[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 149 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11645-S11648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DNA ANALYSIS BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT OF 2000
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4640, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4640) to make 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.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Amendment No. 4359
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator
Leahy has an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for Mr. Leahy,
proposes an amendment numbered 4359.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding the obligation of
grantee States to ensure access to post-conviction DNA testing and
competent counsel in capital cases)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. 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, deoxyribo-nucleic 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 the United States;
(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
the 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
[[Page S11646]]
(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 those
proceedings.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4359) was agreed to.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to hail the impending passage
of H.R. 4640--the DNA Backlog Elimination Act. This is a House
companion bill to S. 903--the Violent Offender DNA Identification Act
of 1999--which I introduced with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator
Kohl.
While existing anticrime technology can allow us to solve many
violent crimes that occur in our communities, in order for this
technology to work, it must be used. I have been a longtime advocate
for use of the Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS), which serves as a
national DNA data base to profile convicted offender DNA. In fact,
during consideration of the Anti-Terriorism Act of 1996, I proposed a
provision under which Federal convicted offenders' DNA would be
included in CODIS. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice never
implemented this law, though currently all 50 States collect DNA from
convicted offenders.
One of the purposes of this legislation is to expressly require the
collection of DNA samples from federally convicted felons and military
personnel convicted of similar offenses. Collection of convicted
offender DNA is crucial to solving many of the crimes occurring in our
communities. Statistics show that many of these violent felons will
repeat their crimes once they are back in society. Since the Federal
Government does not collect DNA from these felons, however, the ability
of law enforcement to rapidly identify likely suspects is slowed.
Collection of such data is critical.
The case of Mrs. Debbie Smith of Virginia underscores the importance
of collection of DNA from convicted offenders. Debbie Smith was at her
home in the middle of the day when a masked intruder entered her
unlocked back door. Her husband, a police lieutenant, was upstairs
sleeping. The stranger blindfolded Mrs. Smith and took her to a wooded
area behind her house where he robbed and repeatedly raped her. After
warning Mrs. Smith not to tell, the assailant let her go. She told her
husband, who reported the incident, then took her to the hospital where
evidence was collected for DNA analysis.
Debbie Smith's rape experience was so terrible that she contemplated
taking her own life. She continued to live in constant fear until 6\1/
2\ years later when a State crime laboratory found a CODIS match with
an inmate then serving in jail for abduction and robbery. In fact, the
offender was jailed on another offense 1 month after raping her. There
are thousands of other crimes the DNA database can solve. With CODIS we
can grant countless victims, like Mrs. Smith, peace of mind and bring
their attackers swiftly to justice.
We need to do everything we can to make sure law enforcement has
access to these tools. A major obstacle facing State and local crime
laboratories are the backlogs of convicted offender samples. The
Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that there are almost one-
half million convicted offender samples in State and local laboratories
awaiting analysis. Increasing demand for DNA analysis in active cases,
and limited resources, are reducing the ability of State and local
crime laboratories to analyze their convicted offender backlogs. While
I introduced, and Congress passed, the Crime Identification Technology
Act of 1998 to address the long-term needs of crime laboratories, many
crime laboratories need immediate assistance to address their short-
term backlogs that will help law enforcement solve crime.
H.R. 4640 would provide $170 million over 4 years to help State and
local crime laboratories address their convicted offender backlogs.
Violent criminals should not be able to evade responsibility simply
because a State lacks the resources to analyze their DNA samples, or
because a loophole excludes certain Federal offenders from our national
database. This legislation will be a huge asset for our local law
enforcers in their day-to-day fight against crime.
I thank Representative McCollum for his efforts.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past decade DNA analysis 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, DNA testing is critical to the effective administration of
justice in 21st century America.
As DNA testing has moved to the front lines of the war on crime, our
Nation's forensic labs have experienced a significant increase in their
caseloads, both in number and complexity. In the six years since
Congress established the Combined DNA Index System. 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 resources they deserve.
Passage of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, H.R.
4640, will give States like Vermont the help they desperately need to
reduce the backlog of untested crime scene evidence from unsolved
crimes and untested convicted offender samples. It allocates $170
million over the next four years for grants to States to increase the
capacity of their forensic laboratories and carry out DNA analyses of
backlogged evidence. Senator Schumer and
[[Page S11647]]
I have pressed for increased appropriations for these purposes. This
authorization bill is a step in the right direction.
In addition to the problem of unanalyzed crime scene and convicted
offender evidence, there is an urgent need to address the gap in
coverage of the national DNA index that has left out Federal, military,
and District of Columbia offenders. The inability to include these
offenders in the national index has seriously frustrated efforts to
solve crimes and prevent further crimes. The bill that the Senate
passes today eliminates the gap in coverage by authorizing the Bureau
of Prisons and other Federal agencies to collect, analyze, and index
DNA samples from individuals who have been convicted of Federal
offenses of a violent or sexual nature. The bill also authorizes needed
funding for these purposes, which Senator Schumer and I have been
working to include in this years' appropriations bills.
While I support H.R. 4640, I believe it falls short in one critical
respect: It 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
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 H.R. 4640, we substantially increase funding to increase
the capacity of State and local forensic labs to carry out DNA analysis
of crime scene evidence and convicted offender samples. 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 H.R. 4640, 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.
The law enforcement issues addressed by H.R. 4640 are important, but
as FBI Director Louis Freeh has acknowledged, ``Post-conviction relief
is an equally important issue that requires a solution.'' In a recent
letter, Director Freeh pledged to work with me on post-conviction
relief issues in the next Congress and I look forward to working with
the Director.
Each day that DNA evidence goes uncollected and untested, solvable
crimes remain unsolved, and people across the country are needlessly
victimized. I hope that the House will move quickly to pass H.R. 4640
as amended before it winds up its work for the year.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 4640, the
DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, which is the companion
bill to my Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999. This
bipartisan measure will put more criminals behind bars by correcting
practical and legal shortcomings that leave too much crucial DNA
evidence unused and too many violent crimes unsolved.
Currently, all 50 states require DNA samples to be obtained from
certain convicted offenders, and these samples increasingly can be
shared through a national DNA database established by Federal law. This
national database--part of the Combined Database Index System (CODIS)--
enables law enforcement officials to link DNA evidence found at a crime
scene with any suspect whose DNA is already on file. By identifying
repeat offenders, this DNA sharing can and does make a difference.
Already the FBI reports that almost 1400 investigations have been aided
by the DNA database, solving numerous crimes. And in my home state of
Wisconsin, experience proves that DNA ``sharing'' pays off. In fact,
just a week before the statute of limitations ran out in a multiple
rape investigation, DNA matching helped identify a serial rapist
responsible for three rapes in Kenosha and a fourth in Racine. As a
result, he's currently serving an 80-year sentence. Without DNA
databases, suspects like this otherwise might never be discovered--or
convicted.
As valuable as this system is, it is not as effective as it could--or
should--be. The effectiveness of the database is directly related to
the number of DNA profiles it contains. For every 1,000 new profiles,
we can expect to find at least one match, and with every new profile
added, the odds for a match increase. However, there are currently two
major obstacles to the effective functioning of the database. Our
measure would correct these problems and make the database far more
productive.
First, thousands of DNA samples that have already been collected
still must be analyzed before they can be entered into the national
database. The FBI estimates that there is a backlog of over 700,000 DNA
samples from convicted offenders languishing, unanalyzed, in state
crime laboratories for simple lack of funding.
Our measure will reduce the backlog of unanalyzed samples by
providing the funding necessary to analyze them and put them ``on-
line.'' It provides $45 million over three years to erase the backlog
of the 700,000 unanalyzed samples and the almost-as-pressing backlog of
approximately 220,000 more samples that need to be reanalyzed using
state-of-the-art methods.
Indeed, easing this backlog was the lead recommendation of the
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence appointed by the
Attorney General. As the Commission explained, ``the power of the CODIS
program lies in the sheer numbers of convicted offender samples that
are processed and entered into the database.''
Second, for some inexplicable reason, we do not collect samples from
Federal and D.C. offenders. So while the database can identify a
suspect whose DNA is on file in one of the 50 states, it generally
won't catch a Federal or D.C. offender. Under current law, that suspect
will not be identified; his crime may not be solved; and he could get
off scot-free. We thought we already closed this loophole through 1996
legislation which provides that the FBI ``may expand
[[Page S11648]]
[the database] to include Federal crimes and crimes committed in the
District of Columbia,'' but Federal officials claim more express
authority is necessary. We are not so sure they're right, but there is
no need to wait any longer.
Our measure closes once and for all this loophole that allows DNA
samples from Federal (including military) and Washington, D.C.
offenders to go uncollected. Under our proposal, DNA samples would be
obtained from any Federal offender--or any D.C. offender under Federal
custody or supervision--convicted of a violent crime or other
qualifying offense. And it would require the collection of samples from
juveniles found delinquent under Federal law for conduct that would
constitute a violent crime if committed by an adult. Our proposal was
prepared with the assistance of the FBI, the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Parole Commission,
agencies within the District of Columbia responsible for supervision of
released felons, and the Department of Defense.
Modern crime-fighting technology like DNA testing and DNA databases
make law enforcement much more effective. But in order to take full
advantage of these valuable resources, we need this measure to make the
database as comprehensive--and as productive--as possible. Violent
criminals should not be able to evade arrest simply because a state
didn't analyze its DNA samples or because an inexcusable loophole
leaves Federal and D.C. offenders out of the DNA database. This measure
will ensure that we apprehend violent repeat offenders, regardless of
whether they originally violated state, Federal or D.C. law. And, by
collecting more DNA evidence and utilizing the best of DNA technology,
we also can help exonerate individual suspects whose DNA does not match
with particular crime scenes.
Mr. President, this measure will help police use modern technology to
solve crimes and prevent repeat offenders from committing new ones. Let
me credit Senators DeWine, Hatch, Leahy and Congressman McCollum for
their hard work which is finally paying off.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table,
and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 4640), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________