the Combined DNA Index 
        System (in this section referred to as ``CODIS'') of the 
        Federal Bureau of Investigation contains a DNA analysis with 
        respect to that individual, the Director of the Bureau of 
        Prisons or Agency (as applicable) may (but need not) collect a 
        DNA sample from that individual.
            (4) Collection procedures.--(A) The Director of the Bureau 
        of Prisons or Agency (as applicable) may use or authorize the 
        use of such means as are reasonably necessary to detain, 
        restrain, and collect a DNA sample from an individual who 
        refuses to cooperate in the collection of the sample.
            (B) The Director of the Bureau of Prisons or Agency, as 
        appropriate, may enter into agreements with units of State or 
        local government or with private entities to provide for the 
        collection of the samples described in paragraph (1) or (2).
            (5) Criminal penalty.--An individual from whom the 
        collection of a DNA sample is authorized under this subsection 
        who fails to cooperate in the collection of that sample shall 
        be--
                    (A) guilty of a class A misdemeanor; and
                    (B) punished in accordance with title 18, United 
                States Code.
    (b) Analysis and Use of Samples.--The Director of the Bureau of 
Prisons or Agency (as applicable) shall furnish each DNA sample 
collected under subsection (a) to the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, who shall carry out a DNA analysis on each such DNA 
sample and include the results in CODIS.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``DNA sample'' means a tissue, fluid, or other 
        bodily sample of an individual on which a DNA analysis can be 
        carried out.
            (2) The term ``DNA analysis'' means analysis of the 
        deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification information in a 
        bodily sample.
    (d) Qualifying District of Columbia Offenses.--The Government of 
the District of Columbia may determine those offenses under the 
District of Columbia Code that shall be treated for purposes of this 
section as qualifying District of Columbia offenses.
    (e) Commencement of Collection.--Collection of DNA samples under 
subsection (a) shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, 
commence not later than the date that is 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for 
the District of Columbia to carry out this section such sums as may be 
necessary for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

SEC. 5. COLLECTION AND USE OF DNA IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION FROM 
                    CERTAIN OFFENDERS IN THE ARMED FORCES.

    (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 80 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

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

    ``(a) Collection of DNA Samples.--(1) The Secretary concerned shall 
collect a DNA sample from each member of the armed forces under the 
Secretary's jurisdiction who is, or has been, convicted of a qualifying 
military offense (as determined under subsection (d)).
    ``(2) For each member described in paragraph (1), if the Combined 
DNA Index System (in this section referred to as `CODIS') of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation contains a DNA analysis with respect to 
that member, or if a DNA sample has been or is to be collected from 
that member under section 3(a) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 
Act of 2000, the Secretary concerned may (but need not) collect a DNA 
sample from that member.
    ``(3) The Secretary concerned may enter into agreements with other 
Federal agencies, units of State or local government, or private 
entities to provide for the collection of samples described in 
paragraph (1).
    ``(b) Analysis and Use of Samples.--The Secretary concerned shall 
furnish each DNA sample collected under subsection (a) to the Secretary 
of Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a DNA analysis on 
each such DNA sample and furnish the results of each such analysis to 
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion in 
CODIS.
    ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) The term `DNA sample' means a tissue, fluid, or other 
        bodily sample of an individual on which a DNA analysis can be 
        carried out.
            ``(2) The term `DNA analysis' means analysis of the 
        deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification information in a 
        bodily sample.
    ``(d) Qualifying Military Offenses.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), 
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, 
shall determine those felony or sexual offenses under the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice that shall be treated for purposes of this section 
as qualifying military offenses.
    ``(2) An offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that is 
comparable to a qualifying Federal offense (as determined under section 
3(d) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000), as 
determined by the Secretary in consultation with the Attorney General, 
shall be treated for purposes of this section as a qualifying military 
offense.
    ``(e) Expungement.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall promptly 
expunge, from the index described in subsection (a) of section 210304 
of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the DNA 
analysis of a person included in the index on the basis of a qualifying 
military offense if the Secretary receives, for each conviction of the 
person of a qualifying offense, a certified copy of a final court order 
establishing that such conviction has been overturned.
    ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `qualifying offense' 
means any of the following offenses:
            ``(A) A qualifying Federal offense, as determined under 
        section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000.
            ``(B) A qualifying District of Columbia offense, as 
        determined under section 4 of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
        Elimination Act of 2000.
            ``(C) A qualifying military offense.
    ``(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), a court order is not `final' 
if time remains for an appeal or application for discretionary review 
with respect to the order.
    ``(f) Regulations.--This section shall be carried out under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
with the Secretary of Transportation and the Attorney General. Those 
regulations shall apply, to the extent practicable, uniformly 
throughout the armed forces.''.
    (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is 
amended by adding at the end the following new item:

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

    (b) Initial Determination of Qualifying Military Offenses.--The 
initial determination of qualifying military offenses under section 
1565(d) of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(1), 
shall be made not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
    (c) Commencement of Collection.--Collection of DNA samples under 
section 1565(a) of such title, as added by subsection (a)(1), shall, 
subject to the availability of appropriations, commence not later than 
the date that is 60 days after the date of the initial determination 
referred to in subsection (b).

SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF DNA IDENTIFICATION INDEX.

    (a) Use of Certain Funds.--Section 811(a)(2) of the Antiterrorism 
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (28 U.S.C. 531 note) is amended 
to read as follows:
            ``(2) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
        shall expand the combined DNA Identification System (CODIS) to 
        include analyses of DNA samples collected from--
                    ``(A) individuals convicted of a qualifying Federal 
                offense, as determined under section 3(d) of the DNA 
                Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000;
                    ``(B) individuals convicted of a qualifying 
                District of Columbia offense, as determined under 
                section 4(d) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 
                Act of 2000; and
                    ``(C) members of the Armed Forces convicted of a 
                qualifying military offense, as determined under 
                section 1565(d) of title 10, United States Code.''.
    (b) Index To Facilitate Law Enforcement Exchange of DNA 
Identification Information.--Section 210304 of the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting after ``criminal 
        justice agency'' the following: ``(or the Secretary of Defense 
        in accordance with section 1565 of title 10, United States 
        Code)'';
            (2) in subsection (b)(2)--
                    (A) by striking ``, at regular intervals of not to 
                exceed 180 days,'' and inserting ``semiannual''; and
                    (B) by inserting before the semicolon the 
                following: ``(or prepared by the Secretary of Defense 
                in accordance with section 1565 of title 10, United 
                States Code)'';
            (3) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting after ``local 
        criminal justice agencies'' the following: ``(or the Secretary 
        of Defense in accordance with section 1565 of title 10, United 
        States Code)''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Expungement of Records.--(1) The Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation shall promptly expunge from the index described 
in subsection (a) the DNA analysis of a person included in the index on 
the basis of a qualifying Federal offense or a qualifying District of 
Columbia offense (as determined under section 3 and 4 of the DNA 
Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, respectively) if the Director 
receives, for each conviction of the person of a qualifying offense, a 
certified copy of a final court order establishing that such conviction 
has been overturned.
    ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `qualifying offense' 
means any of the following offenses:
            ``(A) A qualifying Federal offense, as determined under 
        section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000.
            ``(B) A qualifying District of Columbia offense, as 
        determined under section 4 of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
        Elimination Act of 2000.
            ``(C) A qualifying military offense, as determined under 
        section 1565 of title 10, United States Code.
    ``(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), a court order is not `final' 
if time remains for an appeal or application for discretionary review 
with respect to the order.''.

SEC. 7. CONDITIONS OF RELEASE.

    (a) Conditions of Probation.--Section 3563(a) of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
            ``(9) that the defendant cooperate in the collection of a 
        DNA sample from the defendant if the collection of such a 
        sample is authorized pursuant to section 3 of the DNA Analysis 
        Backlog Elimination Act of 2000.''.
    (b) Conditions of Supervised Release.--Section 3583(d) of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting before ``The court shall 
also order'' the following: ``The court shall order, as an explicit 
condition of supervised release, that the defendant cooperate in the 
collection of a DNA sample from the defendant, if the collection of 
such a sample is authorized pursuant to section 3 of the DNA Analysis 
Backlog Elimination Act of 2000.''.
    (c) Conditions of Parole.--Section 4209 of title 18, United States 
Code, insofar as such section remains in effect with respect to certain 
individuals, is amended by inserting before ``In every case, the 
Commission shall also impose'' the following: ``In every case, the 
Commission shall impose as a condition of parole that the parolee 
cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample from the parolee, if the 
collection of such a sample is authorized pursuant to section 3 or 
section 4 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 or 
section 1565 of title 10.''.
    (d) Conditions of Release Generally.--If the collection of a DNA 
sample from an individual on probation, parole, or supervised release 
is authorized pursuant to section 3 or 4 of this Act or section 1565 of 
title 10, United States Code, the individual shall cooperate in the 
collection of a DNA sample as a condition of that probation, parole, or 
supervised release.

SEC. 8. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Drug Control and System Improvement Grants.--Section 
503(a)(12)(C) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3753(a)(12)(C)) is amended by striking ``, at 
regular intervals of not to exceed 180 days,'' and inserting 
``semiannual''.
    (b) DNA Identification Grants.--Section 2403(3) of title I of the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796kk-
2(3)) is amended by striking ``, at regular intervals not exceeding 180 
days,'' and inserting ``semiannual''.
    (c) Federal Bureau of Investigation.--Section 210305(a)(1)(A) of 
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
14133(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``, at regular intervals of not 
to exceed 180 days,'' and inserting ``semiannual''.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to 
carry out this Act (including to reimburse the Federal judiciary for 
any reasonable costs incurred in implementing such Act, as determined 
by the Attorney General) such sums as may be necessary.

SEC. 10. PRIVACY PROTECTION STANDARDS.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), any sample 
collected under, or any result of any analysis carried out under, 
section 2, 3, or 4 may be used only for a purpose specified in such 
section.
    (b) Permissive Uses.--A sample or result described in subsection 
(a) may be disclosed under the circumstances under which disclosure of 
information included in the Combined DNA Index System is allowed, as 
specified in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 210304(b)(3) of 
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
14132(b)(3)).
    (c) Criminal Penalty.--A person who knowingly--
            (1) discloses a sample or result described in subsection 
        (a) in any manner to any person not authorized to receive it; 
        or
            (2) obtains, without authorization, a sample or result 
        described in subsection (a),
shall be fined not more than $100,000.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 4640 would authorize a new program of Federal 
assistance to States to enable them to clear their backlogs of 
DNA samples which have been collected from convicted offenders 
or crime scenes and which the States have been unable to 
analyze, or to reanalyze in light of recent developments in DNA 
identification technology, because of shortfalls in resources 
and the failure of available laboratory capacity to keep pace 
with the growth of the DNA identification system. H.R. 4640 
would also fill a gap in the system by authorizing collection, 
analysis, and indexing of DNA samples from persons convicted of 
Federal crimes, crimes under the laws of the District of 
Columbia, or offenses under military law.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    H.R. 4640 addresses two areas of concern: the absence of 
legal authority for DNA samples to be collected from persons 
convicted of Federal crimes, analyzed, and cataloged into a 
national database of convicted offenders; and the increasing 
backlog of biological samples waiting analysis in the States.

           Collection of DNA Samples From Convicted Offenders

    In the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994,\1\ Congress authorized the FBI to create a national index 
of DNA samples taken from convicted offenders, crime scenes and 
victims of crime, and unidentified human remains. That portion 
of the act also specified the uses to which such samples could 
be put, and authorized the appropriation of funds to the FBI 
and to States to assist them in developing DNA testing 
capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Public Law No. 103-322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to this authority, the FBI established the 
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), which the FBI had been 
developing as a pilot program since the early 1990's. CODIS 
allows State and local forensics laboratories to exchange and 
compare DNA profiles electronically in an attempt to link 
evidence from crime scenes for which there are no suspects to 
DNA samples of convicted offenders on file in the system. 
Today, CODIS is installed in over 90 laboratories in 41 States 
and the District of Columbia. There are approximately 445,000 
offender samples and 31,000 crime scene samples classified and 
stored in CODIS.
    All 50 States have enacted statutes requiring convicted 
offenders to provide DNA samples for analysis and entry into 
the CODIS system. The crimes which trigger the requirement to 
provide a sample vary from State to State. Samples from Federal 
offenders are not included in CODIS (unless they previously 
committed a State offense for which a sample was taken) because 
the language of the 1994 act only authorized the creation of 
the CODIS system, and not the taking of samples from persons 
convicted of Federal crimes, crimes under the District of 
Columbia Code, or offenses under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ). In 1996, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 which contained a provision 
that authorized the Director of the FBI to ``expand CODIS to 
include Federal crimes and crimes committed in the District of 
Columbia,'' \2\ however, the Department of Justice later 
determined that this provision was insufficient to provide it 
with the legal authority to collect samples from convicted 
Federal offenders. In 1997, Congress passed a bill authorizing 
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, State, and 
Justice, the Judiciary and related agencies and in that bill 
required the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress 
with an implementation plan for collecting DNA samples from 
persons convicted of Federal sexual offenses.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Public Law No. 104-132, Sec. 811(a)(2).
    \3\ Public Law 105-119, at Sec. 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FBI submitted this report to Congress in late 1998. In 
it, the FBI requested that Congress enact statutory authority 
to allow the taking of DNA samples from persons committing 
Federal crimes of violence, robbery, and burglary, or similar 
crimes in the District of Columbia or while in the military, 
and authorizing them to be included in CODIS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ FBI Laboratory Report to Congress, Implementation Plan for 
Collection of DNA Samples from Federal Convicted Offenders Pursuant to 
P.L. 105-229 (December 1998). Public Law 105-119, Sec. 121 (the FY 1999 
appropriations act for the Justice Department and other agencies) 
required the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress with an 
implementation plan for collecting DNA samples from Federal convicted 
sex offenders prior to their release. The reference in the title of the 
report to Public Law 105-229 is in error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Backlog of Biological Samples to be Analyzed in the States

    The development of DNA identification technology is one of 
the most important advances in criminal identification methods 
in decades. As a direct result of the proven ability of DNA 
evidence to solve crime, the 120 public forensic laboratories 
operating across country during the 1990's have been besieged 
by requests to analyze DNA samples. More than half of them have 
developed significant testing backlogs that have yet to be 
cleared. Of the several hundred thousand DNA samples submitted 
to these labs during the past 10 years, the vast majority were 
taken from convicted felons pursuant to the State laws that 
require such samples be taken and analyzed. But thousands of 
crimes scene samples also are awaiting analysis. Even in States 
where these samples are made a priority, the lack of existing 
laboratory capacity to analyze these samples results in a delay 
in justice being done, both for those accused of the crime and 
for the victim of that crime. These backlogs have been 
exacerbated in recent years as new developments in DNA analysis 
technology has required that many samples, especially those 
taken from convicted offenders and cataloged in the CODIS 
database, be reanalyzed using new technology.
    In a report issued by the Justice Department's Bureau of 
Justice Statistics (BJA),\5\ as of December 1997, approximately 
69% of publicly operated forensic crime labs across the country 
had at least 6,800 unprocessed DNA cases and an additional 
287,000 unprocessed convicted offender DNA samples. The public 
labs reporting a backlog include the FBI's crime lab in 
Washington. In 1997, for example, these labs received about 
21,000 cases involving DNA evidence for analysis and processed 
about 14,000 of those cases. In that same year, 116,000 
convicted offender samples were submitted for analysis, an 
increase from 72,000 in 1996. Of these totals, only 45,000 were 
analyzed in 1997 and 37,000 in 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998 (February 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a result of these backlogs, killers, rapists, and other 
dangerous offenders who might be successfully identified 
through DNA matching remain at large to engage in further 
crimes against the public. Where the limitation period for 
prosecution expires prior to such an identification, the delay 
in utilizing the DNA technology may permanently bar bringing a 
criminal to justice. In addition to these obvious public safety 
costs, the current inadequacies of the system also endanger the 
innocent. Promptly identifying the actual perpetrator of a 
crime through DNA matching exonerates any other persons who 
might wrongfully be suspected, accused, or convicted of the 
crime. Where this cannot be done because of an inability to 
analyze and index convicted offender or crime scene samples in 
a timely manner, the risks of convicting an innocent person 
increase.

                 How H.R. 4640 Addresses These Problems

    H.R. 4640 will assist States in reducing the backlog of 
samples awaiting DNA analysis, by establishing a grant program 
whereby the Federal Government would make grants to States to 
enable them to conduct DNA analyses of biological samples taken 
from offenders who are required to provide a sample for DNA 
analysis and samples taken from crime scenes and from victims 
of crime. The bill authorizes funding for convicted offender 
sample analysis of $15 million a year for each of fiscal years 
2001 through 2003. This part of the backlog problem has been 
partially addressed through a $15 million appropriation by 
Congress for fiscal year 2000, which the National Institute of 
Justice has administered to assist the States in reducing their 
backlogs of convicted offender DNA samples. However, funding at 
the same level for an additional 3 years is necessary to 
complete the elimination of this backlog. It is expected that 
once the current convicted offender sample backlog is cleared 
through the proposed program, State laboratory capacity will be 
adequate for the analysis of convicted offender DNA samples 
that come in thereafter, and further Federal assistance for 
this purpose will not be needed.
    In addition to extending convicted offender sample backlog 
assistance for the period needed to complete the elimination of 
this backlog, the bill makes an important change in the 
administration of the assistance program. Under the fiscal year 
2000 program, only States could be directly provided with 
backlog reduction funding, though most of the actual analysis 
of convicted offender DNA samples is being carried out through 
outsourcing to private laboratories. The need to deal with the 
procurement processes of 50 different States has greatly 
increased the administrative, overhead, and marketing costs of 
these private laboratories, resulting in higher charges for 
sample analysis and considerable inefficiency in the use of the 
funds. H.R. 4640 corrects this problem by authorizing the 
Department of Justice to issue vouchers to the States, which 
will be redeemable at approved private laboratories that will 
receive direct payment for the sample analysis they carry out 
for the States. It is expected that the increased efficiency of 
this approach will enable 20 to 30 percent more samples to be 
analyzed with the same level of funding.
    With respect to crime scene sample backlog reduction, H.R. 
4640 authorizes $25 million in fiscal year 2001, $50 million in 
fiscal year 2002, and $25 million in each of fiscal year 2003 
and fiscal year 2004. Addressing the crime scene sample backlog 
is intrinsically more expensive because of the high cost of 
analyzing crime scene samples. For example, analysis of an 
individual rape kit typically costs about $2,000, and analysis 
of other forensic DNA evidence--such as DNA analysis of the 
material found at the scene of a murder--may cost up to several 
times that amount. The bill provides a two-pronged response to 
this backlog problem. Funds authorized for crime scene sample 
backlog reduction could be utilized both for outsourcing to 
private laboratories, which would receive direct payment for 
the analysis carried out for the States, and to increase public 
laboratory capacity to analyze such samples. The authorization 
of outsourcing will provide immediate relief for the States in 
addressing their crime scene sample backlogs, and will 
encourage the commitment of State resources to crime scene 
sample analysis by providing concrete illustrations of the 
utility of DNA matching in solving murders, sexually violent 
offenses, and other crimes. The authorization of assistance for 
public laboratory capacity expansion will help the States to 
develop their own capacity to regularly carry out DNA analysis 
and matching in cases which may be solvable by this means, 
thereby eliminating the need for Federal assistance in the long 
term.
    States wishing to receive funding under the program created 
by the bill are required to make application to the Attorney 
General through the Office of Justice Programs. To qualify for 
funding, a State must develop a plan to eliminate its backlog 
of samples awaiting DNA analysis.
    The bill also authorizes DNA samples to be collected and 
included into CODIS from offenders convicted of certain Federal 
offenses, crimes under the District of Columbia Code, and 
offenses under the UCMJ. The offenses triggering the sample 
requirement are specified in the bill and consist principally 
of serious violent crimes and crimes involving sex offenses. 
The bill also requires that samples of offenders whose 
convictions are reversed be removed from CODIS.
    H.R. 4640 is similar to three other bills which have been 
introduced in the 106th Congress and which were the subject of 
a hearing in the Subcommittee on Crime on March 23, 2000.\6\ 
The sponsors of those bills are original co-sponsors of H.R. 
4640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ H.R. 2810, the ``Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 
1999'' introduced by Rep. Kennedy; H.R. 3087, the ``DNA Backlog 
Elimination Act,'' introduced by Rep. Weiner; and H.R. 3375, the 
``Convicted Offender DNA Index System Support Act,'' introduced by Rep. 
Gilman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    The committee's Subcommittee on Crime held no hearings on 
H.R. 4640 but held 1 day of hearings on related bills H.R. 
2810, the ``Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999;'' 
H.R. 3087, the ``DNA Backlog Elimination Act;'' and H.R. 3375, 
the ``Convicted Offender DNA Index System Support Act;'' on 
March 23, 2000. Testimony was received from 10 witnesses, 
representing 6 organizations, with additional material 
submitted by 1 other individual.

                        Committee Consideration

    On June 15, 2000, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open 
session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 4640, by a 
voice vote, a quorum being present. On July 26, 2000, the 
committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 
the bill H.R. 4640 with an amendment by a by voice vote, a 
quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    No recorded votes were taken on the bill H.R. 4640 during 
committee consideration.

                      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.

                Committee on Government Reform Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform were received as referred to in clause 
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII is inapplicable because 
this legislation 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. 4640, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 19, 2000.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde, 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. 4640, the DNA 
Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark 
Grabowicz (for federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, 
Shelley Finlayson (for the impact on state, local, and tribal 
governments), who can be reached at 225-3220, and Tim 
Vandenberg (for the impact on the private sector), who can be 
reached at 226-2940.
            Sincerely,
                                  Dan L. Crippen, Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers Jr.
        Ranking Democratic Member
H.R. 4640--DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000.

                                SUMMARY

    H.R. 4640 would authorize the appropriation of $170 million 
over fiscal years 2001 through 2004 for grants to states to 
increase their capability to perform DNA analyses. The bill 
would direct the Department of Justice, the Judiciary, and the 
Department of Defense (DoD) to collect and analyze DNA samples 
from persons convicted of certain crimes. H.R. 4640 also would 
establish new federal crimes for refusing to provide DNA 
samples and for the unauthorized use of DNA samples.
    Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 4640 would cost about $165 
million over the 2001-2005 period. This legislation could 
affect direct spending and receipts, so pay-as-you-go 
procedures would apply; however, CBO estimates that any such 
effects would be less than $500,000 annually.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would benefit 
states by enabling them to obtain grant funds. H.R. 4640 would 
impose a new private-sector mandate, as defined by UMRA, on 
persons who have been convicted of certain federal offenses. 
CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate would fall well 
below the threshold established by UMRA for private-sector 
mandates ($109 million in 2000, adjusted annually for 
inflation).

                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 4640 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget functions 050 (national defense) and 750 (administration 
of justice).

                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2001     2002     2003     2004     2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION*
State Grants for DNA Analysis                                             40       65       40       25        0
  Authorization Level
  Estimated Outlays                                                        9       30       48       45       27

Costs to the Department of Justice                                         3        1        1        1        1
  Estimated Authorization Level
  Estimated Outlays                                                        2        2        1        1        1

Costs to the Judicial Branch and DoD                                       1       **       **       **       **
  Estimated Authorization Level
  Estimated Outlays                                                        1       **       **       **       **

  Total Costs                                                             44       66       41       26        1
    Estimated Authorization Level
    Estimated Outlays                                                     12       32       49       46       28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 *In addition to the discretionary costs, enacting H.R. 4640 could affect direct spending and receipts, but CBO
  estimates that any such effects would be less than $500,000 annually
**Less than $500,000.

                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

    For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 4640 will be 
enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2001, and that the 
necessary amounts will be appropriated for each year. Outlay 
estimates are based on historical information for similar 
programs.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
    State Grants for DNA Analysis. CBO assumes that the bill's 
specified authorization levels will be appropriated for each 
fiscal year and that spending will follow the historical rates 
of similar grant programs.
    Costs to the Department of Justice. H.R. 4640 would direct 
the Bureau of Prisons (BoP) to collect a DNA sample from each 
person in federal custody who has been convicted of certain 
felonies or sexual offenses. Based on information from the 
Department of Justice, CBO estimates that there are roughly 
6,000 such persons now and that there would be another 2,000 
persons incarcerated in fiscal year 2001 and in each year 
thereafter. The BoP estimates that it would cost about $50 to 
collect DNA samples for each of these individuals, so 
collection costs would total less than $500,000 in each year.
    The bill would direct the Court Services and Offender 
Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) to 
collect a DNA sample from each person under the supervision of 
that agency who has been convicted of certain offenses. For 
this estimate, CBO assumes that these crimes will include the 
same felonies and sexual offenses that apply to BoP. CSOSA 
estimates that there are about 5,000 such individuals under its 
supervision, so collection costs would total less than $500,000 
in fiscal year 2001.
    H.R. 4640 would direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) to perform analyses of most of the DNA samples collected 
under the bill's provisions. Based on information from the FBI, 
CBO estimates that it would cost about $3 million in fiscal 
year 2001 and about $500,000 in each year thereafter, subject 
to the availability of appropriated funds, for the necessary 
equipment and personnel to carry out these analyses.
    Costs to the Judicial Branch. The bill would direct the 
Judiciary to collect a DNA sample from each person under 
federally supervised release who has been convicted of certain 
felonies or sexual offenses. The Administrative Office of the 
United States Courts estimates that there are about 1,500 such 
individuals now and that there would be a few hundred more 
offenders under federal supervision in fiscal year 2001 and in 
each year thereafter. CBO estimates that DNA collection costs 
for these individuals would total less than $500,000 in each 
year.
    Costs to DoD. The bill would direct DoD to collect a DNA 
sample from members of the armed forces who have been convicted 
of certain felonies or sexual offenses and to perform an 
analysis of these samples. Because of the small number of 
military personnel affected, CBO estimates that this would cost 
less than $500,000 in each year, assuming appropriation of the 
necessary amounts.
Direct Spending and Receipts
    Under the provisions of H.R. 4640, specific individuals who 
refuse to allow DNA samples to be taken, or misuse information 
concerning DNA samples could be subject to criminal fines. The 
federal government might collect additional fines if the bill 
is enacted. Collections of criminal fines are recorded in the 
budget as governmental receipts (revenues), which are deposited 
in the Crime Victims Fund and spent in subsequent years. CBO 
expects that any additional receipts and direct spending would 
be less than $500,000 each year.

                      PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

    The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4640 
would change direct spending and receipts by less than $500,000 
each year.

        ESTIMATED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

    H.R. 4640 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in UMRA and would benefit states by enabling them to obtain 
federal grants to analyze certain DNA samples for inclusion in 
the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). Those funds could also 
be used to increase the capacity of laboratories owned by state 
and local governments to conduct such analyses. States would 
have to meet certain conditions in order to receive grants. The 
bill also would benefit state and local law enforcement 
entities because the expansion of the CODIS database would 
enhance their ability to use DNA information for law 
enforcement purposes.

                 ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR

    H.R. 4640 would impose a new private-sector mandate, as 
defined by UMRA, on persons who have been convicted of certain 
federal offenses. The bill would require such persons to submit 
DNA samples to federal authorities upon demand. The bill would 
authorize the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and probation 
officers responsible under federal law for the supervision of 
individuals on probation, parole, or supervised release, to 
collect DNA samples from individuals convicted of murder, 
offenses relating to sexual abuse, kidnaping, burglary, and 
certain military offenses. Individuals who fail to cooperate 
with the collection of samples would be guilty of a misdemeanor 
and subject to criminal punishment.
    The collection of DNA samples would impose negligible 
monetary costs on prisoners and individuals on parole, 
probation, or supervised release. CBO estimates, therefore, 
that the cost of the mandate would fall well below the 
threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($109 
million in 2000, adjusted annually for inflation).

                         ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz (226-2860)
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Shelley 
        Finlayson (225-3220)
Impact on the Private Sector: Tim VandenBerg (226-2940)

                         ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

Peter H. Fontaine
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

                   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, sections 8, clause 3, 14, 17, 
and 18 of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

Section 1. Short Title
    Section 1 of the bill states the short title of the bill as 
the ``DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000.''
Section 2. Authorization of Grants
    Section 2 of the bill establishes a $170 million grant 
program whereby the Attorney General would make grants to 
States to assist them in reducing the backlog of samples 
awaiting DNA analysis. The grant funds may be used to conduct 
DNA analyses of biological samples or to increase the capacity 
of laboratories owned by States or by units of local government 
within the State to carry out DNA analysis of such samples. The 
biological samples to be analyzed using funds granted under 
H.R. 4640 are samples taken from offenders convicted of 
specific offenses, determined by each State, that require 
offenders to provide a sample, and samples taken from crime 
scenes or from victims of crime. States wishing to receive 
funding under the program created by the bill are required to 
make application to the Attorney General through the Justice 
Department's Office of Justice Programs.
    Each grant application must provide assurances that the 
State has implemented or will implement a comprehensive plan 
for the expeditious DNA analysis of all of the samples 
described above that were collected prior to the date of 
enactment of the bill. This provision is to ensure that the 
funds made available to States under the bill are used to 
reduce the backlog of samples awaiting analysis and the plan 
must detail how the State plans to accomplish this. In its 
application, a State must certify that it has determined (by 
statute, rule, or regulation) those offenses that require 
convicted offenders to provide a sample for DNA analysis. The 
bill does not specify what offenses must trigger the 
requirement to provide a sample, rather, each State is left to 
make that determination for itself. States must also certify 
that each DNA analysis carried out under its comprehensive plan 
(regardless if that analysis is performed using funds granted 
under H.R. 4640) shall be maintained pursuant to the privacy 
requirements of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
Act of 1994. Finally, a State must also discuss in its 
application how it proposes to allocate funds received under 
the program with respect to DNA analysis of the two categories 
of biological samples. The bill also authorizes the Attorney 
General to require States to include other information in 
applications for these funds.
    The bill requires that States which propose to use funds 
under the program to conduct DNA analysis of samples taken from 
crime scenes or to build laboratory capacity to conduct DNA 
samples must use those funds to conduct analysis of samples, or 
build the capacity to conduct samples, from crimes where there 
are no suspects. Currently, forensic laboratories generally 
must prioritize for DNA analysis cases which are scheduled for 
trial, and other cases involving known suspects in which DNA 
analysis must be carried out for such purposes as making an 
arrest. Solving cases without known suspects often stands at 
the end of the line. As a result of these competing priorities 
and limited laboratory capacity, the unique potential of the 
DNA identification system to solve no-suspect cases through 
matching to convicted offender databases and ``crime scene to 
crime scene'' matches is largely unutilized. The targeting of 
the bill's new program on no-suspect casework, and on expansion 
of public laboratory capacity for such casework, will correct 
this critical shortfall in the existing system. Accordingly, 
when a State proposes to use grant funds to conduct samples, 
this provision should be interpreted to require the State to 
dedicate a significant portion of the funds to analyzing 
samples from crimes where there are no suspects. If the State 
proposes to use the funds to build capacity, the State must 
then use a significant portion of that additional capacity to 
analyze samples taken from crimes where there are no suspects.
    States must not use grants funds under this program to 
supplant State funding for DNA analysis but must instead use 
the Federal funds to increase the amount of funds that would be 
allocated to this issue. States must make annual reports to the 
Attorney General as to the use of funds received under this 
program and must keep records, which the Attorney General may 
review, documenting the use of any funds received under this 
program. The bill also requires the Attorney General to make 
annual reports to Congress concerning the grants made under the 
bill.
    With respect to grants made to conduct DNA analysis of 
samples, the bill authorizes the Attorney General to make these 
grants in the form of a voucher for laboratory services which 
could be redeemed at a laboratory operated by a private entity 
approved by the Attorney General. The Attorney General would 
make payment to the laboratory for the analysis it has 
conducted in exchange for the vouchers.
    The bill authorizes the appropriation of grant funds for 
two broad purposes. The bill authorizes the appropriation of up 
to $15 million per year for the next three fiscal years to be 
used for grants to reduce the backlog of samples taken from 
convicted offenders. Second, the bill authorizes the 
appropriation of up to $125 million over the next four fiscal 
years to be used for grants to reduce the backlog of crime 
scene samples waiting analysis and to build the capacity of 
States to conduct DNA analysis in the future.
    With respect to crime scene samples, the provision is 
designed to meet the dual needs of immediate analysis of 
unknown suspect casework through outsourcing, and capacity 
building within the public laboratories. The committee expects 
that most of the grants made by the Attorney General for this 
purpose in the first year of the program will be directed 
toward outsourcing backlogged crime scene samples to private 
laboratories for analysis, since States will need time to 
develop plans to increase public laboratory capacity, including 
planning to hire and train additional staff and procure of 
additional space and equipment. The larger authorization in the 
second year of the program is designed to enable the Attorney 
General to fund outsourcing at a level comparable to the first 
year--thereby forestalling the development of a new backlog--
while also providing adequate funding for States to begin 
implementing their public laboratory capacity expansion 
programs. It is expected that in the final 2 years of the 
program the Attorney General will make grants directed toward 
building public laboratory capacity and diminishing reliance on 
outsourcing. The intended long-term effect of the program is 
the inclusion of no-suspect casework as a routine part of the 
caseload of public laboratories.
Section 3. Collection and Use of DNA Identification Information from 
        Certain Federal Offenders.
    Section 3 of the bill directs the Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to collect a sample from each person in 
her custody who has been convicted of a ``qualifying Federal 
offense'' or a ``qualifying military offense.'' \7\ That 
section also requires the various Federal probation offices 
throughout the country to also collect samples from persons on 
parole or under supervised release who have been convicted of a 
qualifying Federal offense or a qualifying military offense. 
The committee understands that in most cases, probation 
officers will not actually collect samples from offenders but 
rather, will make arrangements with laboratories operated by 
the Federal Government, a State or unit of local government, or 
a private entity to collect these samples and then require 
offenders to report to a particular laboratory to provide a 
sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Approximately 430 persons convicted of offenses under the UCMJ 
are incarcerated in a BOP facility rather than a military disciplinary 
facility pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the BOP and 
the Department of the Army.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Biological samples collected under this section of the bill 
are to be furnished to the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation who is to perform a DNA analysis of each sample 
and include the results in the Combined DNA Index System 
(CODIS) maintained by the FBI. In order to prevent duplication 
of effort, if the DNA analysis of a sample taken from an 
offender is on file in CODIS at the time the offender becomes 
subject to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons or a probation 
office, no new sample is required to be taken from that 
offender, however, a new sample may be taken if the Director of 
the BOP or the probation office determines that it is 
appropriate to do so.
    The term ``qualifying Federal offense'' is defined in the 
bill to include murder; voluntary manslaughter; other homicide 
offenses; offenses relating to sexual abuse, sexual 
exploitation or other abuse of children, and transportation for 
illegal sexual activity; kidnaping; burglary; and any attempt 
or conspiracy to commit those crimes. Because some of these 
terms are not used in the United States Code to define an 
offense, the bill requires the Attorney General to determine 
which specific Federal offenses fall within the definition of 
qualifying Federal offense. The Attorney General is required to 
make this determination within 120 days after enactment of the 
bill. The Attorney General may not include offenses other than 
those described in words by general category in the bill and 
must include those specific offenses described in the bill by 
section number reference to title 18 of the United States Code. 
Some offenses within this definition are described both by 
words and by reference to a section number of title 18 of the 
United States Code, and in such case the Attorney General may 
not add additional offenses to the definition of ``qualifying 
Federal offense'' with respect to those terms.
    The bill makes the refusal to give a sample required under 
the bill a Federal misdemeanor offense. The bill also 
authorizes the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and the 
probation office responsible for the supervision of offenders 
of parole or supervised released to use reasonable means to 
detain, restrain, and collect samples from person who refuse to 
voluntarily give them. Each are also authorized to enter into 
agreements with units of State or local government or with 
private entities to provide for the collection of the samples 
described in this section of the bill.
    With respect to Executive Branch agencies affected by this 
section, the Attorney General is required to promulgate 
regulations to implement the section. The Director of the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts is required 
to make available model procedures to be used by probation 
offices in carrying out this section.
Section 4. Collection and Use of DNA Identification Information from 
        Certain District of Columbia Offenders.
    Section 4 of the bill directs the Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons to collect a sample from each person in her 
custody who has been convicted of a ``qualifying District of 
Columbia offense.'' Pursuant to the National Capital 
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, 
many persons convicted of felony offenses under the laws of the 
District of Columbia are currently incarcerated in BOP 
facilities. As of 2001, all such felons will be incarcerated in 
a facility under the control of the BOP. The bill also requires 
the Director of Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 
for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) to collect samples from 
persons on supervised release, parole, or probation who have 
been convicted of such an offense. Persons convicted of 
offenses under the District of Columbia code and who are 
sentenced to or granted supervised release, parole, or 
probation are under the supervision of the Director or CSOSA. 
Samples collected under this section are to be furnished to the 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who is to 
perform a DNA analysis of each sample and include the results 
in the CODIS system.
    The government of the District of Columbia is given the 
responsibility to determine which offenses under the District 
of Columbia Code are to be ``qualifying District of Columbia 
offenses.'' In this regard, the District of Columbia is given 
the same discretion currently exercised by the 50 States, each 
of which has made a determination under its State law as to 
which offenses trigger the requirement to provide a DNA sample 
that will be included in CODIS.
    This section of the bill makes the refusal to give a sample 
required under the bill a Federal misdemeanor offense. The bill 
also authorizes the Director of the BOP and the Director of 
CSOSA to use reasonable means to detain, restrain, and collect 
samples from persons who refuse to voluntarily give them. Each 
are also authorized to enter into agreements with units of 
State or local government or with private entities to provide 
for the collection of the samples described in this section of 
the bill.
Section 5. Collection and Use of DNA Identification Information from 
        Certain Offenders in the Armed Forces.
    Section 5 of the bill enacts new section 1565 of title 10 
of the United States Code which directs the Secretaries of the 
Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Treasury \8\ (the ``Service 
Secretaries'') to collect a sample from each member of the 
Armed Forces under the respective Service Secretary's 
jurisdiction who has been convicted of a ``qualifying military 
offense.'' Samples collected are to be furnished to the 
Secretary of Defense who is to perform a DNA analysis of each 
sample and furnish the results of such analysis to the Director 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI Director is to 
include the results in the CODIS system. The Service 
Secretaries may, but are not required, to take samples from 
military members under his or her jurisdiction for whom a 
sample is already on file in CODIS at the time they are 
convicted of a qualifying military offense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The Secretary of the Treasury has operational control of the 
Coast Guard during peacetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The term ``qualifying military offense'' is defined in the 
bill as any of those offenses under the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) that are equivalent to the offenses 
defined as a ``qualifying Federal offense'' in section 3 of the 
bill. The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
Attorney General, is required to determine which felony or 
sexual offenses under the UCMJ fall within this definition. The 
committee's use of the phrase ``felony or sexual offense'' is 
intended to allow misdemeanor sexual offense to be included 
within the definition of qualifying military offense if the 
Secretary so determines. Notwithstanding the discretion given 
the Secretary in the bill, however, the bill requires that the 
Secretary include in his determination of the military offenses 
that fall within this definition all such offenses that are 
comparable to the offenses defined as ``qualifying Federal 
offenses'' in section 3 of the bill. This determination is to 
be made within 120 days of the enactment of the bill. 
Collection of samples under new section 1565 is to commence 
within 60 days after the date of this determination.
    The bill authorizes the Service Secretaries to enter into 
agreements with other Federal agencies, units of State or local 
government, or private entities to provide for the collection 
of the samples requires to be collection by the bill.
    The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to promptly 
expunge from CODIS the DNA analysis of a person included in 
CODIS on the basis of a qualifying military offense if the 
Secretary receives a certified copy of a final order of a court 
evidencing that each conviction for which that person is 
required to provide a sample under State or Federal law has 
been reversed. The committee points out that the bill excuses 
the Service Secretaries from obtaining a DNA sample from 
offenders for whom a DNA analysis already exists in CODIS, and 
also excuses other persons or agencies charged with collecting 
DNA samples (e.g., the Director of the BOP) from collecting 
such samples from persons for whom a DNA analysis is contained 
in CODIS. In order to ensure that DNA analysis for persons 
convicted of qualifying offenses are not expunged from CODIS 
inappropriately, however, the bill requires that before the 
Secretary expunges a sample placed into CODIS on the basis of a 
qualifying military offense, the Secretary must also determine 
whether the offender in question has been convicted of any 
other offense which would be qualifying offense under H.R. 
4640. If so, he may not remove the DNA sample of that offender 
from CODIS, notwithstanding the fact that the person's 
qualifying military offense may have been overturned, unless 
the Secretary also is provided with a certified copy of a final 
order establishing that all other qualifying convictions also 
have been overturned.
    The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
Secretary of the Treasury, is required to promulgate 
regulations to carry out this section of the bill within the 
Armed Forces.
Section 6. Expansion of DNA Identification Index.
    This section of the bill amends the Antiterrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, to provide the FBI 
Director with the authority to include in CODIS all DNA samples 
taken from Federal offenders, persons convicted of crimes under 
the District of Columbia Code, and persons who are convicted of 
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Section 6 
also requires the FBI Director to promptly expunge from CODIS 
the DNA analysis of a sample taken from a Federal, District of 
Columbia, or military offender if the Director receives a 
certified copy of a final order of a court evidencing that each 
conviction for which that person is required to provide a 
sample under State or Federal law has been reversed.
    The bill requires the FBI Director to promptly expunge from 
CODIS the DNA analysis of a person included in CODIS on the 
basis of a qualifying offense if the Director receives a 
certified copy of a final order of a court evidencing that each 
conviction for which that person is required to provide a 
sample under State or Federal law has been reversed. For the 
purposes of this provision, the term ``qualifying offense'' 
refers to a qualifying Federal offense, a qualifying District 
of Columbia Offense, and a qualifying military offense.\9\ As 
discussed above, the bill excuses certain persons charged with 
collecting DNA samples from offenders (e.g., the Director of 
the BOP, the Director of CSOSA) from obtaining a DNA sample 
from an offender for whom a DNA analysis already exists in 
CODIS. Therefore, in order to ensure that DNA analysis for 
persons convicted of qualifying offenses are not expunged from 
CODIS inappropriately, the bill requires that before the 
Director expunges a sample placed into CODIS on the basis of a 
qualifying military offense, he must also determine whether the 
offender in question has been convicted of any other offense 
which would be qualifying offense under H.R. 4640. If so, he 
may not remove the DNA sample of that offender from CODIS, 
notwithstanding the fact that the particular qualifying offense 
for which the DNA sample on file in CODIS was taken may have 
been overturned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ In most cases, DNA samples from persons convicted of a 
qualifying military offense will have been placed in CODIS by the 
Secretary of Defense and, when appropriate, would be expunged by him. 
In some cases, such as when military offenders are incarcerated in a 
BOP facility, the Director of the BOP or a probation office will have 
taken the DNA sample from the offenders and the Director of the FBI 
will have analyzed it and placed it in CODIS. In that circumstance, the 
FBI Director will be charged with expunging it when the conditions for 
expungement described in the bill are satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the bill requires the prompt expungement of a DNA 
sample with the standards for expungement have been met, this 
provision does not require that any expungement protocol be 
included in the operating software of CODIS. The committee 
understands and is satisfied that the record of a sample to be 
expunged from CODIS will be removed by FBI information systems 
personnel as soon as practical after the Director has made the 
determination required by the bill.
    Subsection (b) inserts references to the Secretary of 
Defense in provisions of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 14132 relating to 
participation in the DNA identification system by ``criminal 
justice agencies,'' to avoid any possible inconsistency with 
the provisions of section 5 of the bill relating to 
participation in the system by the Department of Defense. 
Subsection (b) also makes a technical correction to 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 14132(b)(2), so that it requires ``semiannual'' 
proficiency testing for DNA laboratories and analysts, rather 
than proficiency testing ``at regular intervals of not to 
exceed 180 days.''
Section 7. Conditions of Release.
    Section 7 of the bill amends section 3563 of title 18 of 
the United States Code to require Federal courts to order, as a 
condition of any imposed term of probation, that defendants 
cooperate in the collection of DNA samples authorized under the 
bill. It also amends section 3583 of title 18, United States 
Code, to require Federal courts to order, as a condition of any 
imposed term of supervised release, that defendants cooperate 
in the collection of DNA samples authorized under the bill. 
Finally, this section of the bill amends section 4209 of title 
18, United States Code, to require the United States Parole 
Commission to order, as a condition of any imposed term of 
parole, that paroled offenders cooperate in the collection of 
DNA samples authorized under the bill.
Section 8. Technical and Conforming Amendments.
    Section 8 makes technical and conforming amendments in 
other laws that are required due to the changes made by the 
bill. Specifically, this section amends several existing 
provisions to require ``semiannual'' proficiency testing of DNA 
laboratories and analysts, rather than proficiency testing at 
regular intervals which do not exceed 180 days.
Section 9 Authorization of Appropriations.
    Section 9 authorizes the appropriation to the Attorney 
General of such funds as are necessary to carry out the bill. 
From these funds, the Attorney General may reimburse the 
several Federal probation offices for their costs in complying 
with the requirements imposed on them under the bill.
Section 10. Privacy Protection Standards.
    Section 10 prohibits the use of samples taken from Federal 
offenders, District of Columbia offenders, and persons 
convicted of offenses under the UCMJ or the results of any 
analyses on those samples for any purpose other than those 
described in the bill (i.e., principally for the purpose of 
including the analyses of those samples in CODIS). This section 
authorizes the disclosure of those samples or the results of 
any analysis carried out on them for any of the purposes 
described in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994 with respect to samples taken from State offenders 
which are included in CODIS. Section 10 of the bill provides 
for the imposition of a criminal penalty on any person who 
discloses a sample or the result of any analysis on it to any 
person not authorized to receive it or who obtains, without 
authorization, a sample or result described in that section.

                              Agency Views

                             Department of Justice,
                                     Washington, DC, July 21, 2000.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter presents the views of the 
Department of Justice and the Administration concerning H.R. 
4640, the ``DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000''. The 
Department of Justice strongly supports the objectives of this 
legislation, but recommends certain modifications as discussed 
in this letter. We understand that the bill's sponsor is 
preparing a substitute amendment, which we hope will 
incorporate our recommendations, discussed below. In brief, our 
principal recommendations are as follows:
    1. Eliminating the backlog of convicted offender DNA 
samples. H.R. 4640 addresses a critical impediment to the 
effective operation of the DNA identification system--a backlog 
of hundreds of thousands of DNA samples that states have 
collected from convicted offenders, but have been unable to 
analyze because of inadequate laboratory capacity. The 
Department of Justice, through the National Institute of 
Justice, is currently administering a program of assistance to 
the states to clear this backlog pursuant to a $15 million 
FY2000 appropriation. Since this program is already being 
carried out, relatively simple statutory provisions authorizing 
the continuation and completion of the program would be 
adequate. Attachment A of this letter includes suggested 
provisions for that purpose. It is important that the program 
include adequate funding to permit the prompt elimination of 
this backlog, as the Administration has proposed in its budget 
requests. It is also important that the statutory provisions 
for the program permit direct grants to the private 
laboratories which analyze DNA samples for the states, an 
approach that will permit 20 to 30% more samples to be analyzed 
with the same funding.
    2. Eliminating the backlog of forensic (``crime scene'') 
DNA samples. H.R. 4640 also addresses a second critical backlog 
problem--an enormous volume of forensic (``crime scene'') 
evidence which has not been subjected to DNA testing. For 
example, a recent survey estimated that there are 180,000 
unanalyzed rape kits sitting in evidence storage lockers across 
the country. An effective forensic sample backlog reduction 
program should incorporate two key elements: (1) immediate 
assistance to the states for analysis of backlogged forensic 
samples through outsourcing to private laboratories, and (2) 
concurrent assistance to state laboratories to increase their 
forensic sample analysis capacity, thereby eliminating the need 
for outsourcing and federal assistance in the long term. 
Suitable provisions for such a program are included in 
Attachment B to this letter.
    3. Federal offender sample collection and systemic 
amendments. Existing federal law authorizes the inclusion of 
persons convicted of federal crimes in the national DNA 
identification index, with no restrictions on the categories of 
offenders who may be so included. See Sec. 811(a)(2) of the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 
Provisions in H.R. 4640 seek to implement this reform by 
authorizing DNA sample collection and indexing for certain 
federal offenders. The bill's provisions, however, would 
radically restrict the categories of federal offenders who 
could be included by generally confining sample collection and 
indexing to offenders convicted of sex offenses, certain 
homicides, or kidnapping.
    This retreat from the approach of existing federal law 
would leave some crimes unsolved and could in some cases 
endanger the innocent. The experience of state DNA systems is 
instructive:

         Virginia collects DNA samples from all 
        convicted felons. Empirical findings indicate that 
        about 40% of the successful DNA identifications in sex 
        offense cases in Virginia could not have been made if 
        the state had only collected DNA samples from persons 
        convicted of violent or sexual offenses.

         Florida has been collecting DNA samples from 
        persons convicted of sex offenses, murder, aggravated 
        battery, home invasion robbery, and carjacking. Florida 
        recently enacted legislation adding burglary as a basis 
        for DNA sample collection, in light of a finding that 
        52% of offenders linked to crimes (in most cases sexual 
        assaults or homicides) through DNA matching had 
        burglary convictions in their criminal histories.

         In New York, legislation took effect in 
        December, 1999, which required all convicted violent 
        felons and a number of nonviolent felons (approximately 
        65% of all offenders) to submit DNA samples, thus 
        increasing tenfold the number of DNA samples in the 
        state's DNA databank. The governor has submitted 
        legislation to the New York legislature which would 
        further expand the DNA databank to require that all 
        felony and misdemeanor offenders submit a DNA sample 
        upon conviction.

In light of the fundamental importance of adequate sample 
collection and indexing to the efficacy of the DNA 
identification system, we strongly recommend against statutory 
restrictions on the categories of convicted federal offenders 
from whom DNA samples can be collected.
    In contrast to several earlier legislative proposals, H.R. 
4640 also does not authorize sample collection and indexing for 
juveniles adjudicated delinquent in federal proceedings, and 
does not permit states to include information on adjudicated 
delinquents in the national DNA identification index. However, 
about half of the states collect samples from adjudicated 
delinquents and include the DNA profiles in their own 
databases. There is no reason these states should be barred 
from including the same information in the national index.
    It should be noted that the existing legal rules for the 
DNA identification system generally ensure that DNA samples and 
indexed information will be used solely for law enforcement 
identification purposes. Moreover, the DNA profiles maintained 
in the index do no more than provide a means of identifying an 
offender in much the same way that fingerprint information 
identifies a person. They do not reveal any of the personal 
traits or characteristics of an offender. Since all information 
in the DNA identification index--whether it relates to adult 
offenders or juveniles--is subject to strict confidentiality 
rules and protections, concerns about safeguarding the privacy 
of criminal offenders and delinquents do not justify a 
restrictive approach to DNA sample collection and indexing.
    We have previously transmitted to Congress suggested 
statutory language to implement the inclusion of federal, 
military, and District of Columbia offenders in the DNA 
identification index, and to allow information relating to 
juveniles. Language which fully reflects our recommendations 
appears in Attachment C to this letter.
    The remainder of this letter provides a more detailed 
explanation of our recommendations. We first provide general 
background concerning the DNA identification system and how DNA 
matching is used to solve crimes. The letter thereafter 
addresses the specific provisions of H.R. 4640 affecting the 
reduction of the convicted offender sample backlog, the 
reduction of the forensic (``crime scene'') sample backlog, and 
incorporation of federal offenders and juveniles into the DNA 
identification system. We have previously addressed these 
issues in testimony before the Subcommittee on Crime, which can 
be consulted for further discussion. See Statement of David 
Boyd, Deputy Director, Office of Science and Technology, 
National Institute of Justice before the House Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Crime concerning Speeding DNA Evidence 
Processing (March 23, 2000) (hereafter, ``DOJ-NIJ Testimony''); 
Statement of Dr. Dwight E. Adams, Deputy Assistant Director, 
Forensic Analysis Branch, Federal Bureau of Investigation 
before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime (March 23, 
2000) (hereafter, ``DOJ-FBI Testimony'').

                    I. THE DNA IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM

    The emergence of DNA identification technology is one of 
the most significant advances in criminal identification 
methods since the advent of fingerprinting. Recognizing the 
promise and importance of this new technology, legislatures and 
administrators at the federal, state, and local levels have 
been developing the DNA identification system since the late 
1980's.
    Toward the end of the 1980's, the Laboratory Division of 
the FBI convened a group of federal, state, and local forensic 
scientists to establish guidelines for the use of forensic DNA 
analysis in laboratories. This group developed guidelines which 
formed the basis for the existing national quality assurance 
standards and proposed the creation of a national DNA database 
for the storage and exchange of DNA profiles. This led to the 
development of the Combined DNA Index (or Identification) 
System, commonly referred to as ``CODIS.'' The CODIS program 
provides software that enables federal, state, and local 
laboratories to store and compare DNA profiles electronically 
and thereby link serial crimes to each other and identify 
suspects by matching DNA from crime scenes to convicted 
offenders.
    Congress provided a statutory basis for the DNA 
identification system in subtitle C of title XXI of the Violent 
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The federal 
legislation in this area has: (1) created a DNA Advisory Board 
to recommend quality assurance standards to the FBI Director, 
(2) established a national DNA identification index, containing 
DNA profiles from convicted offenders and from crime scene 
evidence, subject to quality assurance and privacy 
requirements, and (3) provided funding for the CODIS program 
and for state and local laboratories to enhance or expand their 
DNA testing abilities. The legislatively authorized DNA 
Advisory Board has been in existence for over five years and 
has recommended quality assurance standards both for 
laboratories that analyze crime scene DNA evidence and 
laboratories that analyze DNA samples collected from convicted 
offenders. The FBI Director has adopted these standards as 
national standards for CODIS and participation in the national 
DNA index. Compliance with these quality assurance standards is 
also required for laboratories receiving federal funding for 
DNA purposes.
    The practical operation of CODIS is as follows: Suppose, 
for example, that a sexual assault is committed, and a rape kit 
is taken from the victim.\1\ A DNA profile of the perpetrator 
is developed from the rape kit evidence. If there is no suspect 
in the case, or if a known suspect's DNA profile does not match 
that of the rape kit evidence, the laboratory will search the 
DNA profile against the index of DNA profiles obtained from 
convicted offenders. If there is a match in the convicted 
offender index, the laboratory will obtain the identity of the 
suspected perpetrator. If there is no match in the convicted 
offender index, the DNA profile is searched in the index of DNA 
profiles derived from forensic (i.e., crime scene) evidence. If 
there is a match in the forensic index, the laboratory has 
linked two or more crimes together and law enforcement agencies 
involved in the cases are able to pool the information obtained 
in each of the cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Rape kit'' refers to a standardized equipment package and 
protocol for taking physical samples from victims of sexual assaults, 
in a form suitable for the development of evidence useful in criminal 
investigation or prosecution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As this example indicates, one of the underlying concepts 
behind CODIS is to create a database of convicted offender 
profiles and use it to solve crimes for which there are no 
suspects. Recognizing this, as early as the late 1980's, states 
began to enact laws requiring that offenders convicted of 
certain offenses provide DNA samples. Currently, all 50 states 
have such laws. The national DNA identification index 
administered by the FBI compiles the DNA profiles obtained 
under the state systems and makes them accessible on a 
nationwide basis for law enforcement identification purposes.
    Pursuant to the 1994 legislation, the DNA identification 
system incorporates strict privacy protections. The statutory 
rules for the system provide that stored DNA samples and DNA 
analyses may be used for law enforcement identification 
purposes and virtually nothing else. See 42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(3). 
This ensures that if the DNA profile of a convicted offender is 
included in the index, the information will not be disclosed, 
and he will suffer no adverse consequences later in life--
unless DNA matching shows him to be the source of DNA found at 
the scene of another crime or crimes.
    Moreover, the genetic markers used for forensic DNA testing 
were purposely selected because they are not associated with 
any known physical or medical characteristics, providing 
further assurance against the use of convicted offender DNA 
profiles for purposes other than law enforcement 
identification. In common parlance, they show only the 
configuration of DNA at selected ``junk sites'' which do not 
control or influence the expression of any trait. DNA records 
in the national database contain the following information 
only: an agency identifier for the agencies submitting the DNA 
profile; the specimen identification number; the DNA profile; 
and the name of the DNA personnel associated with the DNA 
analysis. As noted, DNA profiles generated in conformity with 
the national standards do not reveal information relating to 
any medical condition or other trait. By design, the effect of 
the system is to provide a kind of genetic fingerprint, which 
uniquely identifies an individual, but does not provide a basis 
for determining or inferring anything else about the person.

            II. CONVICTED OFFENDER SAMPLE BACKLOG REDUCTION

    Following the initial passage of state legislation creating 
DNA databases, laboratory capacity for the analysis of 
convicted offender DNA samples did not keep pace with the 
collection of the samples. This has resulted in a backlog of 
hundreds of thousands of DNA samples taken from convicted 
offenders. Samples often remain in storage for years, even 
after a convicted offender is released from prison. If the 
released offender commits new crimes, the database is of no 
value in identifying him so long as the sample taken from him 
has not been analyzed and profiled in the database.
    Pursuant to a $15 million FY2000 appropriation, the 
National Institute of Justice is administering an assistance 
program to help the states clear this backlog of unanalyzed 
samples. The scope of the backlog problem, and the operation of 
the existing assistance program, are described in greater 
detail in our Subcommittee testimony. See DOJ-NIJ Testimony, 
supra, at 1-2, 5-7, 7-8, 10-11.
    H.R. 4640, in Sec. 2, recognizes the need to carry forward 
and complete this backlog elimination program. However, certain 
features of the bill would have the unintended effect of 
impeding the efficient and prompt completion of the program. 
These problems could be resolved by using instead the language 
appearing in Attachment A to this letter. In relation to the 
current language of the bill, our specific comments are as 
follows:
    1. Funding levels. The current backlog reduction program 
for convicted offender samples has an appropriation of $15 
million for FY2000. We project that continued funding at this 
level--$15 million annually--for two additional years will 
suffice to eliminate the existing backlog of state convicted 
offender samples. Thereafter, the states should be able to keep 
abreast of their convicted offender samples without further 
federal funding. The Administration's budget request for FY 
2001 includes funding at the $15 million level. However, H.R. 
4640 only authorizes $10 million annually, and requires that 
the funding be split between convicted offender sample backlog 
reduction and forensic (``crime scene'') sample backlog 
reduction. This would predictably delay for several years 
completion of the convicted offender backlog elimination 
program. We recommend adequate funding of the convicted 
offender sample backlog reduction program at the level 
requested by the Administration.
    2. Identity of grantees. In one important respect, we 
believe that the formulation of the existing backlog reduction 
program should be changed. The current statutory provisions for 
the program require that funding go directly to the states. As 
a result, state procurement processes must be followed by the 
grantees in dealing with laboratories that analyze their 
samples. Substantial economies of scale are lost because these 
laboratories have to increase their price per sample to include 
marketing and administration costs to all 50 states, and 
valuable time is lost in procurement processes that should be 
spent actually analyzing the convicted offender samples.
    The process would be streamlined and simplified if 
allocated funds were not distributed directly to the states, 
but rather if the states were given vouchers which they could 
redeem at approved laboratories that would be the direct 
grantees of the funding. We expect that the efficiency of such 
a voucher system would increase by 20-30% the number of samples 
that can be analyzed with the same amount of funding. See DOJ-
NIJ testimony, supra, at 11.
    The current language in Sec. 2(a) of H.R. 4640 limits 
eligible grantees to ``States.'' This would preclude the more 
efficient approach of direct payment to the laboratories that 
carry out the sample analysis. As indicated in Attachment A to 
this letter, adequate language could simply authorize the 
Attorney General to make grants to assist States in eliminating 
their backlogs, and specify that such grants may be made to 
public or private entities to carry out DNA analysis for states 
as provided by the Attorney General.
    3. Analysis by private laboratories. Under the existing 
backlog reduction program, the vast majority of sample analysis 
is being carried out for the states by private laboratories. 
These are the laboratories which presently have the capacity to 
do this backlog reduction work. Precluding or stringently 
restricting outsourcing to private laboratories would 
effectively halt the backlog reduction program, and delay its 
completion for many years.
    H.R. 4640 Sec. 2(e)(1) limits DNA sample analysis under the 
backlog program to laboratories ``operated by the State'' or 
``operated by a private entity pursuant to a contract with the 
State.'' On a restrictive reading, this could be understood to 
limit DNA sample analysis to public laboratories, and to quasi-
public laboratories operated for states by private entities 
pursuant to contract, thereby precluding sample analysis by 
ordinary private laboratories. This language should be 
clarified or eliminated to ensure that sample analysis by 
private laboratories will not be limited.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Utilization of private laboratories for DNA analysis does not 
compromise privacy interests. Any public or private entity which 
prepares DNA analyses for inclusion in the national DNA identification 
index must comply with the standards of subsection (b) of 42 U.S.C. 
14132, including the privacy rules set forth in paragraph (3) of that 
subsection. Those rules generally provide that DNA samples and analyses 
may be utilized solely for law enforcement identification purposes. 
Noncompliance with these standards would result in ineligibility for 
participation in DNA grant programs, debarment from access to the 
national index, and potentially other penalties. See 42 U.S.C. 
14132(c), 14133(c). Additional protections are inherent in the design 
of the DNA identification system and grant programs administered as 
part of the system. As discussed above, the indexed information does 
not reveal a person's traits or characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    4. Assistance for analysis of all backlogged samples. 
Section 2(a)(1), (b)(2) in the bill contains language which 
would apparently limit backlog reduction assistance to analysis 
of samples taken from persons convicted of ``violent or sexual 
offenses.'' There is no such restriction under the existing 
program. Imposing this restriction would disrupt the program by 
requiring states to segregate samples taken from violent or 
sexual offenders and those taken from other offenders, and to 
limit use of the assistance funding to the violent/sexual 
offender samples.
    This limitation would reduce the value of the backlog 
reduction program and impair the operation of the DNA 
identification system. Many states collect DNA samples from 
some types of nonviolent (and nonsexual) offenders--e.g., 
burglars, or all felons. As discussed below, experience 
indicates that samples collected on the basis of convictions 
for nonviolent offenses are actually among the most useful in 
solving crimes, including violent crimes. The DNA 
identification system would be undermined by denying states 
assistance in clearing their backlogs of such samples.
    5. Matching funds. Section 2(f)(1) of the bill would impose 
a 25% matching funds requirement on states, though there is no 
such requirement under the existing program. Matching funds 
requirements are generally imposed to encourage state 
responsibility and continuation of a program beyond the 
termination of federal funding. However, a new requirement of 
this type would not be helpful in the context of the backlog 
reduction program. The states have their own incentives to keep 
abreast of their convicted offender samples, but have been 
unable to do so because of a backlog of convicted offender 
samples generated by the start-up of the DNA database systems. 
See DOJ-NIJ Testimony, supra, at 5-8. Once the existing 
convicted offender sample backlog is cleared--which should be 
possible in another two years with adequate funding--state 
laboratory capacity is likely to be adequate to analyze in a 
timely manner the new samples that come in. Imposing a matching 
funds requirement during the limited period of federal funding 
is not necessary to promote this result. Rather, it would more 
likely be counterproductive, potentially delaying the 
elimination of the backlog in some states.
    6. Other matters. Section 2 of H.R. 4640 contains fairly 
elaborate provisions relating to administrative matters, such 
as state plans required for funding eligibility, quality 
assurance, nonsupplanting and administrative cost requirements, 
reports, and fiscal controls. However, such matters can be and 
are addressed through existing statutory requirements and 
administrative rules under the current program. See, e.g., 42 
U.S.C. 14131, 14132(b)(1)-(2) (relating to quality assurance 
and proficiency testing standards applicable to all 
laboratories analyzing samples for inclusion in the DNA 
identification index). Extensive new statutory provisions would 
tend to complicate the administration of the program, but would 
not serve any positive purpose. Rather, simple statutory 
provisions like those set out in Attachment A to this letter 
would be adequate.

        II. FORENSIC (``CRIME SCENE'') SAMPLE BACKLOG REDUCTION

    The other critical backlog problem is unanalyzed forensic 
(``crime scene'') samples. For example, a recent survey 
performed by the Police Executive Research Forum estimated that 
over 180,000 rape kits currently sit in evidence storage 
lockers throughout the country unanalyzed for DNA evidence. 
Every day, many of these cases become unprosecutable because 
they are barred by statutes of limitations. Every day, killers, 
rapists, and other dangerous criminals remain at large who 
could be identified and apprehended through the effective 
utilization of the existing DNA technology.
    As with the backlog of convicted offender samples, the 
backlog of crime scene samples results primarily from limited 
laboratory capacity. Currently, forensic laboratories must 
prioritize their DNA cases by first analyzing DNA samples in 
cases which are scheduled for trial. Next in line are cases in 
which known suspects exist, but in which the DNA must be 
analyzed to make an arrest, or in some in cases to release an 
innocent suspect from custody. Not until those cases are 
analyzed are laboratories able to address the solution of cases 
without known suspects. In conjunction with limited laboratory 
capacity, the low prioritization of these cases tends to thwart 
a central objective of the DNA identification system, which is 
specifically intended and designed to permit the solution of 
no-suspect cases through matching to DNA profiles in the 
convicted offender database, and through the establishment of 
``crime scene to crime scene'' linkages. In many instances, 
police do not even submit rape kits to crime labs when they 
have no suspect because they believe the samples will never get 
analyzed. See DOJ-NIJ Testimony, supra, at 2, 8-10.
    Our Subcommittee testimony endorsed the establishment of an 
assistance program to address this critical problem. See DOJ-
NIJ Testimony, supra, at 2, 11-12. We believe that an effective 
program addressing the forensic backlog must reflect the 
following points: (1) outsourcing to private laboratories is 
generally the most expeditious way to reduce the backlog of 
untested no-suspect cases because the capacity of most public 
laboratories is over-extended, and (2) public laboratories, 
however, must also be stimulated to increase capacity to handle 
the ongoing submission of unknown suspect cases in a timely 
fashion.
    1. Outsourcing. Outsourcing some portion of the current 
backlog of unknown suspect casework to private laboratories 
will allow immediate successes in solving crimes through 
matches with DNA profiles in the convicted offender database. 
Beyond its direct value in solving rapes and other serious 
crimes, the solution of no-suspect cases through DNA matching 
is likely to spur support at the state level and encourage 
public laboratories to build stronger infrastructure for the 
analysis of crime scene DNA evidence in such cases. This should 
enable the public laboratories in the long term to incorporate 
what has traditionally been considered lower priority case work 
into their daily routines. As with the convicted offender 
backlog reduction program, the statutory provisions for the 
forensic backlog reduction program should be drafted to allow 
the efficient approach of direct grants to private 
laboratories, where such laboratories analyze backlogged 
forensic samples for the states.
    The draft provisions in Attachment B to this letter 
accordingly authorize outsourcing to provide a degree of 
immediate relief for the forensic sample backlog--as well as 
grants to increase public laboratory capacity--and are worded 
to allow private laboratories as direct grantees. The 
corresponding provisions in Sec. 2 of H.R. 4640 are less 
satisfactory as currently formulated. They only allow states as 
direct grantees, which would reproduce in the forensic sample 
program the inefficiencies that have been seen to arise from 
this limitation in the current convicted offender sample 
program. The provisions of the bill also do not clearly 
recognize the dual need for immediate relief through 
outsourcing to private laboratories and expansion of public 
laboratory capacity to carry out forensic sample analysis for 
the long term.
    2. Expansion of public laboratory capacity. The other key 
objective of the forensic backlog reduction program should be 
building the infrastructure of public crime laboratories. By 
supplying laboratories with funding specifically to increase 
their capacity for unknown suspect casework, future backlog 
issues will be eliminated. Eventually, public laboratories will 
be able to replace the temporary outsourcing solution.\3\ The 
suggested statutory provisions in Attachment B explicitly 
recognize this objective and authorize grants for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Prepared Statement of David Coffman, Crime Laboratory 
Analyst Supervisor, Florida Department of Law Enforcement before the 
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, at 7 (March 23, 2000) (long-term 
solution to forensic sample backlog problem requires appropriate staff 
and facilities for public laboratories).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The draft provisions in Attachment B would permit the 
implementation of an effective program to eliminate the 
forensic sample backlog. As discussed above, however, the 
provisions currently appearing in Sec. 2 of H.R. 4640 are not 
consistent in some respects with the effective design of such a 
program. Also, as with the convicted offender backlog program, 
the degree of administrative detail in the bill's current 
provisions--concerning such matters as eligibility plans, 
quality assurance, matching funds, non-supplanting and 
administrative cost requirements, reports, and fiscal 
controls--is not needed and would tend to introduce unnecessary 
complications into the forensic backlog elimination program. 
The simpler provisions set forth in Attachment B would be 
adequate.

   III. INCLUDING FEDERAL OFFENDERS IN THE DNA IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM

    In 1996, Congress acted to fill a gap in the DNA 
identification system by authorizing the expansion of the 
national DNA identification index to include information on 
federal and D.C. offenders. See Sec. 811(a)(2) of the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. However, 
it has not been possible to implement this decision, in the 
absence of statutory authority and funding to collect and 
analyze DNA samples from these offenders. The Department of 
Justice accordingly proposed additional legislation to provide 
the necessary authority in a report submitted by the FBI to 
Congress. See FBI Laboratory Report to Congress: Implementation 
Plan for Collection of DNA Samples from Federal Convicted 
Offenders Pursuant to P.L. 105-229, Appendix A (Dec. 1998). 
Several proposals which ultimately derive from the Department's 
original proposal have been introduced in the current Congress, 
including H.R. 3375 Sec. 6, H.R. 2810 Sec. 3, and Sec. 1503 of 
S. 254 as passed by the Senate. The proposal for federal 
offender sample collection and indexing in Sec. 3 of H.R. 4640 
is the most recent.
    Following the approach of existing federal law, our 
proposal would not restrict by statute the categories of 
federal offenders who can be included in the DNA identification 
system. See DOJ-NIJ Testimony, supra, at 2-3, 13-17. H.R. 4640, 
however, would limit offense coverage for purposes of DNA 
sample collection and indexing to: (1) certain homicidal 
offenses under chapter 51 of title 18, (2) sex offenses, (3) 
kidnapping, and (4) attempts or conspiracies to commit these 
crimes. This is radically more restrictive than any earlier 
enactment, bill, or proposal. It would generally preclude DNA 
sample collection from (among others) persons convicted of 
terrorist crimes, civil rights offenses, aggravated assault, 
robbery, burglary, arson, violent crimes associated with drug 
trafficking, extortion, or organized crime offenses. For 
example:

         A sample could not be collected from a 
        terrorist convicted under 18 U.S.C. 32 for planting a 
        bomb on an airplane, or even for actually blowing up an 
        airplane.

         A sample could not be collected from a person 
        convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2332 for engaging in 
        terrorist violence against U.S. nationals, or under 18 
        U.S.C. 2332a for using a weapon of mass destruction in 
        a terrorist attack.

         A sample could not be collected from a person 
        convicted under 18 U.S.C. 351 for assaulting, 
        attempting to kill, or actually killing a member of 
        Congress.

         A sample could not be collected from a 
        gangster convicted under RICO or other racketeering 
        laws (18 U.S.C. 1951-52, 1958-59, 1961ff.) for such 
        crimes as murder, arson, robbery, or extortion.

         A sample could not be collected from a person 
        convicted under 18 U.S.C. 245 or 247 for a hate crime 
        involving torture or murder of the victim.

    We are advised that the restrictive approach of H.R. 4640 
reflects the view of some that the DNA identification system 
was conceived and designed to contain DNA profiles from 
convicted sex offenders, and that any significant extension 
beyond that limited scope would require a controversial change 
in the character of the system. This assumption, however, is 
mistaken. From its inception, the national DNA identification 
system has permitted the inclusion of DNA profiles from persons 
convicted of crimes, with no restrictions on offense category 
coverage. See 42 U.S.C. 14132(a) (``[t]he Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation may establish an index of . . . 
DNA identification records of persons convicted of crimes . . . 
[and] . . . analyses of DNA samples recovered from crime 
scenes''). Likewise, when Congress acted in 1996 to authorize 
expansion of the system to include DNA profiles from convicted 
federal and D.C. offenders, it included no restrictions on 
allowed offense categories. See Sec. 811(a)(2) of the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (``the 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation may expand the 
combined DNA Identification System (CODIS) to include Federal 
crimes and crimes committed in the District of Columbia'').
    At the state level, the trend has been towards broader 
offense coverage for purposes of DNA sample collection and 
indexing. A recent review of state systems found, for example, 
that all states covered sex offenses, 40 states covered 
offenses against children,\4\ 29 states covered assault/battery 
offenses,\5\ 22 states covered robberies,\6\ 20 states covered 
burglaries,\7\ and seven states covered all felonies.\8\ 
Proposals for further extensions of offense coverage are 
pending in many states. See, e.g., Letter of Governor George E. 
Pataki to Honorable Bill McCollum, Chairman, House Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Crime (March 20, 2000) (governor has submitted 
proposal to the New York legislature that will ``further expand 
the DNA databank to require that all felony and misdemeanor 
offenders submit a DNA sample upon conviction''); Testimony of 
Michael G. Sheppo, Bureau Chief, Illinois State Police, before 
the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, at 1 (March 23, 
2000) (noting pending Illinois legislation to include persons 
convicted of ``crimes such as homicide, attempted homicide, 
kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, burglary, and other serious 
crimes,'' which will ``substantially increase the power of the 
DNA database to solve crimes'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, 
Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, 
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, 
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
    \5\ Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, 
Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, 
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West 
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
    \6\ Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, 
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New 
York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West 
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
    \7\ Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, 
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and 
Wyoming.
    \8\ Alabama, Georgia, New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, 
and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In assessing this issue, it is important to understand that 
the perpetrators of sexual crimes and other violent crimes 
frequently have varied criminal histories, including both 
violent and nonviolent offenses. In many cases, the DNA sample 
which (for example) enables law enforcement to identify the 
perpetrator of a rape has not been collected in connection with 
an earlier rape conviction, but as a result of the 
perpetrator's prior conviction for some other type of crime--
perhaps a lesser violent offense, or an offense that was not 
violent. Hence, even if the identification of sexual offenders 
(or other serious violent offenders) is seen as the principal 
focus of the DNA identification system, achieving this 
objective effectively requires casting a broader net.
    The experience in a number of state systems provides strong 
confirmation for this point. For example, Virginia collects DNA 
samples from all convicted felons. A review of cases in 
Virginia in which offenders were linked to sex crimes through 
DNA matching found that 40% of the offenders had no prior 
convictions for sexual or violent offenses. The findings imply 
that no match might have been obtained in 40% of the Virginia 
sex offense cases in which DNA identifications were made if the 
state database had been confined to violent or sex offenders.
    Likewise, Florida has been collecting DNA samples from a 
broader range of offenders than the narrow categories proposed 
in H.R. 4640, including persons convicted of such offenses as 
aggravated battery and some types of robbery. Empirical study 
in Florida showed that 52% of the offenders in Florida who were 
linked to a crime through DNA matching--in most cases a sexual 
assault or homicide--had burglary convictions in their criminal 
histories. In light of this finding, Florida recently enacted 
legislation adding burglary as a basis for DNA sample 
collection.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See Prepared Statement of David Coffman, Crime Laboratory 
Analyst Supervisor, Florida Department of Law Enforcement before the 
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, at 5 (March 23, 2000) (``Florida 
has documented that over 52% of the offenders matched to sexual 
assaults and homicides using the state's DNA database had a prior 
burglary conviction in their criminal history. . . . [The] legislative 
expansion [to include burglaries] will increase the size of Florida's 
DNA database from 65,000 offenders to over 110,000 in the first year of 
implementation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These findings highlight the enormous human costs of the 
restrictive approach proposed in H.R. 4640. Persons committing 
the most heinous crimes will escape apprehension--and will 
remain at large to engage in further predation against innocent 
members of the public--because samples will not be taken from 
them on the basis of their conviction for crimes that fall 
outside of the bill's narrow categories. The following cases 
illustrate what is lost under such a restrictive approach:

         Timothy Spencer, referred to as the 
        ``Southside Strangler,'' is a serial killer who was 
        convicted of the sexual assault and murder of four 
        women in Richmond, Virginia in the mid-1980s. Spencer's 
        case served as the seminal case for the use of DNA 
        evidence and was instrumental in the creation of a 
        convicted offender DNA database in Virginia. Spencer's 
        criminal record included convictions for burglary and 
        trespassing, but lacked any violent or sex offenses. 
        The restrictive approach of H.R. 4640 would exclude 
        from the DNA identification system the DNA profile of a 
        federal offender with a criminal record like Spencer's, 
        and could thereby prevent the solution of murders and 
        rapes committed by such an offender.

         In New York, legislation took effect in 
        December, 1999, which required all convicted violent 
        felons and a number of nonviolent felons (approximately 
        65% of all offenders) to submit DNA samples, thus 
        increasing tenfold the number of DNA samples in the 
        state's DNA databank. This immediately led to the 
        identification of a suspect in the unsolved brutal 
        killing of Diane Gregory in 1979. DNA analysis of a 
        bloodied sheet provided a match to the DNA profile of 
        Walter Gill, a convicted robber, whose DNA sample was 
        taken and entered into the databank shortly after the 
        new law took effect.\10\ In contrast, the standards of 
        H.R. 4640 would not allow sample collection based on 
        convictions for robbery, or for the vast majority of 
        other violent offenses, or for any nonviolent and 
        nonsexual offense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See Letter of Gov. George E. Pataki to Honorable Bill 
McCollum, Chairman, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime (March 20, 
2000); DOJ-FBI Statement, supra, at 2; Testimony of Rep. Anthony D. 
Weiner before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime (March 23, 
2000).

         Mark Daigle is a serial rapist who brutally 
        attacked victims in Sarasota, Florida in 1997. He was 
        convicted and is currently serving six life terms. 
        Daigle was identified only after Florida officials sent 
        a DNA sample to Virginia for examination against 
        Virginia's DNA database. Because Virginia's DNA 
        database includes all convicted felons, Virginia 
        officials were able to find a match for Daigle, who had 
        been convicted years before in Virginia on charges of 
        grand theft, burglary, larceny, escape, and failure to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        pay child support.

         In Virginia, Jerry Wyche was convicted for 
        the rape of a 25-year-old woman and for the aggravated 
        sexual battery of a 10-year-old girl. These convictions 
        were obtained because crime scene DNA samples matched 
        Wyche's DNA sample taken in 1994 as a result of a 
        conviction for attempted auto theft. In another 
        Virginia rape case, S. Hudnall pleaded guilty after the 
        DNA sample from the rape matched a DNA sample taken 
        from him after a conviction for burglary.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ In a number of pending prosecutions for violent or sexual 
offenses in Virginia, matches were obtained on the basis of DNA samples 
taken for earlier convictions for nonviolent offenses. For example: (1) 
A defendant is currently facing prosecution for homicide because of a 
DNA match from an earlier marijuana conviction. (2) A defendant whose 
DNA sample was taken after a conviction for receiving stolen property 
is currently being charged with homicide. (3) A defendant is being 
charged in a rape on the basis of the DNA sample that was taken when 
the suspect was originally convicted of cocaine possession. (4) A 
defendant whose DNA sample was taken after a forgery conviction is 
currently being prosecuted for the rape of a 10-year-old girl. (5) A 
defendant is being prosecuted for the rape of an elderly woman based on 
DNA evidence taken from an earlier burglary conviction. (6) A defendant 
is being charged in a homicide on the basis of the DNA sample that was 
taken when the suspect was originally convicted of breaking and 
entering.

    The restrictive approach of H.R. 4640 will also endanger 
the innocent by preventing their exoneration through DNA 
testing. Both in the investigative stage of criminal cases, and 
in the post-conviction setting, DNA testing may clear an 
individual who is mistakenly suspected or convicted of 
committing a crime by identifying the actual perpetrator. This 
cannot occur, however, unless the actual perpetrator's DNA 
profile is in the convicted offender database. Since there 
would be relatively few federal offenders in the database under 
the restrictive approach of H.R. 4640, the possibility of 
exonerating innocent persons through the identification of the 
actual perpetrators would be reduced accordingly.
    Hence, the restrictive approach of H.R. 4640 could be 
justified only if it served some purpose even more important 
than convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent. We see 
no such overriding purpose. Considerations of privacy or 
confidentiality do not justify these restrictions. If an 
offender's records are included in the DNA identification 
index, he is protected by the strict confidentiality rules in 
the DNA statutes (42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(3), 14133(b)-(c)). As 
noted above, these rules allow samples collected from offenders 
and information in the index to be used for law enforcement 
identification purposes and virtually nothing else. Moreover, 
the genetic markers used for forensic DNA testing were 
purposely selected because they are not associated with any 
known physical or medical characteristics, providing further 
assurance against the use of convicted offender DNA profiles 
for purposes other than identification. An offender suffers no 
adverse effects later in life from the inclusion of information 
on him in the index--unless DNA matching shows him to be the 
source of DNA found at the scene of another crime or crimes.
    We accordingly recommend that the legislation be formulated 
in a manner consistent with existing federal law, see 
Sec. 811(a)(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 
Act of 1996, by not restricting the categories of federal, 
military, and D.C. offenders who can be included in the DNA 
identification system. We have a number of further 
recommendations concerning particular issues in the formulation 
of the proposal:
    1. Coverage of adjudicated delinquents. We disagree with 
H.R. 4640's failure to include adjudicated juvenile delinquents 
among the categories of persons from whom samples can be 
collected, and for whom information can be included in the DNA 
identification index. See DOJ-NIJ Testimony, supra, at 15-16. 
This omission would bar the collection of samples from 
juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent in federal 
proceedings, regardless of the seriousness of their conduct. 
Moreover, about half of the states currently do collect samples 
from adjudicated delinquents.\12\ There is no reason why these 
states should be barred from entering the resulting DNA 
analyses and records in the national index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, 
Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a matter of policy, a 17-year-old who is adjudicated 
delinquent for (e.g.) molesting a child or committing a rape 
presents potentially the same future danger to public safety as 
an older person who commits such a crime. If he commits 
additional offenses later in life, the public interest in being 
able to solve these crimes and apprehend the perpetrator is the 
same, regardless of the age at which he commenced his course of 
criminal conduct. Of course justice systems often incorporate 
stronger protections of confidentiality and privacy for 
juveniles than for adult offenders--but all information in the 
DNA identification index is subject to strict confidentiality 
rules which ensure that no one will know about it, and the 
individual will suffer no adverse effects later in life, unless 
his DNA profile in the index matches that of DNA found in crime 
scene evidence. In light of these protections, we see no basis 
for excluding or restricting sample collection and indexing of 
information for juveniles.
    2. Military offenders. There are some problems in the 
formulation of the bill's provisions relating to DNA sample 
collection and indexing for military offenders. Section 5 of 
the bill provides that the secretaries of the military 
departments are to collect DNA samples from convicted military 
offenders. However, some military offenders are housed in 
regular federal prisons under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
Prisons (rather than military prisons), and military offenders 
who are paroled from Bureau of Prisons facilities are 
supervised by federal probation offices (rather than the 
military parole supervision systems). In many of these cases, 
it will make more sense for the Bureau of Prisons or the 
probation offices to collect the samples from the military 
offenders in their custody or supervision, rather than 
requiring the Department of Defense to do it directly. The bill 
should be modified to authorize this arrangement.
    The provision in section 5 of the bill requiring that the 
FBI analyze DNA samples collected from military offenders is 
also problematic. It is inconsistent with earlier legislative 
proposals, and with the plans developed by the Justice 
Department and the Department of Defense, under which the 
Department of Defense will be responsible for the analysis of 
the military offender samples it collects. See DOJ-NIJ 
Testimony, supra, at 21.
    3. District of Columbia offenders. The bill, in Sec. 4(d), 
has provisions relating to DNA sample collection from District 
of Columbia offenders which are unnecessarily complicated and 
in some respects unclear. Affirmative action would be required 
by the District of Columbia government to identify covered D.C. 
offenses, which would have to be ``violent or sexual 
offenses.'' However, a fallback provision would give the 
Attorney General the authority to identify covered D.C. 
offenses, if the District of Columbia government failed to act 
within 120 days. Whether the District of Columbia government or 
the Attorney General made this determination, the covered D.C. 
offenses would have to include those ``equivalent to'' covered 
federal offenses. It is unclear whether only ``equivalent'' 
D.C. offenses could be covered, or whether this provision just 
sets a floor and other ``violent or sexual offenses'' could be 
covered, even if not ``equivalent'' to covered federal 
offenses. The relevant notion of ``equivalence'' is unclear. 
The definitions of particular offenses almost invariably are 
not exactly the same in different jurisdictions, and this is 
true of the federal jurisdiction and the District of Columbia 
as well as others.
    The problems under this provision would be mooted by 
accepting our recommendation that the categories of covered 
federal, military, and D.C. offenses should not be restricted 
by statute. As suggested in earlier legislative proposals, 
covered D.C. offenses, as well as covered federal offenses, 
could properly be specified by regulation.
    H.R. 4640 also departs from earlier proposals in requiring 
that the District of Columbia government collect DNA samples 
from offenders in its custody. A requirement of this type is 
unnecessary, and the District of Columbia government has in the 
past objected on home rule grounds to federal mandates that its 
agencies collect DNA samples. Under the reforms of the National 
Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 
1997, the entire population of incarcerated D.C. felons is 
being transferred to the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and 
virtually all adult D.C. offenders will be under probation 
supervision or post-imprisonment supervision by the federal 
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District 
of Columbia (CSOSA). Given this wholesale transfer of the D.C. 
offender population to the jurisdiction of federal agencies, 
provisions directing that BOP and CSOSA collect samples from 
D.C. offenders in their custody or supervision are adequate, 
and a mandate that the D.C. government also collect samples is 
unnecessary.
    4. Funding. It will not be possible to carry out the 
proposed expansion of the DNA identification system to include 
federal, military, and D.C. offenders without the funding 
needed for that purpose. This includes approximately $5.3 
million for the FBI in first-year costs, which has been 
included in the Administration's budget requests. See DOJ-NIJ 
Testimony, supra, at 3-4, 19-21 (discussing budgetary 
requirements for FBI and other agencies).
    5. Arrangements for sample collection. The federal agencies 
responsible for DNA sample collection may have their own 
personnel carry out this function in some cases, but may in 
other cases find it useful or necessary to have sample 
collection carried out by other entities through contracting or 
other arrangements. For example, contract facility personnel 
should be able to carry out DNA sample collection from the many 
inmates in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons who are housed 
in contract facilities. To foreclose litigative challenges by 
offenders, it would be advisable to include explicit language 
in the legislation which confirms the authority to have sample 
collection carried out through such arrangements.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ The draft in Attachment C to this letter contains language for 
this purpose in proposed 42 U.S.C. 14132(d)(5)(E), (e)(2)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    6. Other systemic amendments. Section 6 of the bill 
includes some amendments to the general provisions governing 
the DNA identification index. One of these amendments would 
modify 42 U.S.C. 14132(a)(2) to authorize including in the DNA 
identification index analyses of DNA samples recovered from 
``victims of crime.'' The provision currently authorizes 
inclusion of analyses of DNA samples recovered from ``crime 
scenes.'' The purpose of the amendment is unclear. DNA samples 
taken from victims--such as rape kits or samples taken from the 
bodies of murder victims--are understood to be encompassed in 
the current language covering ``crime scene'' samples.
    Section 6 of the bill also includes provisions requiring 
the expungement of information from the DNA identification 
index where a federal, D.C., or military conviction has been 
overturned. We recommend against the enactment of a statutory 
expungement requirement. Cf. Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann., ch. 730, 
Sec. 5/5-4-3(f) (notwithstanding any other statutory provision, 
information in state DNA database ``may not be subject to 
expungement''). By way of comparison, other records which may 
be useful for law enforcement identification purposes, such as 
fingerprint records, are normally not disposed of in case of 
reversal of a conviction. In light of the strict 
confidentiality rules that govern the DNA identification index, 
the fact that a person's DNA profile is included in the index 
is not disclosed, and retention of the information has no 
effect on him later in life, unless DNA matching shows him to 
be the source of DNA found at the scene of another crime or 
crimes. See DOJ-NIJ Testimony, supra, at 17-18.
    If, against our recommendation, statutory expungement 
requirements are included in the bill, we recommend that they 
go no further than deemed necessary. By way of comparison, the 
corresponding provisions passed by the Senate, in S. 254 
Sec. 1503, provide for expungement only of DNA profiles from 
juveniles adjudicated delinquent (not for those from adult 
offenders), and only in cases in which the underlying 
delinquency adjudication has been expunged.
    Modification of the expungement procedure for military 
offenders would be advisable, if the expungement provision for 
such offenders remains in the bill. The states vary in whether 
they provide for expungement under their DNA provisions in case 
of reversal of a conviction. In states which do provide for 
expungement, persons whose convictions have been reversed do 
not directly approach the FBI with evidence of reversal of the 
conviction. Rather, they contact the appropriate state 
authorities, who then notify the FBI to expunge the records 
from the national index. In cases in which the Defense 
Department has forwarded to the FBI the DNA profile of a 
military offender for inclusion in the DNA identification 
index, it is in essentially the same position as a state which 
has submitted a DNA profile for a state offender. If 
expungement is to be required where a person's court martial 
conviction is reversed, the appropriate procedure would be for 
the person to deal with the Department of Defense, and for that 
Department to notify the FBI to expunge the record from the 
index.
    Section 8(d) of H.R. 4640 contains an amendment to 42 
U.S.C. 14132(b), a statute defining requirements for data 
maintained in the DNA identification index. The amendment would 
change the quality assurance requirements for laboratories that 
prepare DNA analyses for inclusion in the index. The amendment 
is drafted as a substitute for current 42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(2), 
which is not concerned with general quality assurance 
standards, but with periodic external proficiency testing. This 
would eliminate the specific requirement for external 
proficiency testing in current 42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(2), and 
substitute new quality assurance standards which would coexist 
with conflicting quality assurance requirements in 42 U.S.C. 
14132(b)(1). Perhaps the new language in the amendment is 
actually intended as a substitute for current 42 U.S.C. 
14132(b)(1), which does address quality assurance.
    Whatever the intent may be on this drafting point, the 
change in quality assurance requirements proposed in section 
8(d) should not be made. In part, the new language in the 
amendment provides that laboratories may satisfy quality 
assurance standards adopted by the Director of the FBI. 
However, it refers to quality assurance standards maintained by 
the FBI Director under section 2 of the bill, rather than the 
statute (42 U.S.C. 14131) under which the FBI Director has 
issued the existing national quality assurance standards. 
Moreover, the amendment provides in the alternative that 
laboratories may prepare DNA analyses for inclusion in the 
national DNA identification index--even if they do not satisfy 
the quality assurance standards adopted by the Director of the 
FBI--if they are accredited by nonprofit professional 
associations that satisfy certain criteria. There are very few 
organizations that currently offer accreditation programs that 
would satisfy the elements of this provision, and they are not 
required to adopt the FBI Director's national quality assurance 
standards.
    To ensure the integrity of data included in the national 
DNA index, the law now requires that laboratories preparing 
analyses for inclusion in the index meet the quality assurance 
standards issued by the FBI Director. See 42 U.S.C. 14131, 
14132(b)(1). The amendment proposed in section 8(d), however, 
would potentially destroy the important uniformity of minimum 
quality assurance standards required under existing law. We 
accordingly recommend that the change proposed in section 8(d) 
not be made.
    Attachment C to this letter contains suggested provisions 
for incorporating federal, military, and D.C. offenders into 
the DNA identification system, and for necessary ``systemic'' 
amendments, which conform fully to the recommendations set 
forth above.
    In sum, the Department of Justice strongly supports the 
objectives of this legislation. However, modifications in the 
bill are needed to realize these objectives effectively. The 
backlog reduction assistance program for convicted offender 
samples should be designed and adequately funded so as to 
permit the continuation and prompt completion of the existing 
program. The new program for forensic sample backlog reduction 
should provide immediate relief through outsourcing to private 
laboratories, and should promote a permanent solution to the 
forensic sample backlog problem through support for increased 
public laboratory capacity. The provisions for including 
federal, military, and D.C. offenders in the DNA identification 
system should not restrict the offense categories for which 
samples can be collected.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter. We have 
appreciated the opportunity to work with the staffs of the 
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on 
Crime in connection with this issue. If we may be of additional 
assistance, we trust that you will not hesitate to call upon 
us. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection to the submission of this report from the 
standpoint of the Administration's program.
            Sincerely,
                  Robert Raben, Assistant Attorney General.

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers Jr.
        Ranking Democratic Member

Attachments

  Attachment A--Provisions Relating to Convicted Offender DNA Sample 
                           Backlog Reduction:

Sec. ____. Elimination of Convicted Offender DNA Sample Backlog.
    (a) GRANTS.--The Attorney General may make grants to assist 
States in eliminating their backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples 
collected from convicted offenders. Grants awarded under this 
section may be made to public or private entities to carry out 
DNA analysis for States as provided by the Attorney General.
    (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2001 and $15,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
    (c) DEFINITION.--As used in this section, ``State'' means a 
State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or a 
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

  Attachment B--Provisions Relating to Forensic (``Crime Scene'') DNA 
                       Sample Backlog Reduction:

Sec. ____. Elimination of Forensic DNA Sample Backlog.
    (a) GRANTS.--The Attorney General may make grants to assist 
States in eliminating, and preventing the future development 
of, backlogs of cases without known suspects in which the 
perpetrator may be identifiable through DNA analysis. The 
program carried out under this section shall include both 
grants to public or private entities for the DNA analysis of 
evidence in no-suspect cases through outsourcing, and grants to 
increase the capacity of public laboratories to carry out such 
analysis.
    (b) GRANT ELIGIBILITY CONDITION.--To be eligible to receive 
a grant under this section, or to submit material for analysis 
through outsourcing supported by a grant under this section, a 
State must submit to the Attorney General an assessment of the 
volume and nature of unanalyzed evidence in the State to which 
this section may apply, and a plan to utilize any funding or 
resources made available to carry out the purposes of this 
section.
    (c) DEFINITION.--As used in this section, ``State'' means a 
State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or a 
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

  Attachment C--Provisions for Including Federal, Military, and D.C. 
              Offenders in the DNA Identification System:

Sec. ____. Inclusion of Federal Offenders in the DNA Identification 
        System.
    (a) EXPANSION OF DNA IDENTIFICATION INDEX.--Section 
811(a)(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 
of 1996 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(2) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
may expand the Combined DNA Identification System (CODIS) to 
include information on DNA identification records and analyses 
related to Federal crimes, crimes under the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice, and crimes under the District of Columbia 
Code, in accordance with section 210304 of the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132).''.
    (b) AMENDMENTS TO DNA IDENTIFICATION STATUTE.--Section 
210304 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132) is amended--
    (1) in subsection (a), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
follows:
    ``(1) DNA identification records of persons convicted of or 
adjudicated delinquent for crimes;'';
    (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``, at regular 
intervals of not to exceed 180 days,'' and inserting 
``semiannual''; and
    (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) FEDERAL AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMES.--(1) The 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall include 
in the index established by this section DNA identification 
records from persons convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for 
qualifying Federal crimes or qualifying crimes under the 
District of Columbia Code, as defined in regulations 
promulgated by the Director (hereafter, `qualifying crimes'). 
The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall 
promulgate regulations establishing standards and procedures 
for the analysis of the DNA samples collected from such 
persons, and for the inclusion of the analyses and DNA 
identification records relating to those samples in the index. 
In promulgating regulations under this paragraph, the Director 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall consult with the 
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, the Director of the Court 
Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of 
Columbia, and the Chief of Police of the Metropolitan Police 
Department of the District of Columbia.
    ``(2) The Bureau of Prisons shall collect a DNA sample from 
each person in its custody who has been convicted of or 
adjudicated delinquent for a qualifying crime. The Director of 
the Bureau of Prisons shall specify the time and manner of 
collection of DNA samples from such persons.
    ``(3) The probation office responsible for a person's 
supervision shall collect a DNA sample from each person who is 
on supervised release, parole, or probation and who has been 
convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for a qualifying crime. 
The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts shall specify the time and manner of collection of DNA 
samples from such persons.
    ``(4) (A) The Court Services and Offender Supervision 
Agency for the District of Columbia shall collect a DNA sample 
from each person under the supervision of the Agency who is on 
supervised release, parole, or probation and who has been 
convicted of a qualifying crime. The Director of the Agency 
shall specify the time and manner of collection of DNA samples 
from such persons.
    ``(B) The Government of the District of Columbia shall have 
the authority to collect DNA samples from persons who are in 
the custody of or under supervision by the District of 
Columbia, including the authority to determine the categories 
of such persons from whom DNA samples will be collected.
    ``(5) The agency responsible for collecting DNA samples 
under paragraph (2), (3), or (4)(A)--
    ``(A) shall collect DNA samples from persons convicted of 
or adjudicated delinquent for qualifying offenses before or 
after the enactment of this subsection;
    ``(B) shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, 
commence the collection of DNA samples no later than 180 days 
after the enactment of this subsection;
    ``(C) may waive the collection of a DNA sample from a 
person if another agency has collected such a sample from the 
person;
    ``(D) may use or authorize the use of such means as are 
necessary to restrain, and collect a DNA sample from, a person 
who refuses to cooperate in the collection of a sample; and
    ``(E) may have its own personnel carry out DNA sample 
collection, or have other persons or entities carry out DNA 
sample collection through contracting or other arrangements.
    ``(e) MILITARY OFFENDERS.--(1) The Secretary of Defense 
shall specify categories of conduct punishable under the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (hereafter, `qualifying 
military crimes') which are comparable to the crimes specified 
by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under 
subsection (d) (1). The Secretary shall promulgate regulations 
establishing standards and procedures for--
    ``(A) the collection of DNA samples from persons convicted 
of qualifying military crimes;
    ``(B) the analysis of DNA samples collected from such 
persons; and
    ``(C) the inclusion of the analyses of such DNA samples and 
DNA identification records relating to those samples in the 
index established by this section.
    ``(2) The Secretary--
    ``(A) shall collect DNA samples from persons convicted of 
qualifying military crimes before or after the enactment of 
this subsection who are in custody or under supervision;
    ``(B) shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, 
commence the collection of DNA samples no later than 180 days 
after the enactment of this subsection;
    ``(C) may waive the collection of a DNA sample from a 
person if another agency has collected such a sample from the 
person;
    ``(D) may delegate the authority to collect a DNA sample 
from a person to the Bureau of Prisons or another agency 
responsible for the collection of samples under subsection (d), 
if the person is or will be in the custody of or under 
supervision by the Bureau of Prisons or such other agency;
    ``(E) may use or authorize the use of such means as are 
necessary to restrain, and collect a DNA sample from, a person 
who refuses to cooperate in the collection of the sample; and
    ``(F) may have Department of Defense personnel carry out 
DNA sample collection, or have other persons or entities carry 
out DNA sample collection through contracting or other 
arrangements.
    ``(f) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.--If the collection of a DNA 
sample from a person is required pursuant to subsection (d), 
the refusal of the person to cooperate in the collection of 
such a sample is a Class A misdemeanor. If the collection of a 
DNA sample from a person is required pursuant to subsection 
(e), the refusal of the person to cooperate in the collection 
of such a sample may be punished as a court martial may direct 
as a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    ``(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsections (d) and 
(e)--
    ``(1) to the Department of Justice--
    ``(A) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
    ``(B) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
years 2002 through 2005;
    ``(2) to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 
for the District of Columbia, such sums as may be necessary for 
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005; and
    ``(3) to the Department of Defense, such sums as may be 
necessary for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
    (c) CONDITIONS OF RELEASE.--(1) Section 3563(a) of title 
18, United States Code, is amended--
    (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
    (B) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
inserting ``; and''; and
    (C) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
    ``(9) that the defendant cooperate in the collection of a 
DNA sample from the defendant if the collection of such a 
sample is required pursuant to section 210304 of the Violent 
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
14132).''.
    (2) Section 3583(d) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting before ``The court shall also order'' the 
following: ``The court shall order as an explicit condition of 
supervised release that the defendant cooperate in the 
collection of a DNA sample from the defendant if the collection 
of such a sample is required pursuant to section 210304 of the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 
U.S.C. 14132).''.
    (3) Section 4209(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting before ``In every case, the Commission 
shall also impose'' the following: ``In every case, the 
Commission shall impose as a condition of parole that the 
parolee cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample from the 
parolee if the collection of such a sample is required pursuant 
to section 210304 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132).''.
    (4) If the collection of a DNA sample from a person on 
probation, parole, or supervised release pursuant to a 
conviction or adjudication of delinquency under the law of any 
jurisdiction is required pursuant to section 210304 of the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 
U.S.C. 14132), it is a condition of the person's probation, 
parole, or supervised release that the person cooperate in the 
collection of a DNA sample from the person.
    (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.--(1) Section 503(a)(12)(C) of 
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3753(a)(12)(C)) is amended by striking ``, at 
regular intervals of not to exceed 180 days,'' and inserting 
``semiannual''.
    (2) Section 2403(3) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796kk-2(3)) is amended 
by striking ``, at regular intervals not exceeding 180 days,'' 
and inserting ``semiannual''.
    (3) Section 210305(a)(1)(A) of the Violent Crime Control 
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14133(a)(1)(A)) is 
amended by striking ``, at regular intervals of not to exceed 
180 days,'' and inserting ``semiannual''.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

               CHAPTER 80 OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE

 CHAPTER 80--MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER DUTIES

Sec.
1561.  Complaints of sexual harassment: investigation by commanding 
          officers.
     * * * * * * *
1565.  DNA identification information: collection from certain 
          offenders; use.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

    (a) Collection of DNA Samples.--(1) The Secretary concerned 
shall collect a DNA sample from each member of the armed forces 
under the Secretary's jurisdiction who is, or has been, 
convicted of a qualifying military offense (as determined under 
subsection (d)).
    (2) For each member described in paragraph (1), if the 
Combined DNA Index System (in this section referred to as 
``CODIS'') of the Federal Bureau of Investigation contains a 
DNA analysis with respect to that member, or if a DNA sample 
has been or is to be collected from that member under section 
3(a) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, the 
Secretary concerned may (but need not) collect a DNA sample 
from that member.
    (3) The Secretary concerned may enter into agreements with 
other Federal agencies, units of State or local government, or 
private entities to provide for the collection of samples 
described in paragraph (1).
    (b) Analysis and Use of Samples.--The Secretary concerned 
shall furnish each DNA sample collected under subsection (a) to 
the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall carry 
out a DNA analysis on each such DNA sample and furnish the 
results of each such analysis to the Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation for inclusion in CODIS.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``DNA sample'' means a tissue, fluid, 
        or other bodily sample of an individual on which a DNA 
        analysis can be carried out.
            (2) The term ``DNA analysis'' means analysis of the 
        deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification information 
        in a bodily sample.
    (d) Qualifying Military Offenses.--(1) Subject to paragraph 
(2), the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
Attorney General, shall determine those felony or sexual 
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that shall 
be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying military 
offenses.
    (2) An offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
that is comparable to a qualifying Federal offense (as 
determined under section 3(d) of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
Elimination Act of 2000), as determined by the Secretary in 
consultation with the Attorney General, shall be treated for 
purposes of this section as a qualifying military offense.
    (e) Expungement.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
promptly expunge, from the index described in subsection (a) of 
section 210304 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
Act of 1994, the DNA analysis of a person included in the index 
on the basis of a qualifying military offense if the Secretary 
receives, for each conviction of the person of a qualifying 
offense, a certified copy of a final court order establishing 
that such conviction has been overturned.
    (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ``qualifying 
offense'' means any of the following offenses:
            (A) A qualifying Federal offense, as determined 
        under section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 
        Act of 2000.
            (B) A qualifying District of Columbia offense, as 
        determined under section 4 of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
        Elimination Act of 2000.
            (C) A qualifying military offense.
    (3) For purposes of paragraph (1), a court order is not 
``final'' if time remains for an appeal or application for 
discretionary review with respect to the order.
    (f) Regulations.--This section shall be carried out under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the 
Attorney General. Those regulations shall apply, to the extent 
practicable, uniformly throughout the armed forces.
                              ----------                              


  SECTION 811 OF THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 
                                  1996

SEC. 811. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

    (a) In General.--With funds made available pursuant to 
subsection (c)--
            (1) * * *
            [(2) the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation may expand the combined DNA 
        Identification System (CODIS) to include Federal crimes 
        and crimes committed in the District of Columbia.]
            (2) the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation shall expand the combined DNA 
        Identification System (CODIS) to include analyses of 
        DNA samples collected from--
                    (A) individuals convicted of a qualifying 
                Federal offense, as determined under section 
                3(d) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 
                Act of 2000;
                    (B) individuals convicted of a qualifying 
                District of Columbia offense, as determined 
                under section 4(d) of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
                Elimination Act of 2000; and
                    (C) members of the Armed Forces convicted 
                of a qualifying military offense, as determined 
                under section 1565(d) of title 10, United 
                States Code.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


         VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994

TITLE XXI--STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle C--DNA Identification

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

    (a) * * *
    (b) Information.--The index described in subsection (a) 
shall include only information on DNA identification records 
and DNA analyses that are--
            (1) based on analyses performed by or on behalf of 
        a criminal justice agency (or the Secretary of Defense 
        in accordance with section 1565 of title 10, United 
        States Code) in accordance with publicly available 
        standards that satisfy or exceed the guidelines for a 
        quality assurance program for DNA analysis, issued by 
        the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
        under section 210303;
            (2) prepared by laboratories, and DNA analysts, 
        that undergo[, at regular intervals of not to exceed 
        180 days,] semiannual external proficiency testing by a 
        DNA proficiency testing program meeting the standards 
        issued under section 210303 (or prepared by the 
        Secretary of Defense in accordance with section 1565 of 
        title 10, United States Code); and
            (3) maintained by Federal, State, and local 
        criminal justice agencies (or the Secretary of Defense 
        in accordance with section 1565 of title 10, United 
        States Code) pursuant to rules that allow disclosure of 
        stored DNA samples and DNA analyses only--
                    (A) to criminal justice agencies for law 
                enforcement identification purposes;
                    (B) in judicial proceedings, if otherwise 
                admissible pursuant to applicable statutes or 
                rules;
                    (C) for criminal defense purposes, to a 
                defendant, who shall have access to samples and 
                analyses performed in connection with the case 
                in which such defendant is charged; or
                    (D) if personally identifiable information 
                is removed, for a population statistics 
                database, for identification research and 
                protocol development purposes, or for quality 
                control purposes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Expungement of Records.--(1) The Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation shall promptly expunge from the 
index described in subsection (a) the DNA analysis of a person 
included in the index on the basis of a qualifying Federal 
offense or a qualifying District of Columbia offense (as 
determined under section 3 and 4 of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
Elimination Act of 2000, respectively) if the Director 
receives, for each conviction of the person of a qualifying 
offense, a certified copy of a final court order establishing 
that such conviction has been overturned.
    (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ``qualifying 
offense'' means any of the following offenses:
            (A) A qualifying Federal offense, as determined 
        under section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 
        Act of 2000.
            (B) A qualifying District of Columbia offense, as 
        determined under section 4 of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
        Elimination Act of 2000.
            (C) A qualifying military offense, as determined 
        under section 1565 of title 10, United States Code.
    (3) For purposes of paragraph (1), a court order is not 
``final'' if time remains for an appeal or application for 
discretionary review with respect to the order.

SEC. 210305. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

    (a) Proficiency Testing Requirements.--
            (1) Generally.--(A) Personnel at the Federal Bureau 
        of Investigation who perform DNA analyses shall 
        undergo[, at regular intervals of not to exceed 180 
        days,] semiannual external proficiency testing by a DNA 
        proficiency testing program meeting the standards 
        issued under section 210303.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 227--SENTENCES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        SUBCHAPTER B--PROBATION

Sec. 3563. Conditions of probation

    (a) Mandatory Conditions.--The court shall provide, as an 
explicit condition of a sentence of probation--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (7) that the defendant will notify the court of any 
        material change in the defendant's economic 
        circumstances that might affect the defendant's ability 
        to pay restitution, fines, or special assessments; 
        [and]
            (8) for a person described in section 4042(c)(4), 
        that the person report the address where the person 
        will reside and any subsequent change of residence to 
        the probation officer responsible for supervision, and 
        that the person register in any State where the person 
        resides, is employed, carries on a vocation, or is a 
        student (as such terms are defined under section 
        170101(a)(3) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
        Enforcement Act of 1994)[.]; and
            (9) that the defendant cooperate in the collection 
        of a DNA sample from the defendant if the collection of 
        such a sample is authorized pursuant to section 3 of 
        the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000.
If the court has imposed and ordered execution of a fine and 
placed the defendant on probation, payment of the fine or 
adherence to the court-established installment schedule shall 
be a condition of the probation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER D--IMPRISONMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 3583. Inclusion of a term of supervised release after imprisonment

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Conditions of Supervised Release.--The court shall 
order, as an explicit condition of supervised release, that the 
defendant not commit another Federal, State, or local crime 
during the term of supervision and that the defendant not 
unlawfully possess a controlled substance. The court shall 
order, as an explicit condition of supervised release, that the 
defendant cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample from the 
defendant, if the collection of such a sample is authorized 
pursuant to section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 
Act of 2000. The court shall order as an explicit condition of 
supervised release for a defendant convicted for the first time 
of a domestic violence crime as defined in section 3561(b) that 
the defendant attend a public, private, or private nonprofit 
offender rehabilitation program that has been approved by the 
court, in consultation with a State Coalition Against Domestic 
Violence or other appropriate experts, if an approved program 
is readily available within a 50-mile radius of the legal 
residence of the defendant. The court shall order, as an 
explicit condition of supervised release for a person described 
in section 4042(c)(4), that the person report the address where 
the person will reside and any subsequent change of residence 
to the probation officer responsible for supervision, and that 
the person register in any State where the person resides, is 
employed, carries on a vocation, or is a student (as such terms 
are defined under section 170101(a)(3) of the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994). The court shall also 
order, as an explicit condition of supervised release, that the 
defendant refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled 
substance and submit to a drug test within 15 days of release 
on supervised release and at least 2 periodic drug tests 
thereafter (as determined by the court) for use of a controlled 
substance. The condition stated in the preceding sentence may 
be ameliorated or suspended by the court as provided in section 
3563(a)(4). The results of a drug test administered in 
accordance with the preceding subsection shall be subject to 
confirmation only if the results are positive, the defendant is 
subject to possible imprisonment for such failure, and either 
the defendant denies the accuracy of such test or there is some 
other reason to question the results of the test. A drug test 
confirmation shall be a urine drug test confirmed using gas 
chromatography/mass spectrometry techniques or such test as the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts after consultation with the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services may determine to be of equivalent accuracy. The 
court shall consider whether the availability of appropriate 
substance abuse treatment programs, or an individual's current 
or past participation in such programs, warrants an exception 
in accordance with United States Sentencing Commission 
guidelines from the rule of section 3583(g) when considering 
any action against a defendant who fails a drug test. The court 
may order, as a further condition of supervised release, to the 
extent that such condition--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Part E--Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Programs

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subpart 1--Drug Control and System Improvement Grant Program

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           state applications

    Sec. 503. (a) To request a grant under this subpart, the 
chief executive officer of a State shall submit an application 
within 60 days after the Bureau has promulgated regulations 
under this section, and for each subsequent year, within 60 
days after the date that appropriations for this part are 
enacted, in such form as the Director may require. Such 
application shall include the following:
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (12) If any part of funds received from a grant 
        made under this part is to be used to develop or 
        improve a DNA analysis capability in a forensic 
        laboratory, a certification that--
                    (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (C) such laboratory, and each analyst 
                performing DNA analyses at such laboratory, 
                will undergo[, at regular intervals of not to 
                exceed 180 days,] semiannual external 
                proficiency testing by a DNA proficiency 
                testing program meeting the standards issued 
                under section 210303 of the DNA Identification 
                Act of 1994.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  PART X--DNA IDENTIFICATION GRANTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2403. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

    No grant may be made under this part unless an application 
has been submitted to the Attorney General in which the 
applicant certifies that--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) the laboratory and each analyst performing DNA 
        analyses at the laboratory shall undergo[, at regular 
        intervals not exceeding 180 days,] semiannual external 
        proficiency testing by a DNA proficiency testing 
        program that meets the standards issued under section 
        210303 of the DNA Identification Act of 1994.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  
                             Minority Views

    We concur with the Majority Views as to the importance of 
providing additional funds to States and localities to address 
their DNA backlogs. However, by providing these resources to 
the States, the amount of data entered into the Combine DNA 
Index System (CODIS) will dramatically expand. With this 
expansion comes the increased likelihood that the DNA samples 
and analyses could be misused. We must be ever mindful of our 
responsibility to protect the privacy of this DNA information, 
ensuring that it be used only for law enforcement 
identification purposes.
    We are pleased that the Judiciary Committee agreed to an 
amendment that would impose criminal penalties for anyone who 
uses DNA samples or analyses for purposes not designated by 
CODIS. We are also grateful to the Majority for its willingness 
to provide for the expungement from CODIS of DNA information on 
individuals whose convictions have been overturned on appeal. 
The information obtainable from DNA testing surpasses any 
previous types of testing available. The amount of personal and 
private data contained in a DNA specimen provides insights into 
the most personal family relationships and the most intimate 
workings of the human body, including the likelihood of the 
occurrence of over 4,000 types of genetic conditions and 
diseases. Genetic information pertains not only to the 
individual whose DNA is sampled, but also to anyone who shares 
that bloodline. Thus, in addition to criminal penalties for 
misuse of DNA, we believe a specific security protocol should 
be developed to prevent misuse of such samples. This approach 
is the only way to ensure that the DNA analysis will not be 
used for unlawful purposes.
    However, we are disappointed that H.R. 4640 does not 
include any requirements on States to provide access to DNA 
testing to convicted persons who did not have access to such 
testing at the time of their trial. While we certainly support 
H.R. 4640, we believe that Congress should also ensure some of 
the funds be made available to persons seeking to prove they 
were wrongfully convicted.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Robert C. Scott.
                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   William D. Delahunt.
                                   Steven R. Rothman.