[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.

                          ____________________