[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 159 (Wednesday, November 5, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10349-H10363]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADVANCING JUSTICE THROUGH DNA TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2003
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 3214) 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, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3214
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Advancing
Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--DEBBIE SMITH ACT OF 2003
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.
Sec. 103. Expansion of Combined DNA Index System.
Sec. 104. Tolling of statute of limitations.
Sec. 105. Legal assistance for victims of violence.
Sec. 106. Ensuring private laboratory assistance in eliminating DNA
backlog.
TITLE II--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2003
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Ensuring public crime laboratory compliance with Federal
standards.
[[Page H10350]]
Sec. 203. DNA training and education for law enforcement, correctional
personnel, and court officers.
Sec. 204. Sexual assault forensic exam program grants.
Sec. 205. DNA research and development.
Sec. 206. National Forensic Science Commission.
Sec. 207. FBI DNA programs.
Sec. 208. DNA identification of missing persons.
Sec. 209. Enhanced criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure or
use of DNA information.
Sec. 210. Tribal coalition grants.
Sec. 211. Expansion of Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement
Grant Program.
Sec. 212. Report to Congress.
TITLE III--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2003
Sec. 301. Short title.
Subtitle A--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing
Sec. 311. Federal post-conviction DNA testing.
Sec. 312. Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program.
Sec. 313. Incentive grants to States to ensure consideration of claims
of actual innocence.
Subtitle B--Improving the Quality of Representation in State Capital
Cases
Sec. 321. Capital representation improvement grants.
Sec. 322. Capital prosecution improvement grants.
Sec. 323. Applications.
Sec. 324. State reports.
Sec. 325. Evaluations by Inspector General and administrative remedies.
Sec. 326. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle C--Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted
Sec. 331. Increased compensation in Federal cases for the wrongfully
convicted.
Sec. 332. Sense of Congress regarding compensation in State death
penalty cases.
TITLE I--DEBBIE SMITH ACT OF 2003
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Debbie Smith Act of
2003''.
SEC. 102. DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Designation of Program; Eligibility of Local
Governments as Grantees.--Section 2 of the DNA Analysis
Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is
amended--
(1) by amending the heading to read as follows:
``SEC. 2. THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``or units of local government'' after
``eligible States''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or unit of local government'' after
``State'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``, including samples from rape kits,
samples from other sexual assault evidence, and samples taken
in cases without an identified suspect''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``within the State'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``or unit of local government'' after
``State'' both places that term appears; and
(ii) by inserting ``, as required by the Attorney General''
after ``application shall'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or unit of local
government'' after ``State'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or unit of local
government'' after ``State'' the first place that term
appears;
(D) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by inserting ``or unit of local government'' after
``State''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(E) in paragraph (5)--
(i) by inserting ``or unit of local government'' after
``State''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(F) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) if submitted by a unit of local government, certify
that the unit of local government has taken, or is taking,
all necessary steps to ensure that it is eligible to include,
directly or through a State law enforcement agency, all
analyses of samples for which it has requested funding in the
Combined DNA Index System; and'';
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``The plan'' and inserting ``A plan pursuant to subsection
(b)(1)'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``within the State'';
and
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``within the
State''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``and units of local
government'' after ``States'';
(5) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or local government''
after ``State'' both places that term appears; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or unit of local
government'' after ``State'';
(6) in subsection (f), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``or unit of local government'' after
``State'';
(7) in subsection (g)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or unit of local
government'' after ``State''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or units of local
government'' after ``States''; and
(8) in subsection (h), by inserting ``or unit of local
government'' after ``State'' both places that term appears.
(b) Reauthorization and Expansion of Program.--Section 2 of
the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
14135) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``(1) or'' before
``(2)''; and
(B) by inserting at the end the following:
``(4) To collect DNA samples specified in paragraph (1).
``(5) To ensure that DNA testing and analysis of samples
from crimes, including sexual assault and other serious
violent crimes, are carried out in a timely manner.'';
(2) in subsection (b), as amended by this section, by
inserting at the end the following:
``(7) specify that portion of grant amounts that the State
or unit of local government shall use for the purpose
specified in subsection (a)(4).'';
(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Formula for Distribution of Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall distribute
grant amounts, and establish appropriate grant conditions
under this section, in conformity with a formula or formulas
that are designed to effectuate a distribution of funds among
eligible States and units of local government that--
``(A) maximizes the effective utilization of DNA technology
to solve crimes and protect public safety; and
``(B) allocates grants among eligible entities fairly and
efficiently to address jurisdictions in which significant
backlogs exist, by considering--
``(i) the number of offender and casework samples awaiting
DNA analysis in a jurisdiction;
``(ii) the population in the jurisdiction; and
``(iii) the number of part 1 violent crimes in the
jurisdiction.
``(2) Minimum amount.--The Attorney General shall allocate
to each State not less than 0.50 percent of the total amount
appropriated in a fiscal year for grants under this section,
except that the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall each be
allocated 0.125 percent of the total appropriation.
``(3) Limitation.--Grant amounts distributed under
paragraph (1) shall be awarded to conduct DNA analyses of
samples from casework or from victims of crime under
subsection (a)(2) in accordance with the following
limitations:
``(A) For fiscal year 2005, not less than 50 percent of the
grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection
(a)(2).
``(B) For fiscal year 2006, not less than 50 percent of the
grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection
(a)(2).
``(C) For fiscal year 2007, not less than 45 percent of the
grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection
(a)(2).
``(D) For fiscal year 2008, not less than 40 percent of the
grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection
(a)(2).
``(E) For fiscal year 2009, not less than 40 percent of the
grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection
(a)(2).'';
(4) in subsection (g)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) a description of the priorities and plan for awarding
grants among eligible States and units of local government,
and how such plan will ensure the effective use of DNA
technology to solve crimes and protect public safety.'';
(5) in subsection (j), by striking paragraphs (1) and (2)
and inserting the following:
``(1) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(2) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(3) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
``(4) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
``(5) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Use of Funds for Accreditation and Audits.--The
Attorney General may distribute not more than 1 percent of
the grant amounts under subsection (j)--
``(1) to States or units of local government to defray the
costs incurred by laboratories operated by each such State or
unit of local government in preparing for accreditation or
reaccreditation;
``(2) in the form of additional grants to States, units of
local government, or nonprofit professional organizations of
persons actively involved in forensic science and nationally
recognized within the forensic science community--
``(A) to defray the costs of external audits of
laboratories operated by such State or unit of local
government, which participates in the National DNA Index
System, to determine whether the laboratory is in compliance
with quality assurance standards;
``(B) to assess compliance with any plans submitted to the
National Institute of Justice, which detail the use of funds
received by States or units of local government under this
Act; and
``(C) to support future capacity building efforts; and
``(3) in the form of additional grants to nonprofit
professional associations actively
[[Page H10351]]
involved in forensic science and nationally recognized within
the forensic science community to defray the costs of
training persons who conduct external audits of laboratories
operated by States and units of local government and which
participate in the National DNA Index System.
``(l) External Audits and Remedial Efforts.--In the event
that a laboratory operated by a State or unit of local
government which has received funds under this Act has
undergone an external audit conducted to determine whether
the laboratory is in compliance with standards established by
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, as
a result of such audit, identifies measures to remedy
deficiencies with respect to the compliance by the laboratory
with such standards, the State or unit of local government
shall implement any such remediation as soon as
practicable.''.
SEC. 103. EXPANSION OF COMBINED DNA INDEX SYSTEM.
(a) Inclusion of All DNA Samples From States.--Section
210304 of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
14132) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``of persons
convicted of crimes;'' and inserting the following: ``of--
``(A) persons convicted of crimes;
``(B) persons who have been indicted or who have waived
indictment for a crime; and
``(C) other persons whose DNA samples are collected under
applicable legal authorities, provided that DNA profiles from
arrestees who have not been indicted and DNA samples that are
voluntarily submitted solely for elimination purposes shall
not be included in the Combined DNA Index System;''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(2)--
(A) by striking ``if the responsible agency'' and
inserting``if--
``(i) the responsible agency'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) the person has not been convicted of an offense on
the basis of which that analysis was or could have been
included in the index, and all charges for which the analysis
was or could have been included in the index have been
dismissed or resulted in acquittal.''.
(b) Felons Convicted of Federal Crimes.--Section 3(d) of
the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
14135a(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Qualifying Federal Offenses.--The offenses that shall
be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying Federal
offenses are the following offenses, as determined by the
Attorney General:
``(1) Any felony.
``(2) Any offense under chapter 109A of title 18, United
States Code.
``(3) Any crime of violence (as that term is defined in
section 16 of title 18, United States Code).
``(4) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the
offenses in paragraphs (1) through (3).''.
(c) Military Offenses.--Section 1565(d) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Qualifying Military Offenses.--The offenses that
shall be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying
military offenses are the following offenses, as determined
by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Attorney General:
``(1) Any offense under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice for which a sentence of confinement for more than one
year may be imposed.
``(2) Any other offense under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice that is comparable to a qualifying Federal offense
(as determined under section 3(d) of the DNA Analysis Backlog
Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a(d))).''.
(d) Keyboard Searches.--Section 210304 of the DNA
Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132), as amended by
subsection (a), is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) Authority for Keyboard Searches.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall ensure that any
person who is authorized to access the index described in
subsection (a) for purposes of including information on DNA
identification records or DNA analyses in that index may also
access that index for purposes of carrying out a one-time
keyboard search on information obtained from any DNA sample
lawfully collected for a criminal justice purpose except for
a DNA sample voluntarily submitted solely for elimination
purposes.
``(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term
`keyboard search' means a search under which information
obtained from a DNA sample is compared with information in
the index without resulting in the information obtained from
a DNA sample being included in the index.
``(3) No preemption.--This subsection shall not be
construed to preempt State law.''.
SEC. 104. TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3297. Cases involving DNA evidence
``In a case in which DNA testing implicates an identified
person in the commission of a felony, no statute of
limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution of the
offense shall preclude such prosecution until a period of
time following the implication of the person by DNA testing
has elapsed that is equal to the otherwise applicable
limitation period.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``3297. Cases involving DNA evidence.''.
(c) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on,
or after the date of the enactment of this section if the
applicable limitation period has not yet expired.
SEC. 105. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE.
Section 1201 of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 3796gg-6) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``dating violence,''
after ``domestic violence,'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as
paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively;
(B) by inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated by
subparagraph (A), the following:
``(1) Dating violence.--The term `dating violence' means
violence committed by a person who is or has been in a social
relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the
victim. The existence of such a relationship shall be
determined based on a consideration of--
``(A) the length of the relationship;
``(B) the type of relationship; and
``(C) the frequency of interaction between the persons
involved in the relationship.''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by subparagraph (A),
by inserting ``dating violence,'' after ``domestic
violence,'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``, dating violence,'' after ``between
domestic violence''; and
(ii) by inserting ``dating violence,'' after ``victims of
domestic violence,'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``dating violence,''
after ``domestic violence,''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``dating violence,''
after ``domestic violence,'';
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, dating violence,''
after ``domestic violence'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, dating violence,''
after ``domestic violence'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, dating violence,''
after ``domestic violence''; and
(D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``dating violence,''
after ``domestic violence,'';
(5) in subsection (e), by inserting ``dating violence,''
after ``domestic violence,''; and
(6) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by inserting ``dating
violence,'' after ``domestic violence,''.
SEC. 106. ENSURING PRIVATE LABORATORY ASSISTANCE IN
ELIMINATING DNA BACKLOG.
Section 2(d)(3) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act
of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135(d)(3)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Use of vouchers or contracts for certain purposes.--
``(A) In general.--A grant for the purposes specified in
paragraph (1), (2), or (5) of subsection (a) may be made in
the form of a voucher or contract for laboratory services.
``(B) Redemption.--A voucher or contract under subparagraph
(A) may be redeemed at a laboratory operated by a private
entity that satisfies quality assurance standards and has
been approved by the Attorney General.
``(C) Payments.--The Attorney General may use amounts
authorized under subsection (j) to make payments to a
laboratory described under subparagraph (B).''.
TITLE II--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2003
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``DNA Sexual Assault Justice
Act of 2003''.
SEC. 202. ENSURING PUBLIC CRIME LABORATORY COMPLIANCE WITH
FEDERAL STANDARDS.
Section 210304(b)(2) of the DNA Identification Act of 1994
(42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) prepared by laboratories that--
``(A) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003, have been
accredited by a nonprofit professional association of persons
actively involved in forensic science that is nationally
recognized within the forensic science community; and
``(B) undergo external audits, not less than once every 2
years, that demonstrate compliance with standards established
by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
and''.
SEC. 203. DNA TRAINING AND EDUCATION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT,
CORRECTIONAL PERSONNEL, AND COURT OFFICERS.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
eligible entities to provide training, technical assistance,
education, and information relating to the identification,
collection, preservation, analysis, and use of DNA samples
and DNA evidence.
(b) Eligible Entity.--For purposes of subsection (a), an
eligible entity is an organization consisting of, comprised
of, or representing--
(1) law enforcement personnel, including police officers
and other first responders, evidence technicians,
investigators, and others who collect or examine evidence of
crime;
[[Page H10352]]
(2) court officers, including State and local prosecutors,
defense lawyers, and judges;
(3) forensic science professionals; and
(4) corrections personnel, including prison and jail
personnel, and probation, parole, and other officers involved
in supervision.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $12,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009 to carry out this section.
SEC. 204. SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAM PROGRAM GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
eligible entities to provide training, technical assistance,
education, equipment, 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
professionals involved in treating victims of sexual assault
and sexual assault examination programs, including SANE
(Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner), SAFE (Sexual Assault
Forensic Examiner), and SART (Sexual Assault Response Team).
(b) Eligible Entity.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``eligible entity'' includes--
(1) States;
(2) units of local government; and
(3) sexual assault examination programs, including--
(A) sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs;
(B) sexual assault forensic examiner (SAFE) programs;
(C) sexual assault response team (SART) programs;
(D) State sexual assault coalitions;
(E) medical personnel, including doctors, medical
examiners, coroners, and nurses, involved in treating victims
of sexual assault; and
(F) victim service providers involved in treating victims
of sexual assault.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009 to carry out this section.
SEC. 205. DNA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Improving DNA Technology.--The Attorney General shall
make grants for research and development to improve forensic
DNA technology, including increasing the identification
accuracy and efficiency of DNA analysis, decreasing time and
expense, and increasing portability.
(b) Demonstration Projects.--The Attorney General shall
make grants to appropriate entities under which research is
carried out through demonstration projects involving
coordinated training and commitment of resources to law
enforcement agencies and key criminal justice participants to
demonstrate and evaluate the use of forensic DNA technology
in conjunction with other forensic tools. The demonstration
projects shall include scientific evaluation of the public
safety benefits, improvements to law enforcement operations,
and cost-effectiveness of increased collection and use of DNA
evidence.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009 to carry out this section.
SEC. 206. NATIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMISSION.
(a) Appointment.--The Attorney General shall appoint a
National Forensic Science Commission (in this section
referred to as the ``Commission''), composed of persons
experienced in criminal justice issues, including persons
from the forensic science and criminal justice communities,
to carry out the responsibilities under subsection (b).
(b) Responsibilities.--The Commission shall--
(1) assess the present and future resource needs of the
forensic science community;
(2) make recommendations to the Attorney General for
maximizing the use of forensic technologies and techniques to
solve crimes and protect the public;
(3) identify potential scientific advances that may assist
law enforcement in using forensic technologies and techniques
to protect the public;
(4) make recommendations to the Attorney General for
programs that will increase the number of qualified forensic
scientists available to work in public crime laboratories;
(5) disseminate, through the National Institute of Justice,
best practices concerning the collection and analyses of
forensic evidence to help ensure quality and consistency in
the use of forensic technologies and techniques to solve
crimes and protect the public;
(6) examine additional issues pertaining to forensic
science as requested by the Attorney General;
(7) examine Federal, State, and local privacy protection
statutes, regulations, and practices relating to access to,
or use of, stored DNA samples or DNA analyses, to determine
whether such protections are sufficient;
(8) make specific recommendations to the Attorney General,
as necessary, to enhance the protections described in
paragraph (7) to ensure--
(A) the appropriate use and dissemination of DNA
information;
(B) the accuracy, security, and confidentiality of DNA
information;
(C) the timely removal and destruction of obsolete,
expunged, or inaccurate DNA information; and
(D) that any other necessary measures are taken to protect
privacy; and
(9) provide a forum for the exchange and dissemination of
ideas and information in furtherance of the objectives
described in paragraphs (1) through (8).
(c) Personnel; Procedures.--The Attorney General shall--
(1) designate the Chair of the Commission from among its
members;
(2) designate any necessary staff to assist in carrying out
the functions of the Commission; and
(3) establish procedures and guidelines for the operations
of the Commission.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009 to carry out this section.
SEC. 207. FBI DNA PROGRAMS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
$42,100,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to
carry out the DNA programs and activities described under
subsection (b).
(b) Programs and Activities.--The Federal Bureau of
Investigation may use any amounts appropriated pursuant to
subsection (a) for--
(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. 208. DNA IDENTIFICATION OF MISSING PERSONS.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
States and units of local government to promote the use of
forensic DNA technology to identify missing persons and
unidentified human remains.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009 to carry out this section.
SEC. 209. ENHANCED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED
DISCLOSURE OR USE OF DNA INFORMATION.
Section 10(c) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act
of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135e(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Criminal Penalty.--A person who knowingly discloses a
sample or result described in subsection (a) in any manner to
any person not authorized to receive it, or obtains or uses,
without authorization, such sample or result, shall be fined
not more than $100,000. Each instance of disclosure,
obtaining, or use shall constitute a separate offense under
this subsection.''.
SEC. 210. TRIBAL COALITION GRANTS.
(a) In General.--Section 2001 of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Tribal Coalition Grants.--
``(1) Purpose.--The Attorney General shall award grants to
tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions for
purposes of--
``(A) increasing awareness of domestic violence and sexual
assault against Indian women;
``(B) enhancing the response to violence against Indian
women at the tribal, Federal, and State levels; and
``(C) identifying and providing technical assistance to
coalition membership and tribal communities to enhance access
to essential services to Indian women victimized by domestic
and sexual violence.
``(2) Grants to tribal coalitions.--The Attorney General
shall award grants under paragraph (1) to--
``(A) established nonprofit, nongovernmental tribal
coalitions addressing domestic violence and sexual assault
against Indian women; and
``(B) individuals or organizations that propose to
incorporate as nonprofit, nongovernmental tribal coalitions
to address domestic violence and sexual assault against
Indian women.
``(3) Eligibility for other grants.--Receipt of an award
under this subsection by tribal domestic violence and sexual
assault coalitions shall not preclude the coalition from
receiving additional grants under this title to carry out the
purposes described in subsection (b).''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Effective as of November 2, 2002,
and as if included therein as enacted, Public Law 107-273
(116 Stat. 1789) is amended in section 402(2) by striking
``sections 2006 through 2011'' and inserting ``sections 2007
through 2011''.
(c) Amounts.--Section 2007 of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (as redesignated by section 402(2)
of Public Law 107-273, as amended by subsection (b)) is
amended by amending subsection (b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-
1(b)(4)) to read as follows:
``(4) \1/54\ shall be available for grants under section
2001(d);''.
SEC. 211. EXPANSION OF PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC SCIENCES
IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Forensic Backlog Elimination Grants.--Section 2804 of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3797m) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``shall use the grant to carry out'' and
inserting ``shall use the grant to do any one or more of the
following:
``(1) To carry out''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) To eliminate a backlog in the analysis of forensic
science evidence, including firearms examination, latent
prints, toxicology,
[[Page H10353]]
controlled substances, forensic pathology, questionable
documents, and trace evidence.
``(3) To train, assist, and employ forensic laboratory
personnel, as needed, to eliminate such a backlog.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``under this part'' and
inserting ``for the purpose set forth in subsection (a)(1)'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Backlog Defined.--For purposes of this section, a
backlog in the analysis of forensic science evidence exists
if such evidence--
``(1) has been stored in a laboratory, medical examiner's
office, coroner's office, law enforcement storage facility,
or medical facility; and
``(2) has not been subjected to all appropriate forensic
testing because of a lack of resources or personnel.''.
(b) External Audits.--Section 2802 of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797k) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) a certification that a government entity exists and
an appropriate process is in place to conduct independent
external investigations into allegations of serious
negligence or misconduct substantially affecting the
integrity of the forensic results committed by employees or
contractors of any forensic laboratory system, medical
examiner's office, coroner's office, law enforcement storage
facility, or medical facility in the State that will receive
a portion of the grant amount.''.
(c) Three-Year Extension of Authorization of
Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(24) of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(24))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
``(H) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
``(I) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.''.
(d) Technical Amendment.--Section 1001(a) of such Act, as
amended by subsection (c), is further amended by realigning
paragraphs (24) and (25) so as to be flush with the left
margin.
SEC. 212. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to
Congress a report on the implementation of this Act and the
amendments made by this Act.
(b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a)
shall include a description of--
(1) the progress made by Federal, State, and local entities
in--
(A) collecting and entering DNA samples from offenders
convicted of qualifying offenses for inclusion in the
Combined DNA Index System (referred to in this subsection as
``CODIS'');
(B) analyzing samples from crime scenes, including evidence
collected from sexual assaults and other serious violent
crimes, and entering such DNA analyses in CODIS; and
(C) increasing the capacity of forensic laboratories to
conduct DNA analyses;
(2) the priorities and plan for awarding grants among
eligible States and units of local government to ensure that
the purposes of this Act are carried out;
(3) the distribution of grant amounts under this Act among
eligible States and local governments, and whether the
distribution of such funds has served the purposes of the
Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program;
(4) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible
entities for DNA training and education programs for law
enforcement, correctional personnel, court officers, medical
personnel, victim service providers, and other personnel
authorized under sections 203 and 204;
(5) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible
entities to conduct DNA research and development programs to
improve forensic DNA technology, and implement demonstration
projects under section 205;
(6) the steps taken to establish the National Forensic
Science Commission, and the activities of the Commission
under section 206;
(7) the use of funds by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
under section 207;
(8) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible
entities to promote the use of forensic DNA technology to
identify missing persons and unidentified human remains under
section 208;
(9) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible
entities to eliminate forensic science backlogs under the
amendments made by section 211;
(10) State compliance with the requirements set forth in
section 313; and
(11) any other matters considered relevant by the Attorney
General.
TITLE III--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2003
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Innocence Protection Act
of 2003''.
Subtitle A--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing
SEC. 311. FEDERAL POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING.
(a) Federal Criminal Procedure.--
(1) In general.--Part II of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after chapter 228 the following:
``CHAPTER 228A--POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING
``Sec.
``3600. DNA testing.
``3600A. Preservation of biological evidence.
``Sec. 3600. DNA testing
``(a) In General.--Upon a written motion by an individual
under a sentence of imprisonment or death pursuant to a
conviction for a Federal offense (referred to in this section
as the `applicant'), the court that entered the judgment of
conviction shall order DNA testing of specific evidence if--
``(1) the applicant asserts, under penalty of perjury, that
the applicant is actually innocent of--
``(A) the Federal offense for which the applicant is under
a sentence of imprisonment or death; or
``(B) another Federal or State offense, if--
``(i)(I) such offense was legally necessary to make the
applicant eligible for a sentence as a career offender under
section 3559(e) or an armed career offender under section
924(e), and exoneration of such offense would entitle the
applicant to a reduced sentence; or
``(II) evidence of such offense was admitted during a
Federal death sentencing hearing and exoneration of such
offense would entitle the applicant to a reduced sentence or
new sentencing hearing; and
``(ii) in the case of a State offense--
``(I) the applicant demonstrates that there is no adequate
remedy under State law to permit DNA testing of the specified
evidence relating to the State offense; and
``(II) to the extent available, the applicant has exhausted
all remedies available under State law for requesting DNA
testing of specified evidence relating to the State offense;
``(2) the specific evidence to be tested was secured in
relation to the investigation or prosecution of the Federal
or State offense referenced in the applicant's assertion
under paragraph (1);
``(3) the specific evidence to be tested--
``(A) was not previously subjected to DNA testing and the
applicant did not knowingly and voluntarily waive the right
to request DNA testing of that evidence in a court proceeding
after the date of enactment of the Innocence Protection Act
of 2003; or
``(B) was previously subjected to DNA testing and the
applicant is requesting DNA testing using a new method or
technology that is substantially more probative than the
prior DNA testing;
``(4) the specific evidence to be tested is in the
possession of the Government and has been subject to a chain
of custody and retained under conditions sufficient to ensure
that such evidence has not been substituted, contaminated,
tampered with, replaced, or altered in any respect material
to the proposed DNA testing;
``(5) the proposed DNA testing is reasonable in scope, uses
scientifically sound methods, and is consistent with accepted
forensic practices;
``(6) the applicant identifies a theory of defense that--
``(A) is not inconsistent with an affirmative defense
presented at trial; and
``(B) would establish the actual innocence of the applicant
of the Federal or State offense referenced in the applicant's
assertion under paragraph (1);
``(7) if the applicant was convicted following a trial, the
identity of the perpetrator was at issue in the trial;
``(8) the proposed DNA testing of the specific evidence--
``(A) would produce new material evidence to support the
theory of defense referenced in paragraph (6); and
``(B) assuming the DNA test result excludes the applicant,
would raise a reasonable probability that the applicant did
not commit the offense;
``(9) the applicant certifies that the applicant will
provide a DNA sample for purposes of comparison; and
``(10) the applicant's motion is filed for the purpose of
demonstrating the applicant's actual innocence of the Federal
or State offense, and not to delay the execution of the
sentence or the administration of justice.
``(b) Notice to the Government; Preservation Order;
Appointment of Counsel.--
``(1) Notice.--Upon the receipt of a motion filed under
subsection (a), the court shall--
``(A) notify the Government; and
``(B) allow the Government a reasonable time period to
respond to the motion.
``(2) Preservation order.--To the extent necessary to carry
out proceedings under this section, the court shall direct
the Government to preserve the specific evidence relating to
a motion under subsection (a).
``(3) Appointment of counsel.--The court may appoint
counsel for an indigent applicant under this section in the
same manner as in a proceeding under section 3006A(a)(2)(B).
``(c) Testing Procedures.--
``(1) In general.--The court shall direct that any DNA
testing ordered under this section be carried out by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the court
may order DNA testing by another qualified laboratory if the
court makes all necessary orders to ensure the integrity of
the specific evidence and the reliability of the testing
process and test results.
[[Page H10354]]
``(3) Costs.--The costs of any DNA testing ordered under
this section shall be paid--
``(A) by the applicant; or
``(B) in the case of an applicant who is indigent, by the
Government.
``(d) Time Limitation in Capital Cases.--In any case in
which the applicant is sentenced to death--
``(1) any DNA testing ordered under this section shall be
completed not later than 60 days after the date on which the
Government responds to the motion filed under subsection (a);
and
``(2) not later than 120 days after the date on which the
DNA testing ordered under this section is completed, the
court shall order any post-testing procedures under
subsection (f) or (g), as appropriate.
``(e) Reporting of Test Results.--
``(1) In general.--The results of any DNA testing ordered
under this section shall be simultaneously disclosed to the
court, the applicant, and the Government.
``(2) NDIS.--The Government shall submit any test results
relating to the DNA of the applicant to the National DNA
Index System (referred to in this subsection as `NDIS').
``(3) Retention of dna sample.--
``(A) Entry into ndis.--If the DNA test results obtained
under this section are inconclusive or show that the
applicant was the source of the DNA evidence, the DNA sample
of the applicant may be retained in NDIS.
``(B) Match with other offense.--If the DNA test results
obtained under this section exclude the applicant as the
source of the DNA evidence, and a comparison of the DNA
sample of the applicant results in a match between the DNA
sample of the applicant and another offense, the Attorney
General shall notify the appropriate agency and preserve the
DNA sample of the applicant.
``(C) No match.--If the DNA test results obtained under
this section exclude the applicant as the source of the DNA
evidence, and a comparison of the DNA sample of the applicant
does not result in a match between the DNA sample of the
applicant and another offense, the Attorney General shall
destroy the DNA sample of the applicant and ensure that such
information is not retained in NDIS if there is no other
legal authority to retain the DNA sample of the applicant in
NDIS.
``(f) Post-Testing Procedures; Inconclusive and Inculpatory
Results.--
``(1) Inconclusive results.--If DNA test results obtained
under this section are inconclusive, the court may order
further testing, if appropriate, or may deny the applicant
relief.
``(2) Inculpatory results.--If DNA test results obtained
under this section show that the applicant was the source of
the DNA evidence, the court shall--
``(A) deny the applicant relief; and
``(B) on motion of the Government--
``(i) make a determination whether the applicant's
assertion of actual innocence was false, and, if the court
makes such a finding, the court may hold the applicant in
contempt;
``(ii) assess against the applicant the cost of any DNA
testing carried out under this section;
``(iii) forward the finding to the Director of the Bureau
of Prisons, who, upon receipt of such a finding, may deny,
wholly or in part, the good conduct credit authorized under
section 3632 on the basis of that finding;
``(iv) if the applicant is subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States Parole Commission, forward the finding to
the Commission so that the Commission may deny parole on the
basis of that finding; and
``(v) if the DNA test results relate to a State offense,
forward the finding to any appropriate State official.
``(3) Sentence.--In any prosecution of an applicant under
chapter 79 for false assertions or other conduct in
proceedings under this section, the court, upon conviction of
the applicant, shall sentence the applicant to a term of
imprisonment of not less than 3 years, which shall run
consecutively to any other term of imprisonment the applicant
is serving.
``(g) Post-Testing Procedures; Motion for New Trial or
Resentencing.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any law that would bar a
motion under this paragraph as untimely, if DNA test results
obtained under this section exclude the applicant as the
source of the DNA evidence, the applicant may file a motion
for a new trial or resentencing, as appropriate. The court
shall establish a reasonable schedule for the applicant to
file such a motion and for the Government to respond to the
motion.
``(2) Standard for granting motion for new trial or
resentencing.--The court shall grant the motion of the
applicant for a new trial or resentencing, as appropriate, if
the DNA test results, when considered with all other evidence
in the case (regardless of whether such evidence was
introduced at trial), establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal of--
``(A) in the case of a motion for a new trial, the Federal
offense for which the applicant is under a sentence of
imprisonment or death; and
``(B) in the case of a motion for resentencing, another
Federal or State offense, if--
``(i) such offense was legally necessary to make the
applicant eligible for a sentence as a career offender under
section 3559(e) or an armed career offender under section
924(e), and exoneration of such offense would entitle the
applicant to a reduced sentence; or
``(ii) evidence of such offense was admitted during a
Federal death sentencing hearing and exoneration of such
offense would entitle the applicant to a reduced sentence or
a new sentencing proceeding.
``(h) Other Laws Unaffected.--
``(1) Post-conviction relief.--Nothing in this section
shall affect the circumstances under which a person may
obtain DNA testing or post-conviction relief under any other
law.
``(2) Habeas corpus.--Nothing in this section shall provide
a basis for relief in any Federal habeas corpus proceeding.
``(3) Application not a motion.--An application under this
section shall not be considered to be a motion under section
2255 for purposes of determining whether the application or
any other motion is a second or successive motion under
section 2255.
``Sec. 3600A. Preservation of biological evidence
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Government shall preserve biological evidence that
was secured in the investigation or prosecution of a Federal
offense, if a defendant is under a sentence of imprisonment
for such offense.
``(b) Defined Term.--For purposes of this section, the term
`biological evidence' means--
``(1) a sexual assault forensic examination kit; or
``(2) semen, blood, saliva, hair, skin tissue, or other
identified biological material.
``(c) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if--
``(1) a court has denied a request or motion for DNA
testing of the biological evidence by the defendant under
section 3600, and no appeal is pending;
``(2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the
right to request DNA testing of such evidence in a court
proceeding conducted after the date of enactment of the
Innocence Protection Act of 2003;
``(3) the defendant is notified after conviction that the
biological evidence may be destroyed and the defendant does
not file a motion under section 3600 within 180 days of
receipt of the notice; or
``(4)(A) the evidence must be returned to its rightful
owner, or is of such a size, bulk, or physical character as
to render retention impracticable; and
``(B) the Government takes reasonable measures to remove
and preserve portions of the material evidence sufficient to
permit future DNA testing.
``(d) Other Preservation Requirement.--Nothing in this
section shall preempt or supersede any statute, regulation,
court order, or other provision of law that may require
evidence, including biological evidence, to be preserved.
``(e) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of the Innocence Protection Act of 2003, the
Attorney General shall promulgate regulations to implement
and enforce this section, including appropriate disciplinary
sanctions to ensure that employees comply with such
regulations.
``(f) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever knowingly and
intentionally destroys, alters, or tampers with biological
evidence that is required to be preserved under this section
with the intent to prevent that evidence from being subjected
to DNA testing or prevent the production or use of that
evidence in an official proceeding, shall be fined under this
title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
``(g) Habeas Corpus.--Nothing in this section shall provide
a basis for relief in any Federal habeas corpus
proceeding.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The chapter analysis for part II
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 228 the following:
``228A. Post-conviction DNA testing.........................3600''.....
(b) System for Reporting Motions.--
(1) Establishment.--The Attorney General shall establish a
system for reporting and tracking motions filed in accordance
with section 3600 of title 18, United States Code.
(2) Operation.--In operating the system established under
paragraph (1), the Federal courts shall provide to the
Attorney General any requested assistance in operating such a
system and in ensuring the accuracy and completeness of
information included in that system.
(3) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a
report to Congress that contains--
(A) a list of motions filed under section 3600 of title 18,
United States Code, as added by this Act;
(B) whether DNA testing was ordered pursuant to such a
motion;
(C) whether the applicant obtained relief on the basis of
DNA test results; and
(D) whether further proceedings occurred following a
granting of relief and the outcome of such proceedings.
(4) Additional information.--The report required to be
submitted under paragraph (3) may include any other
information the Attorney General determines to be relevant in
assessing the operation, utility, or costs of section 3600 of
title 18, United States Code, as added by this Act, and any
recommendations the Attorney General may have relating to
future legislative action concerning that section.
(c) Effective Date; Applicability.--This section and the
amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date
of enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect
[[Page H10355]]
to any offense committed, and to any judgment of conviction
entered, before, on, or after that date of enactment.
SEC. 312. KIRK BLOODSWORTH POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING GRANT
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish the
Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program to
award grants to States to help defray the costs of post-
conviction DNA testing.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009 to carry out this section.
(c) State Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term
``State'' means a State of the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern
Mariana Islands.
SEC. 313. INCENTIVE GRANTS TO STATES TO ENSURE CONSIDERATION
OF CLAIMS OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE.
For each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, all funds
appropriated to carry out sections 203, 205, 207, and 312
shall be reserved for grants to eligible entities that--
(1) meet the requirements under section 203, 205, 207, or
312, as appropriate; and
(2) demonstrate that the State in which the eligible entity
operates--
(A) provides post-conviction DNA testing of specified
evidence--
(i) under a State statute enacted before the date of
enactment of this Act (or extended or renewed after such
date), to any person convicted after trial and under a
sentence of imprisonment or death for a State offense, in a
manner that ensures a meaningful process for resolving a
claim of actual innocence; or
(ii) under a State statute enacted after the date of
enactment of this Act, or under a State rule, regulation, or
practice, to any person under a sentence of imprisonment or
death for a State offense, in a manner comparable to section
3600(a) of title 18, United States Code (provided that the
State statute, rule, regulation, or practice may make post-
conviction DNA testing available in cases in which such
testing is not required by such section), and if the results
of such testing exclude the applicant, permits the applicant
to apply for post-conviction relief, notwithstanding any
provision of law that would otherwise bar such application as
untimely; and
(B) preserves biological evidence secured in relation to
the investigation or prosecution of a State offense--
(i) under a State statute or a State or local rule,
regulation, or practice, enacted or adopted before the date
of enactment of this Act (or extended or renewed after such
date), in a manner that ensures that reasonable measures are
taken by all jurisdictions within the State to preserve such
evidence; or
(ii) under a State statute or a State or local rule,
regulation, or practice, enacted or adopted after the date of
enactment of this Act, in a manner comparable to section
3600A of title 18, United States Code, if--
(I) all jurisdictions within the State comply with this
requirement; and
(II) such jurisdictions may preserve such evidence for
longer than the period of time that such evidence would be
required to be preserved under such section 3600A.
Subtitle B--Improving the Quality of Representation in State Capital
Cases
SEC. 321. CAPITAL REPRESENTATION IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall award grants to
States for the purpose of improving the quality of legal
representation provided to indigent defendants in State
capital cases.
(b) Defined Term.--In this section, the term ``legal
representation'' means legal counsel and investigative,
expert, and other services necessary for competent
representation.
(c) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under subsection (a)--
(1) shall be used to establish, implement, or improve an
effective system for providing competent legal representation
to--
(A) indigents charged with an offense subject to capital
punishment;
(B) indigents who have been sentenced to death and who seek
appellate or collateral relief in State court; and
(C) indigents who have been sentenced to death and who seek
review in the Supreme Court of the United States; and
(2) shall not be used to fund, directly or indirectly,
representation in specific capital cases.
(d) Effective System.--As used in subsection (c)(1), an
effective system for providing competent legal representation
is a system that--
(1) invests the responsibility for appointing qualified
attorneys to represent indigents in capital cases--
(A) in a public defender program that relies on staff
attorneys, members of the private bar, or both, to provide
representation in capital cases;
(B) in an entity established by statute or by the highest
State court with jurisdiction in criminal cases, which is
composed of individuals with demonstrated knowledge and
expertise in capital representation; or
(C) pursuant to a statutory procedure enacted before the
date of the enactment of this Act under which the trial judge
is required to appoint qualified attorneys from a roster
maintained by a State or regional selection committee or
similar entity; and
(2) requires the program described in paragraph (1)(A), the
entity described in paragraph (1)(B), or an appropriate
entity designated pursuant to the statutory procedure
described in paragraph (1)(C), as applicable, to--
(A) establish qualifications for attorneys who may be
appointed to represent indigents in capital cases;
(B) establish and maintain a roster of qualified attorneys;
(C) except in the case of a selection committee or similar
entity described in paragraph (1)(C), assign 2 attorneys from
the roster to represent an indigent in a capital case, or
provide the trial judge a list of not more than 2 pairs of
attorneys from the roster, from which 1 pair shall be
assigned, provided that, in any case in which the State
elects not to seek the death penalty, a court may find,
subject to any requirement of State law, that a second
attorney need not remain assigned to represent the indigent
to ensure competent representation;
(D) conduct, sponsor, or approve specialized training
programs for attorneys representing defendants in capital
cases;
(E) monitor the performance of attorneys who are appointed
and their attendance at training programs, and remove from
the roster attorneys who fail to deliver effective
representation or who fail to comply with such requirements
as such program, entity, or selection committee or similar
entity may establish regarding participation in training
programs; and
(F) ensure funding for the full cost of competent legal
representation by the defense team and outside experts
selected by counsel, who shall be compensated--
(i) in the case of a State that employs a statutory
procedure described in paragraph (1)(C), in accordance with
the requirements of that statutory procedure; and
(ii) in all other cases, as follows:
(I) Attorneys employed by a public defender program shall
be compensated according to a salary scale that is
commensurate with the salary scale of the prosecutor's office
in the jurisdiction.
(II) Appointed attorneys shall be compensated for actual
time and service, computed on an hourly basis and at a
reasonable hourly rate in light of the qualifications and
experience of the attorney and the local market for legal
representation in cases reflecting the complexity and
responsibility of capital cases.
(III) Non-attorney members of the defense team, including
investigators, mitigation specialists, and experts, shall be
compensated at a rate that reflects the specialized skills
needed by those who assist counsel with the litigation of
death penalty cases.
(IV) Attorney and non-attorney members of the defense team
shall be reimbursed for reasonable incidental expenses.
SEC. 322. CAPITAL PROSECUTION IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall award grants to
States for the purpose of enhancing the ability of
prosecutors to effectively represent the public in State
capital cases.
(b) Use of Funds.--
(1) Permitted uses.--Grants awarded under subsection (a)
shall be used for one or more of the following:
(A) To design and implement training programs for State and
local prosecutors to ensure effective representation in State
capital cases.
(B) To develop and implement appropriate standards and
qualifications for State and local prosecutors who litigate
State capital cases.
(C) To assess the performance of State and local
prosecutors who litigate State capital cases, provided that
such assessment shall not include participation by the
assessor in the trial of any specific capital case.
(D) To identify and implement any potential legal reforms
that may be appropriate to minimize the potential for error
in the trial of capital cases.
(E) To establish a program under which State and local
prosecutors conduct a systematic review of cases in which a
death sentence was imposed in order to identify cases in
which post-conviction DNA testing may be appropriate.
(F) To provide support and assistance to the families of
murder victims.
(2) Prohibited use.--Grants awarded under subsection (a)
shall not be used to fund, directly or indirectly, the
prosecution of specific capital cases.
SEC. 323. APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a
process through which a State may apply for a grant under
this subtitle.
(b) Application.--
(1) In general.--A State desiring a grant under this
subtitle shall submit an application to the Attorney General
at such time, in such manner, and containing such information
as the Attorney General may reasonably require.
(2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph
(1) shall contain--
(A) a certification by an appropriate officer of the State
that the State authorizes capital punishment under its laws
and conducts, or will conduct, prosecutions in which capital
punishment is sought;
(B) a description of the communities to be served by the
grant, including the nature of existing capital defender
services and capital prosecution programs within such
communities;
[[Page H10356]]
(C) a long-term statewide strategy and detailed
implementation plan that--
(i) reflects consultation with the judiciary, the organized
bar, and State and local prosecutor and defender
organizations; and
(ii) 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;
(D) in the case of a State that employs a statutory
procedure described in section 321(d)(1)(C), a certification
by an appropriate officer of the State that the State is in
substantial compliance with the requirements of the
applicable State statute; and
(E) assurances that Federal funds received under this
subtitle shall be--
(i) used to supplement and not supplant non-Federal funds
that would otherwise be available for activities funded under
this subtitle; and
(ii) allocated in accordance with section 326(b).
SEC. 324. STATE REPORTS.
(a) In General.--Each State receiving funds under this
subtitle shall submit an annual report to the Attorney
General that--
(1) identifies the activities carried out with such funds;
and
(2) explains how each activity complies with the terms and
conditions of the grant.
(b) Capital Representation Improvement Grants.--With
respect to the funds provided under section 321, a report
under subsection (a) shall include--
(1) an accounting of all amounts expended;
(2) an explanation of the means by which the State--
(A) invests the responsibility for identifying and
appointing qualified attorneys to represent indigents in
capital cases in a program described in section 321(d)(1)(A),
an entity described in section 321(d)(1)(B), or selection
committee or similar entity described in section
321(d)(1)(C); and
(B) requires such program, entity, or selection committee
or similar entity, or other appropriate entity designated
pursuant to the statutory procedure described in section
321(d)(1)(C), to--
(i) establish qualifications for attorneys who may be
appointed to represent indigents in capital cases in
accordance with section 321(d)(2)(A);
(ii) establish and maintain a roster of qualified attorneys
in accordance with section 321(d)(2)(B);
(iii) assign attorneys from the roster in accordance with
section 321(d)(2)(C);
(iv) conduct, sponsor, or approve specialized training
programs for attorneys representing defendants in capital
cases in accordance with section 321(d)(2)(D);
(v) monitor the performance and training program attendance
of appointed attorneys, and remove from the roster attorneys
who fail to deliver effective representation or fail to
comply with such requirements as such program, entity, or
selection committee or similar entity may establish regarding
participation in training programs, in accordance with
section 321(d)(2)(E); and
(vi) ensure funding for the full cost of competent legal
representation by the defense team and outside experts
selected by counsel, in accordance with section 321(d)(2)(F),
including a statement setting forth--
(I) if the State employs a public defender program under
section 321(d)(1)(A), the salaries received by the attorneys
employed by such program and the salaries received by
attorneys in the prosecutor's office in the jurisdiction;
(II) if the State employs appointed attorneys under section
321(d)(1)(B), the hourly fees received by such attorneys for
actual time and service and the basis on which the hourly
rate was calculated;
(III) the amounts paid to non-attorney members of the
defense team, and the basis on which such amounts were
determined; and
(IV) the amounts for which attorney and non-attorney
members of the defense team were reimbursed for reasonable
incidental expenses;
(3) in the case of a State that employs a statutory
procedure described in section 321(d)(1)(C), an assessment of
the extent to which the State is in compliance with the
requirements of the applicable State statute; and
(4) a statement confirming that the funds have not been
used to fund representation in specific capital cases or to
supplant non-Federal funds.
(c) Capital Prosecution Improvement Grants.--With respect
to the funds provided under section 322, a report under
subsection (a) shall include--
(1) an accounting of all amounts expended;
(2) a description of the means by which the State has--
(A) designed and established training programs for State
and local prosecutors to ensure effective representation in
State capital cases in accordance with section 322(b)(1)(A);
(B) developed and implemented appropriate standards and
qualifications for State and local prosecutors who litigate
State capital cases in accordance with section 322(b)(1)(B);
(C) assessed the performance of State and local prosecutors
who litigate State capital cases in accordance with section
322(b)(1)(C);
(D) identified and implemented any potential legal reforms
that may be appropriate to minimize the potential for error
in the trial of capital cases in accordance with section
322(b)(1)(D);
(E) established a program under which State and local
prosecutors conduct a systematic review of cases in which a
death sentence was imposed in order to identify cases in
which post-conviction DNA testing may be appropriate in
accordance with section 322(b)(1)(E); and
(F) provided support and assistance to the families of
murder victims; and
(3) a statement confirming that the funds have not been
used to fund the prosecution of specific capital cases or to
supplant non-Federal funds.
(d) Public Disclosure of Annual State Reports.--The annual
reports to the Attorney General submitted by any State under
this section shall be made available to the public.
SEC. 325. EVALUATIONS BY INSPECTOR GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES.
(a) Evaluation by Inspector General.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the end of
the first fiscal year for which a State receives funds under
a grant made under this title, the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice (in this section referred to as the
``Inspector General'') shall--
(A) after affording an opportunity for any person to
provide comments on a report submitted under section 324,
submit to Congress and to the Attorney General a report
evaluating the compliance by the State with the terms and
conditions of the grant; and
(B) if the Inspector General concludes that the State is
not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant,
specify any deficiencies and make recommendations for
corrective action.
(2) Priority.--In conducting evaluations under this
subsection, the Inspector General shall give priority to
States that the Inspector General determines, based on
information submitted by the State and other comments
provided by any other person, to be at the highest risk of
noncompliance.
(3) Determination for statutory procedure states.--For each
State that employs a statutory procedure described in section
321(d)(1)(C), the Inspector General shall submit to Congress
and to the Attorney General, not later than the end of the
first fiscal year for which such State receives funds, after
affording an opportunity for any person to provide comments
on a certification submitted under section 323(b)(2)(D), a
determination as to whether the State is in substantial
compliance with the requirements of the applicable State
statute.
(b) Administrative Review.--
(1) Comment.--Upon receiving the report under subsection
(a)(1) or the determination under subsection (a)(3), the
Attorney General shall provide the State with an opportunity
to comment regarding the findings and conclusions of the
report or the determination.
(2) Corrective action plan.--If the Attorney General, after
reviewing the report under subsection (a)(1) or the
determination under subsection (a)(3), determines that a
State is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of
the grant, the Attorney General shall consult with the
appropriate State authorities to enter into a plan for
corrective action. If the State does not agree to a plan for
corrective action that has been approved by the Attorney
General within 90 days after the submission of the report
under subsection (a)(1) or the determination under subsection
(a)(3), the Attorney General shall, within 30 days, direct
the State to take corrective action to bring the State into
compliance.
(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the
earlier of the implementation of a corrective action plan or
a directive to implement such a plan under paragraph (2), the
Attorney General shall submit a report to Congress as to
whether the State has taken corrective action and is in
compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant.
(c) Penalties for Noncompliance.--If the State fails to
take the prescribed corrective action under subsection (b)
and is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the
grant, the Attorney General shall discontinue all further
funding under sections 321 and 322 and require the State to
return the funds granted under such sections for that fiscal
year. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent a State which
has been subject to penalties for noncompliance from
reapplying for a grant under this subtitle in another fiscal
year.
(d) Periodic Reports.--During the grant period, the
Inspector General shall periodically review the compliance of
each State with the terms and conditions of the grant.
(e) Administrative Costs.--Not less than 2.5 percent of the
funds appropriated to carry out this subtitle for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2009 shall be made available to the
Inspector General for purposes of carrying out this section.
Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(f) Special Rule for ``Statutory Procedure'' States Not in
Substantial Compliance With Statutory Procedures.--
(1) In general.--In the case of a State that employs a
statutory procedure described in section 321(d)(1)(C), if the
Inspector General submits a determination under subsection
(a)(3) that the State is not in substantial compliance with
the requirements of the applicable State statute, then for
the period beginning with the date on which that
determination was submitted and ending on the date on which
the Inspector General determines that the State is in
substantial compliance with the requirements of that statute,
the funds awarded under this subtitle shall be allocated
solely for the uses described in section 321.
(2) Rule of construction.--The requirements of this
subsection apply in addition to, and not instead of, the
other requirements of this section.
[[Page H10357]]
SEC. 326. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization for Grants.--There are authorized to be
appropriated $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009 to carry out this subtitle.
(b) Restriction on Use of Funds To Ensure Equal
Allocation.--Each State receiving a grant under this subtitle
shall allocate the funds equally between the uses described
in section 321 and the uses described in section 322, except
as provided in section 325(f).
Subtitle C--Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted
SEC. 331. INCREASED COMPENSATION IN FEDERAL CASES FOR THE
WRONGFULLY CONVICTED.
Section 2513(e) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``exceed the sum of $5,000'' and inserting
``exceed $100,000 for each 12-month period of incarceration
for any plaintiff who was unjustly sentenced to death and
$50,000 for each 12-month period of incarceration for any
other plaintiff''.
SEC. 332. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COMPENSATION IN STATE
DEATH PENALTY CASES.
It is 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3214, the bill
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, news stories extolling the successful use of DNA to
solve crimes abound. Consider the following: in 1999, New York
authorities linked a man through DNA evidence to at least 22 sexual
assaults and robberies that had terrorized the city. In 2002,
authorities in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Fort Collins, Colorado,
used DNA evidence to link and solve a series of crimes perpetrated by
the same individual. In the State of Washington during 2001, DNA
evidence provided a major breakthrough of the ``Green River'' killings,
a series of crimes that had remained unsolved for years despite a large
law enforcement task force and a $15 million investigation.
DNA is generally used to solve crimes in one of two ways. In cases
where a suspect is identified, a lawfully obtained sample of that
person's DNA can be compared to evidence from the crime scene. The
results of this comparison may help establish whether the suspect
committed the crime. In cases where a suspect has not yet been
identified, biological evidence from the crime scene can be analyzed
and compared to offender profiles in DNA databases to help identify the
perpetrator.
DNA evidence has also been used successfully to free individuals who
have been wrongfully convicted. In my home State of Wisconsin, one such
individual, Steven Avery, was exonerated by DNA evidence after serving
more than 17 years in the Stanley Correctional Institution in Chippewa
County for a sexual assault and attempted murder he did not commit. He
was released last month, by the same judge who sentenced him in 1986,
after DNA tests exonerated him. Evidence collected from the victim was
determined to belong to another inmate, who is serving time for a
different sexual assault.
In the late 1980s, the Federal Government laid the groundwork for a
system of national, State, and local DNA databases for the storage and
exchange of DNA profiles. This system, called the Combined DNA Index
System, CODIS for short, maintains DNA profiles obtained under Federal,
State, and local systems in a series of databases that are available to
law enforcement agencies across the country for law enforcement
purposes only. Currently, all 50 States and the Federal Government have
laws requiring that DNA samples be collected from some categories of
offenders for inclusion in CODIS. Evidence from a crime scene can be
linked to other crime scenes through the use of the CODIS database to
identify repeat offenders or serial criminals. CODIS can be used to
compare crime scene evidence to a database of DNA profiles obtained
from convicted offenders.
We are fortunate to have this tool available to ensure accuracy and
fairness in our criminal justice system. It has the potential to make
our great justice system even better. However, if DNA samples are not
tested, or not entered into the databases, that potential is completely
wasted. Sadly, the reality is that many samples are not being tested or
recorded in the database. To have this tool available and not to fully
use it is tragic. Many crimes could be solved, many guilty people could
be taken off the streets, and many victims could be spared from further
crimes.
Despite DNA's enormous potential, the current Federal and State DNA
collection and analysis system suffers from a variety of problems. In
many instances, public crime labs are overwhelmed by backlogs of
unanalyzed DNA samples, samples that could be used to solve violent
crimes if the States had the funds to eliminate this backlog. Some
estimates indicate that DNA evidence from at least 300,000 rape crime
scenes have been collected but never analyzed in a crime lab. In
addition, many of the labs are ill equipped to handle the increasing
flow of DNA samples and evidence.
The problems of backlogs and the lack of up-to-date technology result
in significant delays in the administration of justice. The system
needs more research to develop faster methods to analyze DNA evidence.
Legal and medical personnel need additional timing and assistance in
order to ensure the optimal use of DNA evidence to solve crimes and
assist victims. The criminal justice system needs the means to provide
DNA testing in appropriate circumstances for individuals who assert
that they have been wrongly convicted.
This legislation, cosponsored by 250 Members of the House, will help
eliminate these problems. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation
authorizes $755 million over 5 years to eliminate the current backlog
of rape kits and other crime scene evidence awaiting DNA analysis in
crime labs.
It authorizes funding for training for law enforcement, correctional,
court, and medical personnel on the use of DNA evidence. H.R. 3214
funds research to improve forensic technology and authorizes $10
million per year in grants to States, local governments, and tribal
governments to eliminate forensic backlogs. It also authorizes funding
for the use of forensic DNA technology to identify missing persons and
unidentified human remains. Most of these provisions are part of the
President's DNA initiative.
H.R. 3214 also seeks to prevent wrongful convictions. The Innocence
Protection Act provisions of H.R. 3214, which are also the result of
bipartisan and bicameral negotiations, will ensure that our justice
system is working. They establish rules for post-DNA testing of Federal
prison inmates and require the preservation of biological evidence in
Federal criminal cases where the defendant remains incarcerated. These
provisions also authorize funding to help States to provide competent
legal services for both the prosecution and the defense in death
penalty cases. They provide funds for postconviction DNA testing and
bonus grants to States that adopt adequate procedures for providing
postconviction DNA testing and preserving biological evidence.
This legislation came out of the Committee on the Judiciary by a vote
on 28 to 1. After that vote, a few Members raised concerns about the
new grant program in title III which provides grants to States which
put an effective system in place for appointing and compensating
attorneys in capital cases. Members from States that already have a
system established by statute felt that those States should be eligible
to receive these grants for improving both prosecution and defense
training. Along with a few other technical tweaks, the manager's
amendment allows those States to be eligible for these grants.
Additionally, the manager's amendment provides improvements to the
CODIS and NDIS databases by allowing DNA samples which have been
lawfully collected, other than from arrestees or voluntary samples, to
be entered into CODIS. DNA samples from arrestees
[[Page H10358]]
may be analyzed for a match in the database but may not be retained.
This distinction provides a balance between protecting individual
rights and ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to
solve crimes. I think States like Louisiana, which recently had to
track down a serial killer, can appreciate the importance of this
change in the law.
Finally, I would like to respond to a couple of the complaints that I
have heard about this legislation. I have heard that this bill funds
advocacy for those who are opposed to capital punishment. That is not
the case at all. The legislation specifically prohibits the direct or
indirect use of grant funds for representation in a particular case,
and the report language further specifies that grants cannot be used
for advocacy.
Finally, I heard some complaints from people who support capital
punishment that the innocent protection provisions in this bill will
make it more difficult for the death penalty to be imposed upon those
who have been convicted and have exhausted their appeals. Let me say
that I am a supporter of capital punishment; and unless we use the most
modern technology to make sure that those who are convicted are indeed
guilty, and those who are not guilty are not put to death, sooner or
later the Supreme Court will accept the invitation and declare capital
punishment per se a violation of the Constitution.
I believe that this bill is something that death penalty supporters
should be supporting because it will provide for a greater degree of
accuracy in making sure that those who are convicted of a crime and
sentenced to death by a jury in those States which do allow for capital
punishment are truly guilty.
I believe that we have crafted a bill that will do much to assist law
enforcement in solving crimes and ensuring that the right people are
convicted. I urge my colleagues to recognize the benefit of this
legislation and vote in favor of its passage today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1045
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill is the culmination of many months of diligent bipartisan
and bicameral efforts in the service of a common goal, which is to use
all of the tools at our disposal to solve crimes and protect the
innocent. As indicated by the chair of the committee, the bill consists
of three titles. First, it authorizes $755 million for the Debbie Smith
DNA Backlog Grant Program to eliminate the current backlog of
unanalyzed DNA samples in this Nation's crime laboratories which, I
would submit, is bordering on disgraceful. I wish, at this point in
time, to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their efforts to raise
this issue and to see it incorporated in this omnibus bill today.
Secondly, it authorizes grant programs to expand and improve the
capacity of Federal, State and local crime labs to conduct DNA
analyses, 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. Finally, the
bill includes the Innocence Protection Act, a measure which I
introduced several years ago with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
LaHood), which will help ensure Federal and State inmates access to DNA
testing to establish their innocence and will authorize grants to the
States to improve the quality of legal representation for both indigent
defendants and the public in capital cases.
I would like to thank Chairman Hatch, Senator Biden and all our
Senate colleagues for working with us to reach this milestone. I want
to express my particular appreciation to Senator Leahy with whom the
gentleman from Illinois and I first introduced the Innocence Protection
Act some 3\1/2\ years ago and who has worked so hard to advance that
legislation.
As with any compromise, the version of the Innocence Protection Act
that is included in this bill is not all that I had wished for. But it
is an important step forward, and I know that Senator Leahy shares my
satisfaction with this achievement. Finally, I want to pay tribute to
the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), without whose good faith
and commitment this process would not have achieved this breakthrough,
which I believe represents a remarkable achievement for the Committee
on the Judiciary. Our staffs have worked closely together over the
course of these months and both he and they deserve our gratitude. In
particular, I want to thank the chief of staff of the committee, Phil
Kiko, who has made a major personal commitment to this effort and has
devoted countless hours to keeping the negotiations on track. I would
be remiss not to acknowledge the contribution of my own legislative
director, who sits to my right for the last time as this is his last
day as a member of my staff. For me, it will be painful to see him
leave. He is a man of considerable talent, incredible integrity, a
friend and one whose efforts in this particular initiative have truly
been prodigious.
The criminal justice system, Mr. Speaker, is about the search for the
truth. Like all human enterprises, it is fallible. Judges, juries,
police, eyewitnesses, defense attorneys and prosecutors are all human
beings and all make mistakes. As a prosecutor for more than 20 years in
the greater Boston area, I know that I made my share of them, but we
have the means at our disposal to minimize the possibility of error,
especially where lives are at stake. We must use them, and especially
where public safety is at stake, we must use them.
Debbie Smith, a courageous advocate who has done so much to help her
fellow survivors of sexual assault and for whom title I of this bill is
named, has said, ``It gives no comfort to the victims and their
families to know that the wrong person is behind bars and the real
perpetrator is free to walk the streets.''
Surely no person in America understands this better than Kirk
Bloodsworth, for whom we have named another title of the bill. Mr.
Bloodsworth was the first death-row inmate to be exonerated by DNA
testing. Not only did DNA establish that he did not commit the terrible
crime for which he was convicted, but only a few weeks ago from today,
it brought about the identification of the true perpetrator.
Debbie Smith and Kirk Bloodsworth are both among the innocent whom we
seek to protect. By eliminating the backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples
in the Nation's crime labs, the bill will help ensure that DNA
technology is fully deployed to solve past crimes and prevent future
ones. And by ensuring that eligible Federal and State inmates have
access to postconviction testing that can establish their innocence,
the bill will help correct wrongful convictions when they occur and
will prompt in those cases renewed efforts to identify the real
perpetrator, as it did in the case involving Kirk Bloodsworth.
No one knows whether innocent people have been executed since the
death penalty was reinstated in 1976. We do know there have been some
very close calls, however. Since 1976, 111 people in 25 States have
been released after spending years on death row for crimes they did not
commit. Some of them came within days or hours of being put to death.
It was cases like these that have called respected, conservative judges
like Sandra Day O'Connor to express concern that the system, and I
quote: May be well allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.
I think the closing remarks of the chair relative to the position and
the posture of those that support the death penalty ought to mark well
the words of Sandra Day O'Connor when it comes to this particular
legislation. Many of these miscarriages of justice can be corrected by
giving eligible inmates access to DNA testing. DNA testing was
responsible for exonerating 12 of the people freed from death row and
another 126 who were wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. In at
least 34 of these cases, the same tests that exonerated an innocent
person led to the apprehension of the real perpetrator. Yet access to
testing often is litigated, sometimes for years, allowing the real
perpetrator to continue to prey upon the neighborhoods and communities
in this country. Evidence that might have
[[Page H10359]]
established innocence has been misplaced or destroyed. If we are to
advance justice, we must ensure that biological material is preserved
and DNA testing is made available in every appropriate case.
The bill takes a significant step toward achieving this goal by
ensuring eligible inmates access to DNA testing and establishing the
Kirk Bloodsworth Postconviction DNA Testing Program, which will help
States defray those costs. But DNA is not a magic bullet that will
eliminate the problem of wrongful convictions. Biological evidence,
which is utilized in DNA testing, is available in less than 20 percent
of violent crimes. And even where such evidence exists, postconviction
testing only tells us that the system failed. It does not prevent the
failures from occurring in the future. The best way to do that is to
make sure that every indigent defendant who is facing the death penalty
has access to a competent attorney. I was a prosecutor, as I indicated,
for over 20 years and I know the adversarial process can find the truth
only when the prosecution and the defense are up to the job. Our system
of justice depends on it. We cannot tolerate a system that leaves
capital defendants at the mercy of lawyers who are poorly trained and
poorly compensated who fail to conduct a proper investigation and
examine the evidence, or, worse, who drink or sleep their way through
the trial. The reality is that that has occurred in the courts of
justice here in America. We cannot tolerate a system that relies on
reporters and journalism students to develop new evidence which was
never presented in court. We cannot tolerate a system in which chance,
or the luck of the draw, plays such a profound role in determining
whether a defendant lives or dies and a murderer escapes justice.
The bill addresses this problem by authorizing grants to the States
to improve the quality of legal representation for both indigent
defendants and the prosecution and the people in capital cases. Lawyers
assigned by the court to these unpopular and unprofitable cases are
often overworked, inexperienced and sometimes incompetent. It is little
wonder that over half of all death sentences are overturned on appeal
or after postconviction review because of the errors at trial.
Ultimately, however, this bill is not about the death penalty. It is
not about DNA backups. It is about restoring public confidence in the
integrity of the American justice system as a whole, without which our
Constitution and our democracy is put at risk. For the rule of law, due
process and everything that we stand for incorporated in our justice
system and in our jurisprudence is what sets America apart among the
family of nations. That is a goal on which we stand united.
I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to see that this
extremely important initiative is signed into law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) for their great work and their contributions to this
legislation and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for his
outstanding work on it, but most of all let me personally and publicly
thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his work,
because without his work, simply put, we would not be here today. I
want to thank him so much for his hard work here.
DNA technology is a truly amazing tool for the modern-day
investigator and prosecutor. We can identify a perpetrator from one
single hair. We can now indict a person by their DNA and match that
code to a name at a later time. This is the great promise of DNA
technology, the promise of justice. However, sadly, justice is not
always timely. Too many people have had to wait years for justice. They
wait in fear as their rape kits sit on a shelf untested. They wait as
dangerous criminals walk free, free to strike yet again. Debbie Smith,
who has been a courageous leader on this issue, went through this
battle. I have worked with Mrs. Smith and heard her story numerous
times. Each time I hear the passion in her voice on this topic, it
encourages me and others to fight even harder to help the hundreds of
thousands of victims that have DNA samples taken but have not yet found
justice. Today, Debbie, you are victorious. The fact that hundreds of
thousands of pieces of vital evidence essentially sit unused is
outrageous. It is unacceptable. We need to get these rape kits off the
shelves so they can be used to get rapists off the streets.
The Debbie Smith Act is about justice being done. It is about rapists
being caught, convicted with irrefutable DNA evidence and put away for
a long, long time. It is about helping thousands of victims receive
justice by harnessing an exciting, emerging technology.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a
critical part of restoring the public's faith in our justice system.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney) who along with the gentleman from Wisconsin has
done such tremendous work.
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill marks the end of a very long
journey to pass legislation that will put criminals behind bars and
protect the innocent. I thank the extraordinary work of the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) who brought all the pieces together and the long, long
leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiner) and so many others that have brought this successfully to the
floor.
{time} 1100
In the 107th Congress, I authored a bill to provide funding to
process the backlog of DNA evidence after holding a hearing with
Congressman Horn where a courageous rape survivor, Debbie Smith,
testified. After her testimony, there was not a dry eye in the room,
where she told how she was dragged from her home and brutally raped
while her husband slept upstairs. After medical attention and after
many years of living in fear, Debbie finally learned that DNA
processing techniques had produced a cold hit identifying her
assailant.
But her story in many ways is a story of many women. There is great
violence against women in America. Every 2 seconds, there is a sexual
assault against a woman. And we know that DNA techniques can convict
and prevent rapists from attacking in the future. We know that each
rapist will attack at least seven or eight times, according to law
authorities, and each unprocessed DNA kit represents an innocent
person, like Debbie Smith, or a rapist who could attack again if he is
not put behind bars.
This bill will literally protect many women from sexual assault. It
is an extremely important bill, and it will help with this backlog of
hundreds of thousands of rape kits that are sitting on shelves across
America gathering dust, when, if it was processed, could convict and
place a rapist behind bars.
Mr. Speaker, there are many various important aspects of this bill. I
am delighted that it includes the Debbie Smith act. I thank her for her
courageous work, and many, many others.
Earlier this year, I reintroduced similar legislation, along with
Representative Mark Green. The bill would accomplish several critical
objections including providing funding to process the backlog of DNA
evidence, setting national standards for DNA evidence collection,
providing grant money for Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner programs,
and providing funding to train law enforcement authorities on the
collection and handling of DNA evidence.
I am delighted that the legislation that we are about to pass today
includes ``The Debbie Smith Act.'' H.R. 3214 represents a bipartisan
and bicameral effort to pass legislation that will put rapists in
prison.
Many domestic violence groups and activists, including former
Congresswoman Liz Holtzman, have helped us to get to this point. I also
want to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of Lifetime Television in
fighting against domestic violence and sexual assault. And of course,
this bill has had no greater champion than Debbie Smith herself.
Tragically, the dismal reality is that only 6 percent of women who
have been raped will ever see their attacker spend a day in jail.
[[Page H10360]]
Once again, I sincerely thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his
leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this
legislation so that we can put an end to this travesty of justice.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who has been one of the principal
motivators behind this legislation.
(Mr. LaHood asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and our Senate colleagues,
Mr. Hatch and Mr. Leahy, for their many, many hours of work.
I rise today as a supporter of the death penalty and an original
cosponsor of the bill. In the 106th and 107th Congresses, I sponsored
the Innocent Protection Act with my friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), whom I have great admiration for. This
bill, which is now included as section 3, includes the Innocence
Protection Act.
I am a proponent of the death penalty, as a deterrent to violent
crime, and this bill provides materials necessary to repair a flawed
system, and we do have a flawed system. I believe those of us that
support the death penalty have a responsibility to ensure it is applied
fairly. As a just society, we must condemn the guilty, exonerate the
innocent, and protect all Americans' fundamental right to truth. It is
my belief that this legislation allows us to save the death penalty, to
know that we are utilizing it in instances where we are confident of
wrongdoing.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford one more innocent life to be lost due
to inexperienced counsel or unprocessed DNA kits. We must permit
inmates access to postconviction DNA testing to establish innocence and
compensate those who have served time for crimes they did not commit.
In order to continue rightful punishment of the guilty, we must
establish minimum standards for competency of counsel in capital cases.
As long as innocent Americans are on death row, the guilty remain on
our streets. This legislation would increase public confidence in our
Nation's judicial system as it relates to the death penalty.
Individuals have spent years on death row for crimes they did not
commit, some within hours of execution. A death sentence is the
ultimate punishment, and there must be 100 percent certainty of guilt.
In protecting the innocent, we also make sure the guilty do not go
free.
I applaud the chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Delahunt) and our Senate colleagues, and I ask Members to support
this legislation.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, and a
leader on these issues.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
This bill makes DNA technology available to our criminal justice
system in a way that effectively enhances the efficiency and certainty
in exonerating the innocent, as well as identifying, prosecuting and
convicting the guilty.
In recent years, the advent of DNA evidence has shown us,
unequivocally, we have been convicting and incarcerating innocent
people, while allowing many guilty people to go free. As a result of
DNA identifications, many offenders have been convicted. At the same
time, 138 convicted and sentenced individuals have been exonerated by
DNA evidence, including 12 who were on death row.
The numbers of suspects who have been excluded as offenders at the
outset of criminal investigations is even greater. The FBI reveals that
25 percent of suspects who are DNA tested are, in fact, exonerated.
This bill includes the provisions of the Debbie Smith Act, which
authorizes significant funding to process DNA analysis for evidence.
Many evidence kits are not now analyzed simply because of lack of
funding, which means that many offenders are evading justice just
because of lack of funds. This bill will mean they will be tracked down
and prosecuted.
Virginia is a leader in solving crimes and DNA technology, and all
States will benefit from the provisions of the Debbie Smith Act. The
Debbie Smith Act is from Virginia.
While DNA technology has provided uncontrovertible proof that
innocent people have been convicted and sentenced, DNA evidence covers
only a small portion of those who are ultimately found to be innocent.
One frequent reason for innocent people being convicted and sentenced,
even to death, is incompetent and ineffective counsel. This is also the
reason why many convictions are overturned. So we are pleased that
there are minimum standards assured in the bill for qualifications of
attorneys who will represent potential death row inmates.
Mr. Speaker, this will actually also mean that not only innocent
people will not be convicted, but also many of the convictions will in
fact be upheld on appeal.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great reluctance today to oppose
this bill, particularly because of the respect I have for the chairman
and for the main sponsor on the Democratic side. I certainly support
the goals of this legislation, but I think it is appropriate to ask,
why is Congress authorizing $100 million in Federal funds to operate a
State program?
There seems to me to be no reason for Congress to finance the State
public defender system. Basic precepts of federalism dictate that each
level of government should finance its own operations. Once States
become accustomed to and budget for Federal funds, they can never
reject the money, and Federal funding inevitably comes with increased
Federal strings. We have seen that in every other area, most notably
public education.
In the long run, States risk losing control over their own public
defender programs. I believe there is no reason to start down that
path.
I would like to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg),
who has direct experience in the State Attorney General's office.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
(Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise reluctantly to oppose the legislation, in
admiration for the committee chairman and the ranking member, but I
think it is important for our colleagues to know that this legislation,
while it does many good things and is certainly well-intended, is
opposed by the National District Attorney's Association. They wrote the
Speaker of the U.S. House very recently to express their concern. They
talked about the good aspects of the bill, but they expressed concern
on two topics, both the funding in the bill, in terms of what it would
do to death penalty cases, but also and most importantly, the standard
of proof that the bill sets for a new trial.
Specifically, the National District Attorney's Association wrote that
the standard of evidence is set dangerously low. What they mean by that
is under this legislation, convicted felons will have the ability to
make a demand for a retrial under circumstances which are far lower
than any other circumstances similar in other situations, and they
expressed grave concern about that. Convicted criminals will be allowed
to make consecutive, multiple requests for DNA testing under this bill.
They would have an ability to tie up the courts over and over again by
submitting separate requests.
I reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and join the
National District Attorneys' Association in opposing the bill so we can
improve it and pass it in an improved fashion.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Weiner), another author and a champion of the Debbie
Smith Act and a member of the committee.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
[[Page H10361]]
his great leadership and the chairman of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, the way we treat the victims of rape in this country is
a crime. Evidence that is collected at crime scenes often sits for
years, sometimes beyond the statute of limitations, completely
untouched by human hands. When that victim goes into a hospital
emergency room, frequently they sit in triage with dozens of other
people for hours at a time waiting to be examined by someone with no
experience in such cases. With this legislation, we change both of
those things.
More than 350,000 rape kits, evidence, sits on warehouse shelves
throughout the country. We had as many as 16,000 in New York City,
until the city began its own program of trying to analyze that
evidence.
The technology exists, quite frankly, to match victims' DNA collected
at crime scenes with those of criminals. We can make hits and we can
often put people away; 154 cold cases have resulted in cases being
solved, and in 204 more cases, we know who did it. And now it is just a
matter of finding that perpetrator of a crime.
Can you imagine being a person who has been victimized in that way,
having that crime scene created, having the evidence taken in the most
invasive of ways, only to learn that it is sitting and sitting and
sitting without any effort to analyze it.
Why do we have this problem? One word, money. Now the Federal
Government, for the second time in this House we are passing
legislation to deal with that backlog, $75 million over the next 5
years.
For those of us who have become concerned that in the past money has
been grabbed by the States, never makes it to the city, this allows
cities to make direct applications. This is an opportunity for us to
bring justice to thousands of women. This is an opportunity for us to
allow women who have been victimized by rape not to be victimized a
second time by a system that does not pay enough attention to it.
I would point out to my colleagues that one of the indexed crimes is
going up while all the others is going down, and that is crimes against
women, rape. That is because people who perpetrate rape, we know, do it
again and again and again and again. One crime we solve may stop seven
women from being victimized in the future. That is why these provisions
are so important.
We all see DNA evidence through the lens of our own interests. I see
it as both what my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt), says and through my lens as someone who cares about civil
liberties, but also wants these crimes solved.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
I rise in support of this legislation. People across the country,
including 100,000 women watching Lifetime Television, have signed a
petition supporting the bill. My constituents, law enforcement, have
supported this bill. There are a number of reasons.
Nearly 12 years ago, a high school girl from the Pittsburgh area was
raped and murdered shortly after she arrived in Fort Lauderdale for a
vacation. For 12 years, that crime went unsolved. The family of that
young girl was left not only with the loss of a daughter and sister,
but also with the void of not knowing who committed the crime. Finally,
a detective in Florida was able to match the DNA evidence to that of a
convicted murderer on death row in Arkansas, and the mystery was
solved.
That Fort Lauderdale officer said of matching the DNA evidence, ``It
is basically getting that needle in the haystack and making the
haystack smaller.''
This is what H.R. 3214 accomplishes. It makes the haystack smaller.
DNA evidence is not just effective in murder cases, it is an extremely
valuable tool in sexual assault cases.
A year ago, a man kidnapped and raped two women near Pittsburgh, but
they could not identify him because the crimes occurred in the dark. As
our district attorney noted, but for the work of the police and the
coroner's division of laboratories, the man would never have been
apprehended. Instead, because of DNA evidence, his crimes earned him a
sentence of over 200 years in prison.
While these are all positive cases, unfortunately, there is a backlog
of DNA samples. Experts have determined that DNA evidence from over
180,000 rape crime scenes have been collected and never analyzed.
Imagine those families, wondering, waiting and worrying.
In addition, many labs do not have the technology to analyze these
samples. The funding in this bill will provide grants to local
governments to eliminate that backlog, improve technology used to
collect and analyze that DNA evidence, and catch those criminals.
Ultimately, this funding will help not only solve crimes, but it will
make our communities safer.
In addition, the bill will improve the accuracy of our judicial
system for those who believe they may have been wrongfully convicted.
Despite criticisms of opponents of this bill, it will not open the
floodgates of litigation by prisoners claiming innocence. It will not
remove the State's responsibility for prosecution. It will help them to
accomplish their purpose, and that is our job here.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Schiff), a distinguished member of the Committee
on the Judiciary, someone whose input into this effort has been well-
noted, and who has made a very significant contribution.
{time} 1115
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this
time and his effort on this legislation.
As lead cosponsor of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act
of 2003, I rise in strong support of this landmark piece of legislation
that will solve countless crimes and potentially exonerate innocent
individuals wrongly imprisoned.
For years we have attempted to deal with crime by focusing almost
exclusively on increasing sentences of those that we catch rather than
catching those who continue to elude all punishment. We have been tough
on crime, but not always smart about our tactics.
As a former Federal prosecutor, I have long recognized what a
powerful tool the use of DNA profiles has become in solving crime. The
FBI DNA database contains about 1.5 million DNA profiles and has
yielded thousands of matches in criminal investigations, and thousands
of additional matches can and must be made.
For this reason, I introduced legislation earlier this year to
increase the effectiveness of DNA databases. This legislation was aimed
at replicating nationwide the success that many States have had, and I
am pleased that many of these policy improvements have been included in
the bill before us today.
I want to thank the majority and minority members of the House and
Senate for their willingness to work together to incorporate some of
the provisions that I authored to provide additional database searching
capabilities for Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
These additional tools will help solve thousands of cold cases,
including unsolved murders and rapes.
The legislation before us provides much-needed funding to eliminate
the backlog of unanalyzed samples and will do much to protect the
innocent and apprehend the guilty.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers; but I yield
the balance of the time on this side of the aisle to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), my friend and the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Crime and a well-known crime fighter.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise in hearty support for this legislation. I thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood),
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and many others on the
subcommittee and the full committee for their hard work.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Speaker, the two gentlemen from Arizona and their arguments in
opposition to the bill, I think, are really misdirected. The gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said that the system of
[[Page H10362]]
federalism in terms of State public defenders is abused by this bill,
and this really is not the case at all.
One of the reasons capital convictions end up being overturned has
been that there has not been adequate counsel. This bill provides money
to make sure that there is adequate counsel, not just on the defense
side, but on the prosecution side as well, because States that use a
public defender system to provide a defense in capital cases are
eligible under this bill for both prosecution and defense frames.
The other gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) argues that the low
standard for requiring new trials would allow criminals to go free. The
bill does set appropriate standards for postconviction testing and new
trials, but a judge must find that there is reasonable probability that
the defendant did not actually commit the offense in order to even
order a DNA test; and the preponderance of evidence standard would kick
in once the court has ordered the test, and the test is either not
inculpatory or is inconclusive. The court would then take the DNA test
into account with all other evidence in deciding whether or not to
order a new trial.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It will ensure that the guilty have
a better chance of being convicted and will serve their punishment, and
those who are innocent will have a better chance of being found not
guilty and go free. I urge the House to support this bill.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a strong supporter and
cosponsor of H.R. 3214 the ``Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology
Act of 2003.'' This bill would provide prosecutors with solid DNA
evidence, and a stronger defense for the accused. Ultimately, it will
strengthen and renew faith in our judicial system. Allow me to offer
just one example of why this bill is so important.
In 1999, Shawn Armbrust, Tom McCann and other students at the Medill
School of Journalism at Northwestern University discovered that
Illinois death row inmate Anthony Porter had been falsely convicted.
Also through the hard work of other Medill students, the ``Ford City
Four'' were also found to be wrongfully accused. The public exposure of
the discoveries led to a review of all death row cases in Illinois and
ultimately 156 inmates were given a blanket commutation. These
remarkable events focused the global spotlight on Illinois and caused
many to question the basic tenets of the judicial system. Disturbingly,
Illinois, and indeed many other States, may have wrongfully executed
innocent people. The Medill students combined their investigative
reporting skills with new technology to free those wrongly accused.
Similarly, this bill will go a long way towards ensuring that those
wrongly accused. Similarly, this bill will go a long way towards
ensuring that those accused of crimes have a better defense. It will
also help prosecutors ensure that justice is served.
Mr. Speaker, the students at Medill opened the door by highlighting
the flaws in Illinois' system. Now it is our job to guarantee a fair
and impartial judicial system. H.R. 3214, the ``Advancing Justice
Through DNA Technology Act of 2003'' takes us one step closer to
righting the system.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation.
I want particularly to congratulate Mr. Delahunt who first introduced
the Innocence Protection Act several years ago, and has worked
tirelessly on this matter ever since. I want to thank the chairman and
the members of the committee from both sides of the aisle for working
together to put politics and sound bites aside and to pass meaningful
legislation to fight crime and advance the cause of justice.
I am pleased that this bill includes the modified Innocence
Protection Act that aims to reduce the possibility that innocent people
will be put to death. I understand this is a delicate compromise, but I
must say that this bill is only a first step, not a final step, in our
efforts to reform our Nation's capital punishment laws. These laws are
broken and major reform and full funding of this legislation is
necessary to prevent the innocent from being wrongfully convicted and
executed.
It is imperative that we eliminate the shameful backlog of untested
rape kits, and this bill will go a long way toward that goal. On the
issue of rape kits, again, let me say, ``It's about time.'' Many
Members have been personally involved in the fight to test rape kits
for several years now. I have worked with NOW, RAINN, and Liftime
Television to raise awareness of this issue and to build consensus for
decisive action. Together we have pushed, prodded, and demanded that
Federal funding be provided to test these kits right away. Today, we
are one step closer to our goal.
But we are not there yet. These programs still need to be funded, and
I am hopeful that we will not simply authorize funding for these
programs, but also actually appropriate funding when the time comes to
pass the Commerce Justice State appropriations bill.
This issue is too important to ignore. Police Departments must have
the resources they need to solve crimes and put criminals behind bars.
I am pleased that this bill includes a provision similar to the
``Rape Kit DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act'' which I introduced
back in March 2002, which would have provided $250 million to eliminate
the rape kit backlog 2 years ago. The bill before us today acknowledges
that we were right back then when we requested major increases in
funding, since this bill offers even more funding for this task. In
addition, I am pleased to see that, like my bill, the phrase ``rape
kits'' has been specifically added to our current law to further
underscore the need for this funding to address rape crimes in
particular. These heinous crimes deserve our full attention and the
victims of the crimes deserve the certainty that DNA evidence can bring
to them.
Once again, I am pleased to support this bill because it represents a
serious effort to combat crime, locate and apprehend rapists, and use
powerful evidence to put them in prison.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3214,
the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, and urge my
colleagues to vote in support of final passage of this vital
legislation.
Recently, my Honolulu Police Department received a grant from the
U.S. Justice Department to cover the costs of conducting DNA analysis
on backlogged cases, many of which are sexual assault crimes. While I
am sure that we are all grateful for funding such as this, we must
recognize that much more must be done, on a broader, more coordinated
basis, to take full advantage of the legitimate uses of DNA evidence in
criminal justice.
As an original cosponsor of H.R. 3214, I believe that this bill will
bring a far better measure of justice to both victims and accuseds. It
will also provide desperately needed support and resources for our
local law enforcement efforts.
H.R. 3214 establishes new procedures for DNA testing for Federal
inmates, and authorizes $5 million in grants over 6 years to help
States defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing. In addition,
$755 million is authorized to help decrease the backlog of more than
300,000 rape kits, and more than $500 million is provided for grant
programs to improve the capacity of federal, state and local crime labs
to conduct DNA analyses, train criminal justice personnel in how to use
DNA evidence, and promote the use of DNA technology to identify missing
persons.
I commend the work of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary,
especially Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers, who
worked together in a true bipartisan fashion to develop the legislation
and bring it to the floor in such a swift manner. Your efforts yielded
broad support as H.R. 3214 has 249 cosponsors, which includes 69
Republicans, 179 Democrats, and 1 Independent.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support final passage of H.R. 3214.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers legislation
that makes important progress in our fight against crime. H.R. 3214
represents months of bipartisan work by Members who are dedicated to
improving law enforcement in our country. Through the increased and
improved use of DNA evidence, law enforcement officials will be able to
better identify criminals while protecting the innocent. I
wholeheartedly support this bill.
Across the country, States are experiencing unprecedented backlogs in
analyzing DNA evidence in criminal cases. These backlogs create
interminable delays, robbing our system of the accuracy and efficiency
necessary to identify the innocent, punish the perpetrators, and
provide justice to victims. President Bush has recognized the gravity
of this problem, and H.R. 3214 provides $755 million to help enact his
initiative to reduce the backlogs of unanalyzed DNA evidence.
More specifically, H.R. 3214 includes essential provisions that
provide for the testing of thousands of unexamined rape kits. According
to the Department of Justice, across the United States there are at
least 350,000 rape kit DNA samples that need to be analyzed. Many of
these kits have been sitting on the shelves of laboratories for years.
As a woman and as a Member of Congress, I find the delay in the
processing of these kits appalling and unacceptable.
DNA evidence from rape kits can provide solid evidence of a
perpetrator's identity. Often, these samples are the key piece of
evidence, providing ``cold hits'' in cases for which there is no
suspect. It is a crime in itself that the processing of these kits has
been delayed so long. It is time for the Federal Government to provide
the States with the assistance and direction needed to correct this
injustice.
The bill we consider today provides $151 million each year for the
next 4 years for
[[Page H10363]]
States to eliminate their rape kit backlogs. The bill also ensures that
private laboratories can assist in processing rape kits. These measures
will ensure that thousands of women in the United States will finally
have closure.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner,
Representative Delahunt and Members on both sides of the aisle for
their hard work in developing this bipartisan, bicameral compromise.
H.R. 3214 takes the first of hopefully many steps toward improving the
integrity of our criminal justice system.
First and foremost, the bill provides Federal inmates with access to
DNA testing, thereby enabling them to establish their innocence after
being subjected to a wrongful conviction. As many of you know, over the
past few years, more than 110 innocent Americans have already been
exonerated thanks to post-conviction DNA testing. This provision will
ensure that others wrongfully convicted will also have an equal chance
at obtaining justice.
Second, the bill authorizes grants to be awarded to States with the
express purpose of improving the quality of legal representation
afforded indigent defendants in capital cases. Experts have indicated
that many of the most egregious cases in which an innocent person was
wrongfully convicted involved attorneys who were incompetent, ill-
trained, or simply ineffective. These grants will dramatically alter
this situation by providing defendants with defense counsel that meet a
minimum standard of competency.
Finally, the bill contains a provision--not often mentioned--but of
extreme importance to those that have been subjected to a wrongful
conviction. I'm speaking of the provision in the bill that increases
the maximum amount of damages an individual may be awarded for being
wrongfully imprisoned from $5,000 to $50,000 per year in noncapital
cases and up to $100,000 per year in capital cases.
Having pointed out the many virtues of the bill, I must admit this
bill remains far from perfect. I would prefer the legislation include
an outright ban on the use of the Federal death penalty. I also think
the bill would have been considerably better if it addressed some of
the many factors that contribute to the unacceptably high rate of
wrongful convictions, including eyewitness error, perjury, false
confessions, and police torture.
Nevertheless, I strongly support the delicate compromise that has
been reached today. And, I urge my colleagues to support this
worthwhile initiative.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, very seldom do we find a law enforcement tool
that benefits everyone involved in the criminal justice system equally.
DNA is this tool. Prosecutors, defendants and victims all benefit from
the fact that DNA provides an unquestionable evidence of guilt and
innocence. Forensic DNA technology is the future of investigations and
Congress must ensure that the criminal justice system has the necessary
resources so that this technology can keep pace with the future demands
an eliminate any backlog that may slow its progress.
The bill before us would ensure just that. The ``Advancing Justice
Through DNA Technology Act,'' would provide grants to improve the
administration of justice by eliminating the DNA backlog, testing rape
kits, improving forensic science and DNA labs in states, and providing
training for law enforcement, prosecutors, medical personnel in DNA
analysis.
There is no question that the current federal and state DNA
collection and analysis system needs improvement. In many instances,
public crime labs are overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA
samples. In addition, these labs may be ill-equipped to handle the
increasing influx of DNA samples and evidence. More research is needed
to develop faster methods for analyzing DNA evidence and professionals
involved in the criminal justice system need additional training and
assistance to solve crimes.
The bill would also provide grants to states to improve the quality
of legal representation for both indigent defendants and the public in
capital cases. As my Chairman stated earlier, it is important to note
that these grants may not be used for representation in a particular
case or to fund political advocacy. This prohibition will prevent such
dollars from being used to promote an anti-death penalty agenda.
The bill would also allow funding to process post conviction DNA test
if certain criteria are met.
It is important to clarify that the bill allows DNA testing of
evidence only when an applicant can show that it is consistent with a
theory of defense, that testing would produce new material evidence to
support the theory of defense, and assuming it excluded the defendant,
would raise a reasonable probability that the applicant did not commit
the offense.
Further, a judge would only be authorized to grant a new trial after
considering potentially exculpatory DNA evidence in conjunction with
all other evidence in the case.
Finally, a defendant could only apply for post conviction testing if
the specific evidence to be tested was not previously subjected to DNA
testing or new technology in testing has been developed and the
defendant did not voluntarily waive his right to have the evidence
tested. Again, it is important to note, a judge would still have to
have to consider all evidence in the case.
I believe that the Innocence Protection Act provisions in the bill
are necessary to both protect the rights of those wrongfully convicted
and to preserve the integrity of the death penalty. As a proponent of
capital punishment in appropriate cases, I also believe that
individuals convicted of a crime and subsequently sentenced to death by
a jury of their peers should have fair access to competent legal advice
and due process under the law.
It is my opinion that as technology improves and new tools are
available to investigate crimes and prosecute criminals, we must grow
our justice system to accommodate such tools to preserve equal justice
for all.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3214, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________