[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.
____________________