[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 125 (Wednesday, October 6, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8175-H8177]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5107, JUSTICE FOR ALL ACT OF 2004
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 823 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 823
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5107) to protect
crime victims' rights, 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. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative
Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin or his designee, which shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order or demand
for division of the question, shall be considered as read,
and shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and
(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this morning the Rules Committee met and granted a
modified closed rule for H.R. 5107, the Justice for All Act. The
measure is a combination of a House-passed bill, H.R. 3214, expanding
DNA testing to catch more criminals and to allow wrongly convicted
people a chance to prove their innocence, and a Senate-passed bill, S.
2329, that improves victims' rights.
I am also very pleased that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) included a manager's amendment to address Members'
concerns and the Department of Justice, as well as victims' rights
groups' concerns. H.R. 3214 passed the House in November, 2003, by a
357-67 margin. S. 2329 passed the Senate in April 2004 on a 96-1 vote.
Regarding the crimes victims portion of this bill, the legislation
seeks to remedy the apparent disparity between
[[Page H8176]]
the great number of rights and protections afforded to a person accused
of a crime, but the relatively few rights and remedies for victims. The
bill amplifies the existing rights for victims and sets forth an
explicit enforcement mechanism. Additionally, H.R. 5107 provides
funding for legal counsel for victims to assist them in the process and
to ensure that these rights are enforced.
On the DNA side of this bill, it seeks to position DNA testing so it
can finally reach its enormous potential.
Unfortunately, the current Federal and State DNA collection and
analysis system suffers from a variety of problems. In many cases
public crime laboratories 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.
In my home State of North Carolina, the number of unprocessed DNA
samples is 7,000 and the number of unprocessed DNA rape kits is
estimated to be 6,000. North Carolina authorities say that the
processing and entering of the DNA backlog could solve hundreds of
crimes.
This legislation will authorize a significant increase in resources
to better use DNA in solving crimes, taking dangerous people off the
streets and sparing many innocent Americans from further crimes. To
that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
North Carolina for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of the underlying legislation. I commend our
colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary for their excellent
bipartisan work. Perhaps this should be a model to all of us here in
the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill makes DNA technology available to
our criminal justice system in order to enhance its efficiency and
certainty in exonerating the innocent as well as identifying and
convicting the guilty.
News stories praising the successful use of DNA to solve crimes are
plentiful. To give just an example, consider the following: After 14
years on Florida's death row, Frank Lee Smith died of cancer on January
30, 2000, before he was exonerated of rape and murder. An autopsy
revealed that the victim had been raped and sodomized. Through shaky
eyewitness descriptions, the police put together a composite sketch
that set off Frank Lee Smith's arrest on April 29, 1985. The
prosecution relied on the identification of Smith by the victim's
mother and Smith's criminal history. The jury unanimously recommended
the death penalty.
Mr. Speaker, only after Smith's death was a blood sample from him
obtained by the State prosecutor's office which was then tested against
a semen sample taken from the victim. The samples were sent to the FBI
laboratory, which reported that Frank Lee Smith was excluded as the
depositor of the semen. On December 15, 2000, 11 months after his death
and 14 years after his 1986 conviction, Frank Lee Smith was exonerated
based on exculpatory DNA testing results. These results not only
cleared Smith of the crime, but also identified Eddie Lee Mosley, a
convicted rapist and murderer, as the true perpetrator.
The case of Frank Lee Smith is not unique. Since 1976, 111 people in
25 States have been released after spending years on death row for
crimes they did not commit. 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.
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 laboratories are overwhelmed by backlogs
of unanalyzed DNA samples, as pointed out by my colleague and friend
from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick). In addition, many of the
laboratories are ill-equipped to handle the increasing flow of DNA
samples and evidence.
Furthermore, the problems of backlogs and the lack of up-to-date
technology result in significant delays in the administration of
justice. For example, some estimates indicate that DNA evidence from at
least 300,000 rape crime scenes have been collected but never analyzed
in a crime lab.
As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the cases of those exonerated by DNA
testing have revealed disturbing fissures and trends in our criminal
justice system. They confirm that our criminal justice system is
fallible. Judges, juries, police, defense attorneys and prosecutors are
all human and all make mistakes.
But we have the means at our disposal to minimize this. The
underlying legislation could have an immediate and direct effect, and I
urge my colleagues to support its passage. With our action today, many
crimes can be solved, many guilty people can be taken off the streets,
and many victims can be spared from further crimes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for this rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the original author of the House
bill who has been working on this issue for a long, long time.
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a part of a group of people that have worked
on this bill. Primarily my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and
I some 5 years ago started working on this bill.
This is a very good bill. I urge Members to support the rule and to
support the bill.
{time} 1045
We have been down this path a few times before in the House, and we
are trying to find a way to get our friends in the other body to come
along with us. But I got involved in this as a proponent of the death
penalty and somebody who supports the death penalty, but also as a
result of a group of students at Northwestern University several years
ago, who did a study of those sitting on death row and found that of
those who were on death row that had been given the death sentence, 12
of them were actually innocent and were released by the governor of the
State of Illinois because they were innocent, which means that there
were 12 people out on the street who had actually committed the crimes.
This bill allows for the ability of people who have the
responsibility for prosecuting these cases to have 100 percent
certainty, through the use of DNA testing, through the use of providing
that competent counsel is provided to defendants, people that really
know how to deal with capital cases. And it is a very important way to
really fix a flawed criminal justice system, a system that has allowed
for innocent people to sit on death row and guilty people to be out on
the street.
It is a very good bill, and I want to really congratulate the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee
on the Judiciary, for his willingness to look at this bill and to do
some things that he felt were important; and also the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for hanging in there with us on this.
I think we have a chance to pass this this year. And it would be a
very good fix, to fix a flawed system in our country and really give a
sense of opportunity to people that innocent people are not going to be
convicted, and guilty people are going to be found and tracked down and
locked up and, in some instances, be given the death penalty for
serious crimes.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I look forward
to the House passing this bill today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, add my
appreciation to the cosponsors of this legislation, particularly the
gentleman
[[Page H8177]]
from Illinois and the gentleman from Massachusetts. Americans cannot
imagine how important this legislation is. And as I do that, let me
recite some of the elements of the bill that are very important and to
be able to congratulate them on that.
The bill would increase the authorized funding levels for the DNA
analysis backlog elimination program to $151 million per year for the
next 5 years. This will help eliminate the large backlog of DNA
evidence that has not been analyzed and provide resources to remedy the
lack of training, equipment, technology, and standards for handling DNA
and other forensic evidence.
This bill also authorizes funding for training for law enforcement,
correctional court and medical personnel on the use of DNA evidence,
and authorizes grant programs to reduce other forensic science backlog,
research, new DNA technology, and promotes the use of DNA technology to
identify missing persons and provides funds for the FBI and the
administration of DNA programs.
I wanted to list that because this is an act of love and respect for
justice. It includes respect for the rights of the States who protect
the injured and the victims. At the same time, it has the approval and
support of the Innocence Project, which has worked with many of us
around the Nation, but particularly, Mr. Speaker, in the State of
Texas.
Let me tell the Members why this legislation is so crucial, and
particularly for States like mine.
Over the last 2 years we have had a complete collapse of the DNA
laboratory in the State of Texas, but let me specifically cite Harris
County. Unfortunately, unlike the two legislators who have cosponsored
this legislation, in Texas, of course, we have not had the kind of
reasonable response by our district attorney and our lab is still in
collapse.
This funding and this sort of guide will help local jurisdictions,
including State governments and county governments who have the
responsibility to prosecute on behalf of the victims, to get it right.
We have not been able to get it right. And, frankly, in not getting it
right, we have seen the 12 that have been on the streets in Illinois
and the many victims in the State of Texas.
For example, Josiah Sutton was an individual whose DNA had not been
appropriately reviewed, and, therefore, he was convicted and sentenced
to many years for rape he did not do. This legislation helps to bring
that into focus and to be able to suggest that we can handle justice
for the victims, but as well, justice for the unfortunately accused.
Let me also say what this DNA legislation will do. It will provide
the standards that are necessary and the guidelines that prosecutors
need to adhere to. In our State, Senator Rodney Ellis has called for a
moratorium of any executions, particularly coming out of Harris County,
because we have a faulty DNA. The tragedy, of course, is that it has
not been listened to.
I hope with the successful passage of this legislation we will be
able to send a loud message. I would have wanted, however, a fuller
open rule on this legislation, but my sensitivity to the importance of
it would suggest that even without the open rule, we should move
forward.
But let me suggest that there are many other aspects of DNA that can
be used effectively. My legislation that has been enthusiastically
embraced by John Walsh of ``America's Most Wanted'' had to do with
providing a DNA bank for child predators. We know that over the years
this House has been in a flurry around the incidences of abducted
children, where children have been abducted. The tragedy that occurred
in Utah with respect to Ms. Smart, I had her father testify before our
committee dealing with issues on child abduction.
And let me just say that having a DNA bank that banks those who have
been convicted of acts against children, violent acts, sexual acts
against children, would also help our law enforcement across the Nation
be able to both find the culprit and also relieve the innocent of the
burden of being convicted falsely. We know in that case one of the
individuals that was incarcerated ultimately died and happened not to
be the particular perpetrator in that case.
But let me just say that I am hoping that the legislation will find
legs as we might move into the next Congress.
But I do want to stand and support this legislation, Justice for All
Act of 2004, and say to my constituents, and particularly the district
attorney of Harris County, it is time to wake up. It is time to
recognize new technology. It is time to embrace this legislation as it
helps our local jurisdiction. And I might say that at the passage of
this legislation today, I hope my district attorney, District Attorney
Rosenthal, will recognize the importance of a moratorium on executions
as they did in Illinois.
I ask my colleagues to support the rule and to support this
legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________