[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 137 (Wednesday, October 1, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12293-S12299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Specter, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        DeWine, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Collins, 
        Mr. Schumer, Mr. Warner, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Kohl, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Murray, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 1700. A bill to eliminate the substantial backlog of DNA samples 
collected from crime scenes and convicted offenders, to improve and 
expand the DNA testing capacity of Federal, State, and local crime 
laboratories, to increase research and development of new DNA testing 
technologies, to develop new training programs regarding the collection 
and use of DNA evidence, to provide post-conviction testing of DNA 
evidence to exonerate the innocent, to improve the performance of 
counsel in State capital cases, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a comprehensive 
bipartisan bill which will ensure the full use and availability of DNA 
technology in our criminal justice system. This bill, which enacts the 
President's DNA technology initiative, announced by Attorney General 
Ashcroft on March 11, 2003, will provide over $1 billion in funding and 
assistance over the next 5 years to the criminal justice system in 
order to realize the full potential of DNA technology to solve crimes, 
protect the public and exonerate the innocent.
  The legislation I am introducing today represents a bipartisan 
compromise which was reached through extensive negotiations among 
Senators on the Judiciary Committee and members from the House 
Committee on the Judiciary. I want to first commend my counterpart, 
Chairman Sensenbrenner, for his steady leadership on this issue and his 
commitment to reaching an agreement, and note the commitment and 
dedication of Representatives Conyers, Coble, LaHood, and Delahunt to 
this important initiative.
  I also want to commend my colleagues here in the Senate: Senators 
Biden, Specter, Leahy, DeWine, and Feinstein--who each have a long-
standing commitment to issues included in this comprehensive DNA bill. 
We have worked together on DNA issues for many years, and thanks to 
each of their efforts we now are in the position to enact bipartisan 
legislation that enhances the use of DNA technology in our criminal 
justice system. I want to express my personal thanks to all of them for 
their leadership and contributions to this important piece of 
legislation.
  Also, I want to highlight specifically the accomplishment today of 
the ranking member of our Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. For 
several years, Senator Leahy has dedicated himself to the issue of DNA 
technology and ensuring that such technology is used to protect the 
integrity of our criminal justice system by exonerating the innocent 
while punishing the guilty. He has worked tirelessly in this area as 
the sponsor of the Innocence Protection Act. While we both shared a 
common goal of protecting the integrity of our criminal justice system, 
we differed on the means to accomplish that end.
  Today, I am proud to support the compromise proposal we have 
negotiated, and join together with my friend, Senator Leahy, to 
introduce the Innocence Protection Act of 2003 as part of this 
legislative package. I want to specifically congratulate Senator Leahy 
for his accomplishment and for his dedication to this important issue.
  It is perhaps fitting that 50 years after the discovery of DNA by Dr. 
James Watson in 1953, we are now proposing to enact the most far-
reaching and comprehensive expansion of DNA technology to promote 
public safety, to bring to justice violent criminals who can be 
identified through DNA technology, and to ensure the accuracy of our 
criminal justice system.
  Let me take a moment to highlight the important provisions of this 
bill.
  The bill enacts the President's comprehensive DNA initiative, 
``Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology,'' and will authorize 
funding of $755 million for the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program 
in order to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in 
our Nation's crime labs. It is critical that such funding be 
appropriated to ensure that unanalyzed evidence from violent crime 
scenes, such as rape and murder, are compared against known DNA samples 
to solve these terrible crimes and apprehend the perpetrators.
  As many of you know, Debbie Smith is the courageous survivor of 
a horrific sexual assault, and has become a leading spokesperson for 
women and crime victims across the country. Debbie Smith waited 6 years 
before Norman Jimmerson, a current inmate in a Virginia prison, was 
identified as her attacker through DNA. Debbie testified against 
Jimmerson, who is now serving two life sentences plus 25 years with no 
chance of parole.

  Debbie Smith has dedicated herself to the elimination of the backlog 
in the processing of DNA evidence and samples. By eliminating the 
substantial backlog of DNA samples for the most serious violent 
offenses, we can solve more crimes, protect the public and apprehend 
more violent criminals. The National Institute of Justice estimates 
that the current backlog of rape and homicide cases is at least 350,000 
cases. NIJ also estimates that there are between 300,000 and 500,000 
collected, but untested convicted offender samples. In addition, the 
Justice Department estimates that there are between 500,000 and 
1,000,000 convicted offender samples which have not yet been collected 
as required by law.
  The President has directed the Justice Department to eliminate these 
backlogs completely within 5 years, and I am committed to doing 
everything in my power to make that a reality to ensure that the 
evidence is analyzed, the crimes solved and the criminals punished to 
the fullest extent of the law.

[[Page S12294]]

  The proposed legislation also will solve more crimes by expanding 
State and local crime lab capacity to test DNA. Crime laboratories face 
increasing workloads and increased DNA analysis demands. Only 10 
percent of public crime labs have automated facilities needed to 
process DNA testing, and help is needed in this area. We must expand 
the capacity of these laboratories to meet current demand and build for 
future needs. That is what the bill will do.
  The bill also will increase research and development of new 
technologies to test DNA; provides training of criminal justice 
professionals to enhance collection and understanding of DNA evidence; 
and expands existing programs to train medical personnel who typically 
are the first to have contact with sexual assault victims so that they 
can collect and preserve critical biological evidence for DNA testing 
and comparison purposes.
  Some have suggested that focusing exclusively on DNA technology 
ignores the significant need for funding and assistance to State and 
local crime labs for non-DNA forensic analyses. The proposed bill 
expands the Paul Coverdell Grant Program to provide assistance to the 
States to eliminate non-DNA forensic evidence backlogs. I recognize 
that forensic examination of ballistics evidence, fingerprints, 
suspected illegal drugs, and other evidence is critical to our criminal 
justice system. I am committed to addressing these needs as well in 
order to protect the public.
  The legislation will not only speed the apprehension and prosecution 
of the guilty, but will protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution. 
DNA technology allows us to exclude innocent people as suspects early 
in an investigation, and allows law enforcement to focus on finding the 
true perpetrator.
  The Innocence Protection Act of 2003, developed under the leadership 
of Senator Leahy, which is included as Title III of this bill, creates 
a federal post-conviction DNA testing scheme which authorizes DNA 
testing and relief for a convicted defendant, where the defendant 
claims he is ``actually innocent'' of the crime, and demonstrates that 
such testing shows that they did not commit the crime. DNA testing will 
not be permitted where such a test would only muddy the waters and be 
used by the defendant to fuel a new and frivolous series of appeals. 
Under the Act, DNA testing in capital cases will be prioritized and 
conducted on a ``fast track,'' so that these important cases are 
handled quickly.

  In order to discourage a flood of baseless claims, the act authorizes 
the prosecution of defendants who make false claims of innocence in 
support of a DNA testing request. Each defendant will be required to 
assert under penalty of perjury that they are, in fact, innocent of the 
crime. When DNA testing reveals that the defendant's claim of innocence 
was actually false, the defendant can then be prosecuted and, if 
convicted, will be subject to a consecutive term of imprisonment of 3 
years. Further, the act allows DNA test results to be entered into the 
CODIS database and compared against unsolved crimes. If the test result 
shows that the defendant committed another crime, the defendant may 
then be prosecuted for the other crime.
  With respect to the States, the act encourages States to create 
similar DNA testing procedures, and provides funding assistance to 
those States that have existing DNA testing programs or that implement 
such DNA testing programs after enactment of this act. In honor of Kirk 
Bloodsworth, a death row inmate, who was eventually freed through post-
conviction DNA testing, the bill creates and names a grant program 
after Mr. Bloodsworth to help the States conduct appropriate post-
conviction DNA testing. With the new source of funding, more States 
will enact DNA testing programs, and will provide such testing on an 
expedited basis.
  While DNA testing is now standard in pretrial criminal investigations 
today, the integrity of our criminal justice system and in particular, 
our death penalty system, can be enhanced with the appropriate use of 
DNA testing. No one disagrees with the fact that post-conviction DNA 
testing should be made available to defendants when it serves the ends 
of justice. I am convinced that the proposed legislation does so fairly 
and effectively with proper regard for the rights of the defendant and 
the interests of victims and their families.
  Finally, Title III of the bill creates a new grant program to improve 
the performance of counsel--prosecutors and defense counsel--handling 
State capital cases. The issue of the death penalty in our country 
continues to spark significant debate. The recent Supreme Court 
decisions addressing capital punishment underscore the importance of 
this issue to the American people. It is an issue that engenders great 
passion, both among its supporters and among its opponents. A large 
majority of the American people believe in the death penalty, 
especially for terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans. And 
all of us agree that the death penalty must be imposed fairly and 
accurately.
  I have stated on numerous occasions my views on the death penalty. It 
is the ultimate punishment and it should be reserved only for those 
defendants who commit the most heinous of crimes. I am firmly convinced 
that we must be vigilant in ensuring that capital punishment is meted 
out fairly against those truly guilty criminals. We cannot and should 
not tolerate defects in the capital punishment system. No one can 
disagree with this ultimate and solemn responsibility.
  I have disagreed with others on the committee as to the state of our 
Nation's capital punishment system, the quality of representation in 
State capital cases, and whether such sentences are meted out fairly. I 
am proud, however, to support this proposal where we can all agree--we 
can improve the performance of counsel on both sides by awarding grants 
to States. These funds will be equally divided between prosecutors and 
defense counsel, and are designed to reduce to the maximum extent 
possible the occurrence of error in the conduct of capital trials in 
our States. We all agree that reducing trial error is a laudable goal. 
By doing so, we enhance the fairness of our capital punishment system.
  Every defendant in our criminal justice system is afforded the 
guarantee by the sixth amendment of our Constitution of competent and 
effective counsel. The Supreme Court has enforced this right in 
numerous decisions in order to ensure that all defendants are afforded 
the constitutional protections guaranteed to them.
  At the same time, the public is entitled to quality representation by 
prosecutors who handle capital cases. Training and monitoring the 
performance of prosecutors who handle these important cases will ensure 
that States and the public are fully and effectively served in the 
trial of capital cases.
  Contrary to the view of some, I do not believe that our capital 
punishment is broken. However, I do believe that our justice system can 
always be improved. The grants proposed under the act will enable 
states to improve the performance of prosecutors and defense counsel to 
ensure that capital cases are handled more efficiently and effectively, 
and that every capital defendant will receive a fair trial under our 
justice system.
  DNA technology has the power to convict the guilty and protect the 
innocent and will move our criminal justice system into a new era that 
is both fair and efficient. The President's DNA initiative is a 
forward-looking measure, which will improve significant aspects of 
federal, state and local criminal justice systems. We are poised to 
enter that new era. With this comprehensive proposal, we will ensure 
the use of DNA technology and protect the public safety.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join with me in promptly passing 
this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a 
section-by-section analysis.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003


                      section-by-section analysis

     Overview
       The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act increases 
     Federal resources available to State and local governments to 
     combat crimes with DNA technology, and provides safeguards to 
     prevent wrongful convictions and executions. The bill enacts 
     the President's DNA Initiative, which provides

[[Page S12295]]

     over $1 billion in the next five years to assist Federal and 
     State authorities to realize the full potential of DNA 
     technology to solve crimes and protect the innocent.
       Title I and II, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act and the 
     Rape Kits and DNA Evidence Backlog Elimination Act, [of the 
     bill] authorize the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, 
     which provides $755 million over five years to address the 
     DNA Backlog crisis in the nation's crime labs. The bill also 
     establishes over $500 million in new grant programs [together 
     with grant programs] to reduce other forensic science 
     backlogs, train criminal justice and medical personnel in the 
     use of DNA evidence, and promote the use of DNA technology to 
     identify missing persons.
       Title III of the bill, the Innocence Protection Act, 
     provides access to post-conviction DNA testing in federal 
     cases, helps States improve the quality of legal 
     representation in capital cases, and increases compensation 
     in Federal cases of wrongful conviction. In addition, Title 
     III authorizes the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA 
     Testing Program and provides $25 million over five years to 
     defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing.


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

       Sec. 101. Short Title. This title may be cited as the 
     ``Rape Kits and DNA Evidence Backlog Elimination Act of 
     2003.''
       Sec. 102 [The]Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program. 
     Reauthorizes and expands the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 
     Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135), increasing the authorized 
     funding levels for the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 
     program to $151 million annually for the next five years, as 
     proposed in the President's DNA initiative.
       Subsection (a) names the Backlog Elimination Act grant 
     program in honor of Debbie Smith, a rape survivor and leader 
     in promoting the use of the DNA technology to solve crimes. 
     In addition, subsection (a) amends he eligibility provisions 
     to add ``units of local government'' as [a] potential 
     grantees, so that Federal resources can meet local needs more 
     quickly.
       Subsection (b)(1) provides a single annual authorization 
     for the program, and modifies existing program objectives by: 
     (1) adding the collection of DNA samples from convicted 
     offenders as a specific program purpose (proposed 42 U.S.C. 
     14135(a)(4)); (2) ensuring that DNA testing and analysis of 
     samples from crime scenes (such as rape kits and biological 
     material found at homicide scenes), including sexual assault 
     and other serious violent crimes, are carried out in a timely 
     manner (proposed 42 U.S.C. 14135(a)(5)); and (3) revising the 
     existing objective in 41 U.S.C. 14135(a)(3), to clarify that 
     funds can be used to increase the capacity of public 
     laboratories to carry out analysis of DNA samples.
       Subsection (c) modifies 42 U.S.C. 14135(c) to provide for 
     the disbursement of grant funds by the Attorney General in 
     conformity with a formula that maximizes the effective use of 
     DNA technology to solve crimes and protect public safety, and 
     addresses areas where significant backlogs exist. A minimum 
     grant amount of 0.50 percent is to be awarded to each State, 
     and a specified percentage of remaining funds will be awarded 
     to conduct DNA analyses of samples from casework [or victims 
     of crime].
       Conversion of the Backlog Elimination Act grant program 
     into a formula grant program will ensure that funds will be 
     fairly distributed among all eligible jurisdictions. It is 
     expected that the factors given weight in the formula will 
     include the magnitude and nature of the DNA backlogs and 
     current DNA work demands in the jurisdictions that seek 
     funding; deficits in public laboratory capacity for the 
     timely and efficient analysis of DNA samples in these 
     jurisdictions, and cost requirements for remedying these 
     deficits; and the ability of these jurisdictions to use the 
     funds to increase DNA analysis and public laboratory capacity 
     for such analysis. It is further expected that the formula 
     will target funding on the use of DNA analysis to solve the 
     most serious violent crimes, including rapes and murders, 
     whose solution through DNA testing promises the greatest 
     return in promoting public safety.
       Subsection (k) reserves no more than 1 percent of the grant 
     amounts to assist State and local crime labs to become 
     accredited, and to undergo regular external audits, in order 
     to ensure that such labs fully comply with Federal quality 
     assurance standards.
       Sec. 103. Expansion of Combined DNA Index System. Amends 
     the statute governing the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) 
     to allow States to include in the DNA index the DNA profiles 
     of all persons whose DNA samples have been collected under 
     applicable legal authorities, including those authorized by 
     State law, all felons convicted of Federal crimes, and 
     qualifying military offenses.
        Sec. 104. Tolling of State of Limitations [Limitation 
     Period for Prosecution in Cases Involving DNA 
     Identification]. Provides that, in a case where DNA testing 
     implicates an identified person in the commission of a 
     felony, except for a felony offense under chapter 109A, no 
     statute of limitations would preclude prosecution of the 
     offense until a time period equal to the statute of 
     limitations has elapsed from the date of identification of 
     the perpetrator.
       Sec. 105. Legal Assistance for Victims of Dating Violence. 
     Amends the Violence Against Women Act to include legal 
     assistance for victims of ``dating violence,'' defined as 
     violence committed by a person: (1) who is or has been in a 
     romantic or intimate relationship with the victim; and (2) 
     where the existence of such relationship is determined based 
     upon consideration of its length and its type, and upon the 
     frequency of interaction between the persons involved.
       Sec. 106. Ensuring Private Laboratory Assistance in 
     Eliminating DNA Backlog. Clarifies that grants may be made 
     through vouchers and contracts to private for-profit 
     laboratories to assist in collection of DNA samples from 
     offenders and processing of crime scene DNA evidence.


            title ii--dna sexual assault justice act of 2003

       Sec. 201. Short Title. This title may be cited as the ``DNA 
     Sexual Justice Act of 2003.''
       Sec. 202. Ensuring Public Crime Laboratory Compliance with 
     Federal Standards. Requires that eligible State and local 
     government public crime labs are accredited and undergo 
     external audits, not less than once every 2 years, to 
     demonstrate compliance with Federal standards established by 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       Sec. 203. DNA Training and Education for Law Enforcement, 
     Correctional Personnel, and Court Officers. Authorizes grants 
     to provide training, technical assistance, educational and 
     information relating to the identification, collection, 
     preservation, analysis and use of DNA samples and DNA 
     evidence by law enforcement personnel and other first 
     responders who collect or examine crime scene evidence; court 
     officers, including prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges; 
     forensic science professionals; and corrections personnel. 
     The grant program is authorized through 2009 at $12.5 million 
     per year.
       Sec. 204. Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program Grants. 
     Authorizes grants to provide training, technical assistance, 
     education and information relating to the identification, 
     collection, preservation, analysis and use of DNA samples and 
     DNA evidence by medical personnel and other personnel, 
     including doctors, medical examiners, coroners, nurses, 
     victim service providers, and other medical professionals, 
     including existing sexual assault and sexual assault 
     examination programs (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), 
     Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner (SAFE), and Sexual Assault 
     Response Team (SART)). The grant program is authorized 
     through 2009 at $30 million per year.
       Sec. 205. DNA Research and Development. Authorizes grants 
     for research and development to improve forensic DNA 
     technology, including funding of demonstration projects 
     involving law enforcement agencies and criminal justice 
     participants to evaluate the use of forensic DNA technology. 
     Also authorizes the Attorney General to establish a new 
     Forensic Science Commission, composed of members from the 
     forensic science and criminal justice communities, which will 
     be responsible for examining various issues, including: 
     (1) maximizing the use of forensic sciences to solve 
     crimes and protect public safety; (2) increasing the 
     number of qualified forensic scientists; (3) disseminating 
     best practices concerning the collection and analyses of 
     forensic evidence; and (4) assessing Federal, State and 
     local privacy protection statutes, regulations and 
     practices relating to DNA samples and DNA analyses. 
     Programs are authorized through 2009 at $15 million per 
     year.
       Sec. 206. FBI DNA Programs. Authorizes $42.1 million per 
     year through 2009 for FBI DNA programs and activities, 
     including (1) nuclear DNA analysis; (2) mitochondrial DNA 
     analysis; (3) regional mitochondrial DNA laboratories; (4) 
     the Combined DNA Index System; (5) the Federal Convicted 
     Offender DNA Program; and (6) DNA research and development.
       Sec. 207. DNA Identification of Missing Persons. Authorizes 
     $2 million per year through 2009 for grants to promote the 
     use of forensic DNA technology to identify missing persons 
     and unidentified human remains.
       Sec. 208. Enhanced Criminal Penalties for Unauthorized 
     Disclosure or Use of DNA Information. Modifies the existing 
     criminal provision for unauthorized disclosure of DNA 
     information to include unauthorized ``use'' of such 
     information, and increases the potential fine to $100,000 for 
     each criminal offense.
       Sec. 209. Tribal Coalition Grants. Amends the eligibility 
     criteria for discretionary grants under the Violence Against 
     Women Act to include tribal coalitions, and thereby directly 
     support nonprofit, nongovernmental tribal domestic violence 
     and sexual assault coalitions [in Indian country.]
       Sec. 210. Expansion of the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences 
     Improvement Grant Program. Expands existing grant program to 
     permit funds to be used to eliminate a backlog in the 
     analysis of forensic science evidence, and extends 
     authorization of appropriations through 2009, at $20 million 
     a year. Current authorizations are $128,067,000 for 2004, 
     $56,733,000 for 2005, and $42,067,000 for 2006. [Sec. 210. 
     Forensic Backlog Elimination Grant Program. Authorizes $10 
     million a year through 2009 for grants to States, units of 
     local government, and tribal governments, to eliminate the 
     backlog in the analysis of any area of forensic science, 
     including firearms examination, latent prints, toxicology, 
     and controlled substances.]
       Sec. 211. Report to Congress. Requires the Attorney General 
     to submit a report, not later than 3 years after enactment, 
     relating to implementation of titles I and II of this Act.

[[Page S12296]]

              title iii--innocence protection act of 2003

       Sec. 301. Short Title. This title may be cited as the 
     ``Innocence Protection Act of 2003.''

        Subtitle 1--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing

       Sec. 311. Federal Post-Conviction DNA Testing. Establishes 
     rules and procedures governing applications for DNA testing 
     by inmates in the Federal system. A court shall order DNA 
     testing if the applicant asserts under penalty of perjury 
     that he or she is actually innocent of a qualifying offense, 
     and the proposed DNA testing would produce new material 
     evidence that supports such assertion and raises a reasonable 
     probability that the applicant did not commit the offense. 
     Limitations on access to testing are imposed where the 
     applicant seeks to interfere with the administration of 
     justice rather than to support a valid claim. Penalties are 
     established in the event that testing inculpates the 
     applicant. Where test results are exculpatory, the court 
     shall grant the applicant's motion for a new trial or 
     resentencing if the test results and other evidence establish 
     by a preponderance of the evidence that a new trial would 
     result in an acquittal of the offense at issue.
       This section also prohibits the destruction of biological 
     evidence in a federal criminal case while a defendant remains 
     incarcerated, absent a knowing and voluntary waiver by the 
     defendant or prior notification to the defendant that the 
     evidence may be destroyed. Nothing in this section supersedes 
     any statute, regulation, court order, or other provision of 
     law requiring that evidence, including biological evidence, 
     be preserved. Intentional violations of this preservation 
     provision to prevent evidence from being tested or used in 
     court are punishable by a term of imprisonment.
       Sec. 312. Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing 
     Grant Program. Authorizes $5 million a year in grants through 
     2009 to help States to defray the costs of post-conviction 
     DNA testing. This program is named in honor of Kirk 
     Bloodsworth, the first death row inmate to be exonerated by 
     DNA testing.
       Sec. 313. Incentive Grants to States to Ensure 
     Consideration of Claims of Actual Innocence. Reserves the 
     total amount of funds appropriated to carry out sections 203, 
     205, 207, and 312 of this Act for states that have adopted 
     adequate procedures for providing post-conviction DNA testing 
     and preserving biological evidence for this purpose.

 Subtitle 2--Improving the Quality of Representation in State Capital 
                                 Cases

       Sec. 321. Capital Representation Improvement Grants. 
     Authorizes a grant program, to be administered by the 
     Attorney General, to improve the quality of legal 
     representation provided to indigent defendants in State 
     capital cases. Grants shall be used to establish, implement, 
     or improve an effective system for providing competent legal 
     representation in capital cases, but may not be used to fund 
     representation in specific cases. An effective system is 
     one in which a public defender program or other entity 
     establishes qualifications for attorneys who may be 
     appointed to represent indigents in capital cases; 
     establishes and maintains a roster of qualified attorneys 
     and assigns attorneys from the roster (or provides the 
     trial judge with a choice of attorneys from the roster); 
     trains and monitors the performance of such attorneys; and 
     ensures funding for the full cost of competent legal 
     representation by the defense team and any outside 
     experts.
       Sec. 322. Capital Prosecution Improvement Grants. As part 
     of the same program established in section 321, authorizes 
     grants to improve the representation of the public in State 
     capital cases. Grants shall be used to design and implement 
     training programs for capital prosecutors; develop, 
     implement, and enforce appropriate standards and 
     qualifications for such prosecutors and assess their 
     performance; establish programs under which prosecutors 
     conduct a systematic review of cases in which a defendant is 
     sentenced to death in order to identify cases in which post-
     conviction DNA testing is appropriate; and assist the 
     families of murder victims.
       Sec. 323. Applications. Establishes requirements for States 
     applying for grants under this subtitle, including a long-
     term strategy and detailed implementation plan that reflects 
     consultation with the judiciary, the organized bar, and State 
     and local prosecutor and defender organizations, and 
     establishes as a priority improvement in the quality of 
     trial-level representation of indigents charged with capital 
     crimes and trial-level prosecution of capital crimes in order 
     to enhance the reliability of capital trial verdicts. Funds 
     received under this subtitle shall be allocated equally 
     between the programs established in sections 321 and 322.
       Sec. 324. State Reports. Requires States receiving funds 
     under this subtitle to submit an annual report to the 
     Attorney General identifying the activities carried out with 
     the funds and explaining how each activity complies with the 
     terms and conditions of the grant.
       Sec. 325. Evaluations by Inspector General and 
     Administrative Remedies. Directs the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Justice to submit periodic reports to the 
     Attorney General evaluating the compliance of each State 
     receiving funds under this subtitle with the terms and 
     conditions of the grant. In conducting such evaluations, the 
     Inspector General shall give priority to States at the 
     highest risk of noncompliance. If, after receiving a report 
     from the Inspector General, the Attorney General finds that a 
     State is not in compliance, the Attorney General shall take a 
     series of steps to bring the State into compliance and report 
     to Congress on the results.
       Sec. 326. Authorization of Appropriations. Authorizes $100 
     million a year for five years to carry out this subtitle.

          Subtitle 3--Compensation of the Wrongfully Convicted

       Sec. 331. Increased Compensation in Federal Cases. 
     Increases the maximum amount of damages that the U.S. Court 
     of Federal Claims may award against the United States in 
     cases of unjust imprisonment from a flat $5,000 to $50,000 
     per year in non-capital cases, and $100,000 per year in 
     capital cases.
       Sec. 332. Sense of Congress Regarding Compensation in State 
     Death Penalty Cases. This section expresses the sense of 
     Congress that States should provide reasonable compensation 
     to any person found to have been unjustly convicted of an 
     offense against the State and sentenced to death.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise along with the distinguished senior 
Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch and several others of my colleagues, 
Senators Spector, Leahy, DeWine, and Feinstein, to introduce the 
Advancing Justice Through DNA Act, a bill that harnesses the power of 
DNA to give prompt justice to victims of sexual assault crimes and to 
free the wrongly convicted. This bill takes every component of DNA 
technology and makes it accessible and more useful to Federal, State 
and local law enforcement, to prosecutors and defense attorneys, to 
medical personnel and to victims of crime.
  Promoting and supporting DNA technology as a crime-fighting tool is 
not a new endeavor for me. A provision of my 1994 crime bill created 
the Combined DNA Index System, called ``CODIS'', which is an electronic 
database of DNA profiles, much like the FBI's fingerprint database. 
CODIS includes two kinds of DNA information--convicted offender DNA 
samples and DNA from crime scenes. CODIS uses the two indexes to 
generate investigative leads in crimes where biological evidence is 
recovered from the scene. In essence, CODIS facilitates the DNA match. 
And once that match is made, a crime is solved because of the 
incredible accuracy and durability of DNA evidence.
  Ninety-nine.nine percent--that is how accurate DNA evidence is. One 
in 30 billion--those are the odds someone else committed a crime if a 
suspect's DNA matches evidence at the crime scene. Twenty or 30 years--
that is how long DNA evidence from a crime scene lasts.
  Just 10 years ago DNA analysis of evidence could have cost thousands 
of dollars and taken months, now testing one sample costs $40 and can 
take days. Ten years ago forensic scientists needed blood the size of a 
bottle cap, now DNA testing can be done on a sample the size of a 
pinhead. The changes in DNA technology are remarkable, and mark a sea 
change in how we can fight crime, particularly sexual assault crimes.
  The FBI reports that since 1998 the national DNA database has helped 
put away violent criminals in over 9,000 investigations in 50 States. 
How? By matching the DNA crime evidence to the DNA profiles of 
offenders. Individual success stories of DNA cold hits in sexual 
assault cases make these numbers all too real.
  Just last year, Alabama authorities charged a man in the rape of an 
85-year-old woman almost 10 years ago after he was linked to the case 
by a DNA sample he was compelled to submit while in prison on unrelated 
charges.
  In Colorado, prosecutors brought to trial a case against a man 
accused of at least 14 rapes and sexual assaults. Due to the national 
DNA database, prosecutors were able to trace the defendant to rapes and 
assaults that occurred in Colorado, California, Arizona, Nevada and 
Oklahoma between 1999 and 2002.
  Or take for example a 1996 case in St. Louis were two young girls 
were abducted from bus stops and raped at opposite ends of the city. 
The police were unable to identify a suspect. In 1999, the police 
decided to re-run the DNA testing to develop new leads. In January 
2000, the DNA database matched the case to a 1999 rape case, and police 
were able to identify the perpetrator.
  Last spring, the New York Police Department arrested a man linked to 
the rape of a woman years ago. In 1997, a woman was horribly beaten, 
robbed and raped--there were no suspects. Five years later, the 
perpetrator submitted

[[Page S12297]]

a DNA sample as a condition of probation after serving time for 
burglary. The DNA sample matched the DNA from the 1997 rape. Crime 
solved, streets safer.
  Undoubtedly, DNA matching by comparing evidence gathered at the crime 
scene with offender samples entered on the national DNA database has 
proven to be the deciding factor in solving stranger sexual assault 
cases--it has revolutionized the criminal justice system, and brought 
closure and justice for victims. A laboratory expert testified that 
Virginia has a 48 percent hit rate because the State collects samples 
from all convicted felons and aggressively analyzes crime scene 
evidence with no backlog. This means that almost 1 out of every 2 
violent crimes could be solved by the national DNA database.
  In light of the past successes and the future potential of DNA 
evidence, the reported number of untested rape kits and other crime 
scene evidence waiting in police warehouses is simply shocking--300,000 
to 500,000. It is a national problem, plaguing both urban and rural 
areas, that deserves national attention and solutions. Last year, a 
Michigan newspaper reported that its State police forensic unit is 
expected to have a 10-year backlog of items in need of DNA testing. The 
Florida crime lab system is facing a backlog of more than 2,400 rape, 
murder and assault and burglary cases waiting for DNA testing. South 
Carolina has 10,000 untested samples from convicted offenders. In June 
2003, the New Jersey police department reported that over 1,200 
criminal cases--most of them sexual assault cases--were waiting for DNA 
analysis. Behind every single one of those rape kits is a victim who 
deserves recognition and justice.
  One woman in particular has reminded State and Federal lawmakers that 
we cannot ignore even one rape kit sitting on a shelf gathering dust. 
That woman is Debbie Smith. In 1989, Mrs. Smith was taken from her home 
and brutally raped. There were no known suspects, and Mrs. Smith lived 
in fear of her attacker's return. Six years later, the Virginia crime 
laboratory discovered a DNA match between the rape scene evidence and a 
State prisoner's DNA sample. That cold hit gave Mrs. Smith her first 
moment of real security and closure, and since then she has traveled 
the country to advocate on behalf of assault victims and champion the 
use of DNA to fight sexual assault.
  Today's bill provides over $755 five years to eliminate the backlog 
in rape kits and other crime scene evidence, eliminate the backlog of 
convicted offender samples awaiting DNA testing, and improve State 
laboratory capacity to conduct DNA testing. I am pleased that the 
backlog elimination grant program in the Advancing Justice Through DNA 
Technology Act is entitled, ``The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants.'' It 
is a fitting tribute. I also want to take a moment to thank my 
colleagues Senators Kohl and DeWine who began this effort with the DNA 
Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, and acknowledge their ongoing 
commitment.
  But the DNA testing is only useful if the crime scene evidence is 
carefully collected and preserved. Towards that end, the Advancing 
Justice through DNA Technology Act creates two important grant 
programs: 1. a $62.5 million DNA training and education grant program 
for law enforcement, correctional personnel and court officers; and 2. 
a $50 million grant program to provide training, education and 
assistance to sexual assault forensic examiner programs, often known as 
SANE or SART programs.
  The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act is a natural 
extension to the Violence Against Women Act, which requires the 
Attorney General to evaluate and recommend standards for training and 
practice for licensed health care professionals performing sexual 
assault forensic exams. So I knew that any DNA bill aimed at ending 
sexual assault must include resources for sexual forensic examiners. 
This bill ensures that sexual forensic nurses, doctors, and response 
teams are all eligible for assistance. These program should be in each 
and every emergency room to bridge the gap between the law and the 
medicine.
  Today's bill also makes two small, but important, amendments to the 
Violence Against Women Act. First, it amends the law to include legal 
assistance for victims of dating violence, and it amends the 
eligibility criteria for discretionary programs so that tribal domestic 
violence and sexual assault coalitions can directly receiving grants 
funds, including those funds unreleased from past fiscal years.
  I started looking at the issue of improved prosecution of sexual 
assault crimes almost two decades ago when I began drafting the 
Violence Against Women Act. The DNA Sexual Justice Act of 2003 is the 
next step, a way to connect the dots between the extraordinary strides 
in DNA technology and my commitment to ending violence against women. 
We must ensure that justice delayed is not justice denied.
  I am also gratified that this legislation includes the Innocence 
Protection Act, which I cosponsored last year, and which passed the 
Judiciary Committee. I have long advocated in this Committee for the 
changes that it will implement.
  The Innocence Protection Act will immeasurably improve the 
administration of justice in our legal system, particularly where 
justice is most important, and where we can least afford to make 
mistakes--imposition of the death penalty.
  I advocate for this bill not as an opponent of the death penalty 
looking to curtail it, but as a supporter of the death penalty who 
authored the first constitutional federal death penalty law after the 
Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional.
  But we who support the death penalty also have a duty to ensure that 
it is fairly administered. The advent of DNA testing has provided us 
with a wealth of opportunities to make certain that we are prosecuting 
the right people. Just as we use DNA to help prosecutions, we must make 
testing available to those who can use it to prove their innocence. 
This legislation makes post-conviction testing to federal inmates who 
assert that they did not commit the crime for which they have been 
imprisoned. It also incentivizes States to take similar measures to 
ensure that individuals have a proper opportunity to prove their 
innocence. It also mandates proper preservation of DNA evidence so that 
the DNA can be tested if appropriate.
  As for competent counsel in death penalty cases, nobody can look me 
in the eye and tell me that our system for representation in capital 
cases works as it should. This bill will take a big step toward fixing 
that by providing money for grants to States to improve their systems 
of representation, on both the prosecution and defense side, in capital 
cases.
  Our goal must be an error-free system of criminal justice. To err is 
human, but it should never be acceptable. Our job is to do all we can 
to eliminate errors in the criminal justice system and to see to it 
that a lack of resources does not delay bringing rapists and murderers 
to justice. This bill means we are doing our job.
  I would be remiss if I did not pause to thank some of the many people 
who have helped bring about the introduction of this bill. In 
particular, I wish to thank Senators Hatch and Leahy, the chairman and 
ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for devoting so much 
of their time and effort to developing this legislation. Similarly, 
Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers have worked with us 
every step of the way to get this bill done. In addition, Senators 
Specter, DeWine and Feinstein, and Congressmen Delahunt and Coble, 
among others, have spent countless hours contributing their ideas to 
this bill. I wish to thank all of these members for their leadership on 
this matter.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield for a 
question?
  Mr. BIDEN. Of course.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this 
legislation makes certain of its grants contingent on States providing 
a process for post-conviction testing available. For those States that 
already have enacted a statute providing such testing, that statute 
must ensure a meaningful process for resolving a claim of actual 
innocence. As I understand it, almost all of the State statutes already 
in existence, including those of Ohio, Utah, Delaware and Pennsylvania, 
would pass

[[Page S12298]]

muster and would qualify for the grants at issue. Is that the 
understanding of the Senator from Delaware?
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes, I thank the Senator from Utah for his question, and 
wholeheartedly agree with his understanding of this provision. I 
believe all of the drafters of this legislation are in agreement that 
most of the States that already have passed statutes, except for the 
few that limit post-conviction DNA testing to capital crimes, would 
pass muster. For example, even if a State's statute differs from the 
Federal law by imposing a meaningful time limit for filing of 
applications for testing, or excluding guilty pleas from eligibility, 
it would qualify. Specifically, Utah, Delaware, Ohio and Pennsylvania, 
among others, under their statutes, or the re-enactment of those 
statutes where they have expired, would be eligible for such grants. 
However, States that have not yet enacted a statute would be required 
to enact a statute, or follow a rule, regulation or practice, that met 
a higher standard--the statute, rule, regulation or practice would need 
to be ``comparable'' to the Federal law in order for the State to 
qualify for the grants. I see the Senator from Pennsylvania on the 
Floor. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator to hear 
his thoughts on this matter.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator for yielding time. I would just say 
that I completely agree with the understanding of the Senators from 
Delaware and Utah on this.
  Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. It would be my pleasure.
  Mr. HATCH. I would just like to make clear that the understanding of 
the Senator from Delaware comports completely with mine.
  Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. BIDEN. Of course.
  Mr. SPECTER. As the Senator knows, a second requirement for States to 
qualify for these grants is that--whether by State statute, State or 
local rule, regulation or practice--they preserve biological evidence 
in a reasonable way. Do the Senators from Delaware and Utah agree with 
me that States would qualify so long as they preserve evidence in a way 
sufficient to permit the testing provided for in their State statutes? 
For example, if a State law provides a three year time limit on post-
conviction DNA testing, a practice of preserving evidence throughout 
those three years would qualify as ``reasonable'' under this 
legislation. Thus, for example, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio and Utah 
would qualify.
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes, that has been, and remains, my understanding.
  Mr. HATCH. And mine as well.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, three years ago, Senator Smith, Senator 
Collins and I joined together to introduce the Innocence Protection 
Act, a modest and practical package of reforms aimed at reducing the 
risk of error in capital cases. The reforms we proposed were designed 
to create a fairer system of justice, where the problems that have sent 
innocent people to death row would not occur, and where victims and 
their families could be more certain of the accuracy, and finality, of 
the results.
  During the last Congress, the Innocence Protection Act gained 
enormous momentum, with 32 Senators and 250 Representatives--well over 
half the House--signed on in support. Hearings were held in each House, 
and a version of the bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 7. Now is the time to finish 
the job and enact this important legislation.
  I am pleased, today, to introduce the Innocence Protection Act of 
2003. This legislation is a piece of a larger bill called the Advancing 
Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which provides an infusion 
of Federal funds to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA 
samples in the Nation's crime labs and to improve the capacity of 
Federal, State and local crime labs to conduct DNA analyses.
  The Innocence Protection Act of 2003 proposes two critical reforms. 
First, it provides greater access to post-conviction DNA testing in 
appropriate cases, where it can help expose wrongful convictions, and 
authorizes $25 million in grants over 5 years to help defray the costs 
of such testing. Second, the bill addresses what all the statistics and 
evidence show is the single most frequent cause of wrongful 
convictions--inadequate defense representation at trial. By far the 
most important reform we can undertake is to help States establish 
minimum standards of competency and funding for capital defense.
  Other provisions of the Innocence Protection Act establish standards 
for preserving biological evidence in criminal cases, and substantially 
increase the maximum amount of compensation that may be awarded in 
Federal cases of wrongful conviction.
  Today's Innocence Protection Act is a modified version of the bill 
that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved last year. These 
modifications follow many months of negotiation and deliberation, and 
were made to build further on the groundswell of support for the bill, 
both here on Capitol Hill and across America. More than ever, the bill 
is a collaborative product of which we all can be proud--an exercise of 
bipartisanship that is in the best tradition of the United States 
Congress.
  I want to thank and commend the Senators and Representatives who 
worked so hard this summer and fall to come to agreement on a bill that 
we can all strongly support.
  First and foremost, I want to thank my partner in this endeavor, 
Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has worked 
tirelessly over many years to achieve this goal. I also want to thank 
our lead Republican sponsors in both houses, Senators Gordon Smith and 
Susan Collins, and Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, all of whom 
have been steadfast in their commitment to this effort.
  The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, deserves 
high praise for his leadership in our recent negotiations, as does the 
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, and I 
thank them both. Senator Hatch and I have debated these issues for 
years. I have always appreciated his thoughtful approach and serious 
commitment to improving the criminal justice system. Representative 
Sensenbrenner played an instrumental role in this process and I do not 
believe we could have come so far without his dedication. In addition, 
I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Senator Feinstein, who has 
devoted countless hours over the years to reconciling the policy 
differences that prevented this legislation from moving forward.
  I am sorry that Senator DeWine could not be with us earlier today to 
announce the introduction of the bill, and appreciate his willingness 
to allow us to proceed. I have long worked with Senator DeWine on 
funding important forensic science tools for law enforcement, and we 
are currently working on a proposal with regard to how the mentally 
retarded are treated by the criminal justice system. His leadership on 
these issues is important and greatly appreciated.
  Thanks, too, to the many members on both sides of the aisle, in the 
Senate and in the House, who have supported this legislation over the 
years. Working together, we can finally begin to address the many 
problems facing our capital punishment system.
  Capital Representation Improvement Grants: I would like to take a 
moment now to elaborate on the capital defense representation 
provisions of the bill, both because they are the more important 
provisions and because they have been the principal subject of the 
recent revisions to the bill.
  The new version of the Innocence Protection Act establishes a grant 
program for States to improve the systems by which they appoint and 
compensate lawyers in death cases. States that authorize capital 
punishment may apply for these grants or not, as they wish. However, if 
a State chooses to accept the money, it must open itself up to a set of 
requirements designed to ensure that its system truly meets basic 
standards. After all, the point of the bill is not to throw money at 
the problem of inadequate representation; the point is to fix it.
  Earlier versions of the Innocence Protection Act took more of a 
``carrot and stick'' approach to the counsel issue. The ``carrot'' was 
the same as in the current version: millions of dollars in Federal 
grants to help achieve adequate representation in capital cases. The 
``stick''--which is no longer in the bill--has evolved over the years. 
At one

[[Page S12299]]

time, we proposed that States that failed to meet basic competent 
counsel standards would have their death sentences given less deference 
and subjected to more rigorous Federal court review. In some versions 
of the bill, non-complying States would also have forfeited some 
Federal prison grant funding over time. In the version that the 
Judiciary Committee approved last year, if a State chose not to 
participate in the new Federal grant program, the Attorney General 
would award the money to one or more defender organizations within the 
State, to be used for capital defense work.

  Each of these various mechanisms would have helped ensure cooperation 
on the part of the States, and I am disappointed that I was unable to 
prevail upon my colleagues to include any one of them. Still, I believe 
that the current formulation is a good first step and will make a 
difference, provided that the grant program is fully funded and that 
the States which are most in need of reform elect to participate.
  As reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, the bill 
aimed to ensure full funding of the counsel program by providing that, 
if Congress failed to appropriate sufficient funding for the program, 
up to 10 percent of the Byrne block grant would be used for this 
purpose. I regret that this provision has been dropped from the bill; 
it seemed to me a good way to express our commitment to ensuring that 
the program is funded. However, given the tremendous support for this 
legislation in both houses, and on both sides of the aisle, I am 
confident that Congress will speak with one voice in ensuring that our 
years of effort are not undermined by a failure to appropriate the 
money needed to make this legislation effective.
  Getting States to participate in the program may be more difficult. 
Indeed, the States that are in most need of reform may be the least 
inclined to participate, given that they will have the most to do to 
bring their indigent defense systems into compliance with the terms and 
conditions of the grant. While I am hopeful that States will want to 
improve their systems, and will welcome the infusion of Federal funds 
for this purpose, Congress will need to monitor this program carefully 
to ensure that it is meeting its stated objective of improving the 
quality of legal representation provided to indigent defendants in 
State capital cases and, if it is not, to take additional remedial 
action.
  Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program: We have 
also established a $25 million grant program to help defray the costs 
of post-conviction DNA testing. This program is named in honor of Kirk 
Bloodsworth, the first death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA 
testing.
  I first met Kirk in February 2000, when he came to me as a man who 
had been exonerated after almost nine years of wrongful imprisonment. I 
am proud to say that we have become close friends and partners in the 
fight to reform capital punishment in America. I am also delighted that 
Kirk can finally feel truly free. Just a few weeks ago, the State of 
Maryland charged another man with the crime for which Kirk was 
convicted and sentenced to death, after prosecutors finally ran the DNA 
evidence in the case through the DNA database. The prosecutor who sent 
Kirk to death row, and who had previously refused to acknowledge his 
innocence, went to his home to apologize to him.
  Kirk Bloodsworth's battle to prove his own innocence has been won. 
But his nightmare of wrongful conviction has been repeated again and 
again across the country. Since the reinstatement of capital punishment 
in the 1970s, more than 110 individuals who were convicted and 
sentenced to death have been released from death row with evidence of 
their innocence, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. In 
addition, since the introduction of forensic DNA typing into the legal 
system in the early 1990s, many more individuals who were sentenced to 
long terms of imprisonment have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA 
testing. The Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program 
will help assist others who have experienced wrongful conviction.
  Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program: As I noted earlier, this 
version of the Innocence Protection Act is being introduced as part of 
a larger package of criminal justice reforms, titled the Advancing 
Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which will substantially 
increase Federal resources available to State and local governments to 
combat crimes with DNA technology. Among other things, this legislation 
creates the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which authorizes 
$755 million over the next five years to reduce the current backlog of 
unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs.
  I have worked with the proponents of this program to revise the 
allocation formula, so that each State is guaranteed a minimum 
allocation of .50 percent of the total amount appropriated in a fiscal 
year. This will make the program fair for all States, including smaller 
States like Vermont.
  As DNA testing has moved to the front lines of the war on crime, 
forensic laboratories nationwide have experienced a significant 
increase in their caseloads, both in number and complexity. Funding has 
simply not kept pace with this increasing demand, and forensic labs 
nationwide are now seriously bottlenecked.
  Backlogs have seriously impeded the use of DNA testing in solving 
cases without suspects--and reexamining cases in which there are strong 
claims of innocence--as labs are required to give priority status to 
those cases in which a suspect is known. Solely for lack of funding, 
critical evidence remains untested while rapists and killers remain at 
large. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program will give States the 
help they desperately need to carry out DNA analyses of backlogged 
evidence, and I strongly support its passage and full funding.
  Expansion of the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant 
Program: The bill also expands and extends for another three years an 
existing grant program, named after our late colleague, Senator Paul 
Coverdell. Congress passed the Paul Coverdell National Forensic 
Sciences Improvement Act three years ago, with the goal of improving 
the quality and timeliness of State and local forensic science 
services. I was proud to cosponsor that legislation, and have worked 
since its passage to secure full funding for the grant program it 
establishes. Unfortunately, despite my efforts and those of other 
Members, and notwithstanding the urgent pleas of lab directors 
nationwide, the President has never requested funding for Paul 
Coverdell grants, and Congress has never appropriated sufficient funds 
to make the program effective. The legislation we introduce today 
renews our commitment to this important initiative.
  Our bill also expands the purposes for which Paul Coverdell grants 
may be used, to include the elimination of a non-DNA forensic evidence 
backlog. The need for this measure was highlighted earlier this year at 
a subcommittee hearing on funding forensic sciences. Witness after 
witness testified that DNA evidence is not the only evidence that is 
going untested for lack of resources. Crime labs are also facing 
substantial backlogs with respect to other types of forensic science 
evidence, including firearms, latent prints, controlled substances, 
toxicology, trace evidence, questionable documents, and forensic 
pathology. We need to ensure that our labs are equipped to address the 
full range of issues that they are called upon to handle.
  We have had a constructive debate. We have shown that the death 
penalty system is broken, and we have built a bipartisan coalition 
supporting reforms. It is now time to act. Our bill reflects a 
principled consensus on the most basic and essential reforms; it raises 
no serious constitutional or law enforcement concerns; it will improve 
criminal justice in America considerably; and it may well save innocent 
lives. I am therefore proud to sponsor it, and I urge its speedy 
passage into law.




                          ____________________