[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 136 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11184-S11187]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PAUL COVERDELL NATIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S.
3045, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3045) to improve the quality, timeliness, and
credibility of forensic science services for criminal justice
purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on June 9, 1999, our departed friend and
colleague, the former senior Senator from Georgia, introduced the
National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 1999. This important
legislative initiative called for an infusion of Federal funds to
improve the quality of State and local forensic science services. I am
pleased that Senator Sessions has revived the bill, and that we are
passing it today as the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences
Improvement Act of 2000, S. 3045.
The use of quality forensic science services is widely accepted as a
key to effective crime-fighting, especially with advanced technologies
such as DNA testing. Over the past decade, DNA testing has emerged as
the most reliable forensic technique for identifying criminals when
biological material is left at a crime scene. Because of its scientific
precision, DNA testing can, in some cases, conclusively establish a
suspect's guilt or innocence. In other cases, DNA testing may not
conclusively establish guilt or innocence, but may have significant
probative value for investigators.
While DNA's power to root out the truth has been a boon to law
enforcement, it has also been the salvation of law enforcement's
mistakes--those who for one reason or another, are prosecuted and
convicted of crimes that they did not commit. In more than 75 cases in
the United States and Canada, DNA evidence has led to the exoneration
of innocent men and women who were wrongfully convicted. This number
includes at least 9 individuals sentenced to death, some of whom came
within days of being executed. In more than a dozen cases, moreover,
post-conviction DNA testing that has exonerated an innocent person has
also enhanced public safety by providing evidence that led to the
apprehension of the real perpetrator.
Clearly, forensic science services like DNA testing are critical to
the effective administration of justice in 21st century America.
Forensic science workloads have increased significantly over the past
five years, both in number and complexity. Since Congress established
the Combined DNA Index System in the mid-1990s, States have been busy
collecting DNA samples from convicted offenders for analysis and
indexing. Increased Federal funding for State and local law enforcement
programs has resulted in more and better trained police officers who
are collecting immense amounts of evidence that can and should be
subjected to crime laboratory analysis.
Funding has simply not kept pace with this increasing demand, and
State crime laboratories are now seriously bottlenecked. Backlogs have
impeded the use of new technologies like DNA testing in solving cases
without suspects--and reexamining cases in which there are strong
claims of innocence--as laboratories are required to give priority
status to those cases in which a suspect is known. In some parts of the
country, investigators must wait several months--and sometimes more
than a year--to get DNA test results from rape and other violent crime
evidence. Solely for lack of funding, critical evidence remains
untested while rapists and killers remain at large, victims continue to
anguish, and statutes of limitation on prosecution expire.
Let me describe the situation in my home State. The Vermont Forensics
Laboratory is currently operating in an old Vermont State Hospital
building in Waterbury, Vermont. Though it is proudly one of only two
fully-accredited forensics labs in New England, it is trying to do 21st
century science in a 1940's building. The lab has very limited space
and no central climate control--both essential conditions for precise
forensic science. It also has a large storage freezer full of untested
DNA evidence from unsolved cases, for which there are no other leads
besides the untested evidence. The evidence is not being processed
because the lab does not have the space, equipment or manpower.
I commend the scientists and lab personnel at the Vermont Forensics
Laboratory for the fine work they do everyday under difficult
circumstances. But the people of the State of Vermont deserve better.
This is our chance to provide them with the facilities and equipment
they deserve.
Passage of the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement
Act will give States like Vermont the help they desperately need to
handle the increased workloads placed upon their forensic science
systems. It allocates $738 million over the next six years for grants
to qualified forensic science laboratories and medical examiner's
offices for laboratory accreditation, automated equipment, supplies,
training, facility improvements, and staff enhancements.
I have worked with Senator Sessions to revise the bill's allocation
formula to make it fair for all States. We have agreed to add a minimum
allocation of .06 percent of the total appropriation for each fiscal
year for smaller states and have increased the maximum percentage of
federal funds available for facility costs from 40 percent to 80
percent for these smaller states. This is only fair for smaller States
with limited tax bases and other finite resources, such as my home
State of Vermont.
The bill we pass today also authorizes $30 million for fiscal year
2001 for the elimination of DNA convicted offender database sample
backlogs and other related purposes. I support this provision, although
I regret that it does not go further. Senator Schumer and I have
proposed increasing this authorization by $25 million, which is the
amount needed to eliminate the backlog of untested crime scene evidence
from unsolved crimes. This backlog is as serious a problem as the
convicted offender sample backlog, and we should take the opportunity
to address it now.
I am also deeply disappointed that S. 3045 fails to address the
urgent need to increase access to DNA testing for prisoners who were
convicted before this truth-seeking technology became widely available.
Prosecutors and law enforcement officers across the country use DNA
testing to prove guilt, and rightly so. By the same token, however, it
should be used to do what is equally scientifically reliable to do--
prove innocence.
I was greatly heartened earlier this month when the Governor of
Virginia finally pardoned Earl Washington, after new DNA tests
confirmed what earlier DNA tests had shown: He was the wrong guy. He
was the 88th wrong guy discovered on death row since the reinstatement
of capital punishment. His case only goes to show that we cannot sit
back and assume that prosecutors and courts will do the right thing
[[Page S11185]]
when it comes to DNA. It took Earl Washington years to convince
prosecutors to do the very simple tests that would prove his innocence,
and more time still to win a pardon. And he is still in prison today.
States like Virginia continue to stonewall on requests for DNA
testing. They continue to hide behind time limits and procedural
default rules to deny prisoners the right to present DNA test results
in court. They are still destroying the DNA evidence that could set
innocent people free. These sorts of practices must stop. We should not
pass up the promise of truth and justice for both sides of our
adversarial system that DNA evidence offers.
By passing S. 3045, we substantially increase funding to improve the
quality and availability of DNA analysis for law enforcement purposes.
That is an appropriate use of Federal funds. But we at least ought to
require that this truth-seeking technology be made available to both
sides.
I proposed a modest Sense of Congress amendment to S. 3045, which the
Senate is passing today. It describes how DNA testing can and has
resulted in the post-conviction exoneration of scores of innocent men
and women, including some under sentence of death, and expresses the
sense of Congress that we should condition forensic science-related
grants to a State or State forensic facility on the State's agreement
to ensure post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases. Because
post-conviction DNA testing has shown that innocent people are
sentenced to death in this country with alarming frequency, and because
the most common constitutional error in capital cases is egregiously
incompetent defense lawyering, my amendment also calls on Congress to
work with the States to improve the quality of legal representation in
capital cases through the establishment of counsel standards.
I introduced legislation in this Congress that would have
accomplished both of these things. The Innocence Protection Act of 2000
contains meaningful reforms that I believe could save innocent lives.
As the 106th Congress winds down, we have 14 cosponsors in the Senate,
and about 80 in the House. We have Democratic and Republican
cosponsors, supporters of the death penalty and opponents. President
Clinton, Vice-President Gore, and Attorney General Reno have all
expressed support for the bill.
Tragically, real reform of our nation's capital punishment system
foundered on the shoals of election-year politics. But with the Sense
of Congress provision that we pass today, at least we have agreed on a
blueprint for effective reform legislation in the 107th Congress.
Finally, I want to discuss another amendment that I proposed,
together with Senator Sessions, and that the Senate passes today. It
concerns the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, which the
Senate passed on March 27, 2000.
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was an important step forward,
and I want to thank Mr. Hyde, Mr. Conyers and Senators Sessions,
Schumer, Biden, and all others who worked with us in good faith to
enact these long overdue reforms. At the same time, there was some
unfinished business in connection with this legislation that my
amendment completes.
The bill that the Senate passed by unanimous consent on March 27th
was supposed to be a substitute amendment to H.R. 1658. I had been led
to believe that the substitute was word-for-word that which I had
painstakingly worked out over the preceding weeks for approval by the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary the previous Thursday, March 23,
2000. Imagine my surprise to see reprinted in the Record the next day a
substitute amendment at variance with the version to which I had agreed
to and at variance with the language that had been circulated to and
approved by the Committee.
Specifically, the agreed upon version of the bill would amend section
983(a)(2)(C) of title 18, United States Code, to describe what a
claimant in a civil asset forfeiture case must state to assert a claim.
The amendment to which I agreed and which the Judiciary Committee
``ordered reported'' requires that a ``claim shall--(i) identify the
specific property being claimed; (ii) state the claimant's interest in
such property; and (iii) be made under oath, subject to penalty of
perjury.''
By contrast, the version of the amendment submitted to the Senate for
passage contained the following additional clause in subparagraph (ii):
``state the claimant's interest in such property (and provide customary
documentary evidence of such interest if available) and state that the
claim is not frivolous''. I did not approve the language inserted in
the version considered by the Senate and this language was not approved
by the Judiciary Committee.
The inserted language is superfluous at best, since even without it,
a claimant must provide evidence of his interest in the property early
in the proceeding or face summary dismissal for lack of standing.
Moreover, a claim already must be made under oath and penalty of
perjury.
At worst, the inserted language is an invitation for mischief in an
area where the record has already amply demonstrated overreaching by
law enforcement agencies. At the claim stage, most claimants do not
have counsel. Many are uneducated and unsophisticated. They may not
know what ``customary documentary evidence'' means, and even if they
do, they may not know how to get it. It is not so simple for such
individuals to obtain a bank statement or a title document, much less
to obtain such documents within the 30 days afforded by the Act. They
may be deterred from filing a claim simply because they cannot produce
documentary evidence--even if no documentary evidence exists.
Take for example an all cash seizure. What constitutes ``customary
documentary evidence'' of an interest in cash? An ATM receipt? A bank
record? What about money that is received from legitimate sources other
than financial institutions. A waiter would be hard pressed to produce
documentary evidence of his interest in tip money.
Beyond this, the inserted language gives seizing agencies too much
discretion to reject claims because the documentary evidence is
incomplete or otherwise unsatisfactory, and prior experience tells us
that agencies may exercise their discretion to deny claims arbitrarily.
The requirement that claims be certified as non-frivolous is also
problematic. If an uncounseled claimant certifies in good faith that
his claim is not frivolous, and a court ultimately determines
otherwise, would the claimant be put at risk of a perjury prosecution?
Even the threat of such risks puts additional burdens on claimants and
may dissuade claimants from filing claims.
In sum, the inserted language has the potential to deter valid claims
as well as frivolous claims, and it is unnecessary: Frivolous claims
will be dismissed anyway, when the claimant is unable to meet his
burden of establishing standing.
For these reasons, I had objected to insertion of this language and
approved a substitute amendment that did not contain this problematic
insert. Moreover, the version of that substitute amendment ``ordered
reported'' by the Judiciary Committee and in the Committee's official
files simply does not contain that problematic insert.
We rely every day on each other and on the professionalism of our
staffs. Having raised my concern about the change as soon as it was
discovered, I am pleased that Chairman Hatch and Senator Sessions have
worked with me to pass a correction to the law that strikes the
language that was added without agreement.
I hope that the House will move quickly to pass the Paul Coverdell
National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act, as amended, before it winds
up its work for the year.
Amendment No. 4345
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for Mr. Sessions,
proposes an amendment numbered 4345.
The amendment reads as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Paul Coverdell National
Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 2000''.
[[Page S11186]]
SEC. 2. IMPROVING THE QUALITY, TIMELINESS, AND CREDIBILITY OF
FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICES FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
PURPOSES.
(a) Description of Drug Control and System Improvement
Grant Program.--Section 501(b) of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 375(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (25), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (26), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(27) improving the quality, timeliness, and credibility
of forensic science services for criminal justice
purposes.''.
(b) State Applications.--Section 503(a) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3753(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(13) If any part of the amount received from a grant
under this part is to be used to improve the quality,
timeliness, and credibility of forensic science services for
criminal justice purposes, a certification that, as of the
date of enactment of this paragraph, the State, or unit of
local government within the State, has an established--
``(A) forensic science laboratory or forensic science
laboratory system, that--
``(i) employs 1 or more full-time scientists--
``(I) whose principal duties are the examination of
physical evidence for law enforcement agencies in criminal
matters; and
``(II) who provide testimony with respect to such physical
evidence to the criminal justice system;
``(ii) employs generally accepted practices and procedures,
as established by appropriate accrediting organizations; and
``(iii) is accredited by the Laboratory Accreditation Board
of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors or the
National Association of Medical Examiners, or will use a
portion of the grant amount to prepare and apply for such
accreditation by not later than 2 years after the date on
which a grant is initially awarded under this paragraph; or
``(B) medical examiner's office (as defined by the National
Association of Medical Examiners) that--
``(i) employs generally accepted practices and procedures,
as established by appropriate accrediting organizations; and
``(ii) is accredited by the Laboratory Accreditation Board
of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors or the
National Association of Medical Examiners, or will use a
portion of the grant amount to prepare and apply for such
accreditation by not later than 2 years after the date on
which a grant is initially awarded under this paragraph.''.
(c) Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grants.--
(1) In general.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``PART BB--PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
``SEC. 2801. GRANT AUTHORIZATION.
``The Attorney General shall award grants to States in
accordance with this part.
``SEC. 2802. APPLICATIONS.
``To request a grant under this part, a State shall submit
to the Attorney General--
``(1) a certification that the State has developed a
consolidated State plan for forensic science laboratories
operated by the State or by other units of local government
within the State under a program described in section
2804(a), and a specific description of the manner in which
the grant will be used to carry out that plan;
``(2) a certification that any forensic science laboratory
system, medical examiner's office, or coroner's office in the
State, including any laboratory operated by a unit of local
government within the State, that will receive any portion of
the grant amount uses generally accepted laboratory practices
and procedures, established by accrediting organizations; and
``(3) a specific description of any new facility to be
constructed as part of the program described in paragraph
(1), and the estimated costs of that facility, and a
certification that the amount of the grant used for the costs
of the facility will not exceed the limitations set forth in
section 2804(c).
``SEC. 2803. ALLOCATION.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Population allocation.--Seventy-five percent of the
amount made available to carry out this part in each fiscal
year shall be allocated to each State that meets the
requirements of section 2802 so that each State shall receive
an amount that bears the same ratio to the 75 percent of the
total amount made available to carry out this part for that
fiscal year as the population of the State bears to the
population of all States.
``(2) Discretionary allocation.--Twenty-five percent of the
amount made available to carry out this part in each fiscal
year shall be allocated pursuant to the Attorney General's
discretion to States with above average rates of part 1
violent crimes based on the average annual number of part 1
violent crimes reported by such State to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation for the 3 most recent calendar years for
which such data is available.
``(3) Minimum requirement.--Each State shall receive not
less than 0.6 percent of the amount made available to carry
out this part in each fiscal year.
``(4) Proportional reduction.--If the amounts available to
carry out this part in each fiscal year are insufficient to
pay in full the total payment that any State is otherwise
eligible to receive under paragraph (3), then the Attorney
General shall reduce payments under paragraph (1) for such
payment period to the extent of such insufficiency.
Reductions under the preceding sentence shall be allocated
among the States (other than States whose payment is
determined under paragraph (3)) in the same proportions as
amounts would be allocated under paragraph (1) without regard
to paragraph (3).
``(b) State Defined.--In this section, the term `State'
means each of the several States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, except that--
``(1) for purposes of the allocation under this section,
American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands shall be considered as 1 State; and
``(2) for purposes of paragraph (1), 67 percent of the
amount allocated shall be allocated to American Samoa, and 33
percent shall be allocated to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
``SEC. 2804. USE OF GRANTS.
``(a) In General.--A State that receives a grant under this
part shall use the grant to carry out all or a substantial
part of a program intended to improve the quality and
timeliness of forensic science or medical examiner services
in the State, including such services provided by the
laboratories operated by the State and those operated by
units of local government within the State.
``(b) Permitted Categories of Funding.--Subject to
subsections (c) and (d), a grant awarded under this part--
``(1) may only be used for program expenses relating to
facilities, personnel, computerization, equipment, supplies,
accreditation and certification, education, and training; and
``(2) may not be used for any general law enforcement or
nonforensic investigatory function.
``(c) Facilities Costs.--
``(1) States receiving minimum grant amount.--With respect
to a State that receives a grant under this part in an amount
that does not exceed 0.6 percent of the total amount made
available to carry out this part for a fiscal year, not more
than 80 percent of the total amount of the grant may be used
for the costs of any new facility constructed as part of a
program described in subsection (a).
``(2) Other states.--With respect to a State that receives
a grant under this part in an amount that exceeds 0.6 percent
of the total amount made available to carry out this part for
a fiscal year--
``(A) not more than 80 percent of the amount of the grant
up to that 0.6 percent may be used for the costs of any new
facility constructed as part of a program described in
subsection (a); and
``(B) not more than 40 percent of the amount of the grant
in excess of that 0.6 percent may be used for the costs of
any new facility constructed as part of a program described
in subsection (a).
``(d) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 10 percent of
the total amount of a grant awarded under this part may be
used for administrative expenses.
``SEC. 2805. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
``(a) Regulations.--The Attorney General may promulgate
such guidelines, regulations, and procedures as may be
necessary to carry out this part, including guidelines,
regulations, and procedures relating to the submission and
review of applications for grants under section 2802.
``(b) Expenditure Records.--
``(1) Records.--Each State, or unit of local government
within the State, that receives a grant under this part shall
maintain such records as the Attorney General may require to
facilitate an effective audit relating to the receipt of the
grant, or the use of the grant amount.
``(2) Access.--The Attorney General and the Comptroller
General of the United States, or a designee thereof, shall
have access, for the purpose of audit and examination, to any
book, document, or record of a State, or unit of local
government within the State, that receives a grant under this
part, if, in the determination of the Attorney General,
Comptroller General, or designee thereof, the book, document,
or record is related to the receipt of the grant, or the use
of the grant amount.
``SEC. 2806. REPORTS.
``(a) Reports to Attorney General.--For each fiscal year
for which a grant is awarded under this part, each State that
receives such a grant shall submit to the Attorney General a
report, at such time and in such manner as the Attorney
General may reasonably require, which report shall include--
``(1) a summary and assessment of the program carried out
with the grant;
``(2) the average number of days between submission of a
sample to a forensic science laboratory or forensic science
laboratory system in that State operated by the State or by a
unit of local government and the delivery of test results to
the requesting office or agency; and
``(3) such other information as the Attorney General may
require.
``(b) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after
the last day of each fiscal year for which 1 or more grants
are awarded under this part, the Attorney General shall
submit
[[Page S11187]]
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate, a report, which shall
include--
``(1) the aggregate amount of grants awarded under this
part for that fiscal year; and
``(2) a summary of the information provided under
subsection (a).''.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--
(A) In general.--Section 1001(a) of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3753(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(24) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
part BB, to remain available until expended--
``(A) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(B) $85,400,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(C) $134,733,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(D) $128,067,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(E) $56,733,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(F) $42,067,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.
(B) Backlog elimination.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 for the
elimination of DNA convicted offender database sample
backlogs and for other related purposes, as provided in the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001.
(3) Table of contents.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.)
is amended by striking the table of contents.
(4) Repeal of 20 percent floor for cita crime lab grants.--
Section 102(e)(2) of the Crime Identification Technology Act
of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601(e)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating
subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION REGARDING CERTAIN CLAIMS.
(a) In General.--Section 983(a)(2)(C)(ii) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``(and provide
customary documentary evidence of such interest if available)
and state that the claim is not frivolous''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the amendment made by
section 2(a) of Public Law 106-185.
SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE OBLIGATION OF GRANTEE
STATES TO ENSURE ACCESS TO POST-CONVICTION DNA
TESTING AND COMPETENT COUNSEL IN CAPITAL CASES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) over the past decade, deoxyribonucleic acid testing
(referred to in this section as ``DNA testing'') has emerged
as the most reliable forensic technique for identifying
criminals when biological material is left at a crime scene;
(2) because of its scientific precision, DNA testing can,
in some cases, conclusively establish the guilt or innocence
of a criminal defendant;
(3) in other cases, DNA testing may not conclusively
establish guilt or innocence, but may have significant
probative value to a finder of fact;
(4) DNA testing was not widely available in cases tried
prior to 1994;
(5) new forensic DNA testing procedures have made it
possible to get results from minute samples that could not
previously be tested, and to obtain more informative and
accurate results than earlier forms of forensic DNA testing
could produce, resulting in some cases of convicted inmates
being exonerated by new DNA tests after earlier tests had
failed to produce definitive results;
(6) DNA testing can and has resulted in the post-conviction
exoneration of more than 75 innocent men and women, including
some under sentence of death;
(7) in more than a dozen cases, post-conviction DNA testing
that has exonerated an innocent person has also enhanced
public safety by providing evidence that led to the
apprehension of the actual perpetrator;
(8) experience has shown that it is not unduly burdensome
to make DNA testing available to inmates in appropriate
cases;
(9) under current Federal and State law, it is difficult to
obtain post-conviction DNA testing because of time limits on
introducing newly discovered evidence;
(10) the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence,
a Federal panel established by the Department of Justice and
comprised of law enforcement, judicial, and scientific
experts, has urged that post-conviction DNA testing be
permitted in the relatively small number of cases in which it
is appropriate, notwithstanding procedural rules that could
be invoked to preclude such testing, and notwithstanding the
inability of an inmate to pay for the testing;
(11) only a few States have adopted post-conviction DNA
testing procedures;
(12) States have received millions of dollars in DNA-
related grants, and more funding is needed to improve State
forensic facilities and to reduce the nationwide backlog of
DNA samples from convicted offenders and crime scenes that
need to be tested or retested using upgraded methods;
(13) States that accept such financial assistance should
not deny the promise of truth and justice for both sides of
our adversarial system that DNA testing offers;
(14) post-conviction DNA testing and other post-conviction
investigative techniques have shown that innocent people have
been sentenced to death in this country;
(15) a constitutional error in capital cases is incompetent
defense lawyers who fail to present important evidence that
the defendant may have been innocent or does not deserve to
be sentenced to death; and
(16) providing quality representation to defendants facing
loss of liberty or life is essential to fundamental due
process and the speedy final resolution of judicial
proceedings.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Congress should condition forensic science-related
grants to a State or State forensic facility on the State's
agreement to ensure post-conviction DNA testing in
appropriate cases; and
(2) Congress should work with the States to improve the
quality of legal representation in capital cases through the
establishment of standards that will assure the timely
appointment of competent counsel with adequate resources to
represent defendants in capital cases at each stage of the
proceedings.
Amend the title to read as follows: ``A bill to improve the
quality, timeliness, and credibility of forensic science
services for criminal justice purposes, and for other
purposes.''.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read the
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table,
the amendment to the title be agreed to, and that any statements
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4345) was agreed to.
The bill (S. 3045), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________