[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 125 (Wednesday, October 6, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8179-H8204]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      JUSTICE FOR ALL ACT OF 2004

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 823, I 
call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 823, the bill 
is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 5107 is as follows:

                                H.R. 5107

       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 ``Justice 
     for All Act of 2004''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--SCOTT CAMBELL, STEPHANIE ROPER, WENDY PRESTON, LOUARNA GILLIS, 
                AND NILA LYNN CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Crime victims' rights.
Sec. 103. Increased resources for enforcement of crime victims' rights.
Sec. 104. Reports.

                   TITLE II--DEBBIE SMITH ACT OF 2004

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.
Sec. 203. Expansion of Combined DNA Index System.
Sec. 204. Tolling of statute of limitations.
Sec. 205. Legal assistance for victims of violence.
Sec. 206. Ensuring private laboratory assistance in eliminating DNA 
              backlog.

           TITLE III--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2004

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Ensuring public crime laboratory compliance with Federal 
              standards.
Sec. 303. DNA training and education for law enforcement, correctional 
              personnel, and court officers.
Sec. 304. Sexual assault forensic exam program grants.
Sec. 305. DNA research and development.
Sec. 306. National Forensic Science Commission.
Sec. 307. FBI DNA programs.
Sec. 308. DNA identification of missing persons.
Sec. 309. Enhanced criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure or 
              use of DNA information.
Sec. 310. Tribal coalition grants.
Sec. 311. Expansion of Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement 
              Grant Program.
Sec. 312. Report to Congress.

               TITLE IV--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004

Sec. 401. Short title.

        Subtitle A--Exonerating the innocent through DNA testing

Sec. 411. Federal post-conviction DNA testing.
Sec. 412. Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program.
Sec. 413. Incentive grants to States to ensure consideration of claims 
              of actual innocence.

 Subtitle B--Improving the quality of representation in State capital 
                                 cases

Sec. 421. Capital representation improvement grants.
Sec. 422. Capital prosecution improvement grants.
Sec. 423. Applications.
Sec. 424. State reports.
Sec. 425. Evaluations by Inspector General and administrative remedies.
Sec. 426. Authorization of appropriations.

         Subtitle C--Compensation for the wrongfully convicted

Sec. 431. Increased compensation in Federal cases for the wrongfully 
              convicted.
Sec. 432. Sense of Congress regarding compensation in State death 
              penalty cases.

TITLE I--SCOTT CAMBELL, STEPHANIE ROPER, WENDY PRESTON, LOUARNA GILLIS, 
                AND NILA LYNN CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Scott Campbell, Stephanie 
     Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime 
     Victims' Rights Act''.

     SEC. 102. CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS.

       (a) Amendment to Title 18.--Part II of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

                  ``CHAPTER 237--CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS

``Sec.
``3771. Crime victims' rights.

     ``Sec. 3771. Crime victims' rights

       ``(a) Rights of Crime Victims.--A crime victim has the 
     following rights:

[[Page H8180]]

       ``(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the 
     accused.
       ``(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice 
     of any public court proceeding involving the crime or of any 
     release or escape of the accused.
       ``(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public 
     court proceeding, unless the court determines that testimony 
     by the victim would be materially affected if the victim 
     heard other testimony at that proceeding.
       ``(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public 
     proceeding involving release, plea, or sentencing.
       ``(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for 
     the Government in the case.
       ``(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided 
     in law.
       ``(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable 
     delay.
       ``(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with 
     respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.
       ``(b) Rights Afforded.--In any court proceeding involving 
     an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure 
     that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in 
     subsection (a). Before denying a crime victim the right 
     described in subsection (a)(3), the court shall make every 
     effort to permit the fullest attendance possible by the 
     victim and shall consider reasonable alternatives to the 
     exclusion of the victim from the criminal proceeding. The 
     reasons for any decision denying relief under this chapter 
     shall be clearly stated on the record.
       ``(c) Best Efforts To Accord Rights.--
       ``(1) Government.--Officers and employees of the Department 
     of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United 
     States engaged in the detection, investigation, or 
     prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see 
     that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(2) Advice of attorney.--The prosecutor shall advise the 
     crime victim that the crime victim can seek the advice of an 
     attorney with respect to the rights described in subsection 
     (a).
       ``(3) Notice.--Notice of release otherwise required 
     pursuant to this chapter shall not be given if such notice 
     may endanger the safety of any person.
       ``(d) Enforcement and Limitations.--
       ``(1) Rights.--The crime victim or the crime victim's 
     lawful representative, and the attorney for the Government 
     may assert the rights described in subsection (a). A person 
     accused of the crime may not obtain any form of relief under 
     this chapter.
       ``(2) Multiple crime victims.--In a case where the court 
     finds that the number of crime victims makes it impracticable 
     to accord all of the crime victims the rights described in 
     subsection (a), the court shall fashion a reasonable 
     procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly 
     complicate or prolong the proceedings.
       ``(3) Motion for relief and writ of mandamus.--The rights 
     described in subsection (a) shall be asserted in the district 
     court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime 
     or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in 
     the district in which the crime occurred. The district court 
     shall take up and decide such motion forthwith. If the 
     district court denies the relief sought, the movant may 
     petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. The 
     court of appeals may issue the writ on the order of a single 
     judge pursuant to circuit rule or the Federal Rules of 
     Appellate Procedure. The court of appeals shall take up and 
     decide such application forthwith within 72 hours after the 
     petition has been filed. In no event shall proceedings be 
     stayed or subject to a continuance of more than five day, or 
     affect the defendant's right to a speedy trial, for purposes 
     of enforcing this chapter.
       ``(4) Error.--In any appeal in a criminal case, the 
     Government may assert as error the district court's denial of 
     any crime victim's right in the proceeding to which the 
     appeal relates.
       ``(5) Limitation on relief.--In no case shall a failure to 
     afford a right under this chapter provide grounds for a new 
     trial, or to reopen a plea or a sentence, except in the case 
     of restitution as provided in title 18.
       ``(6) No cause of action.--Nothing in this chapter shall be 
     construed to authorize a cause of action for damages or to 
     create, to enlarge, or to imply any duty or obligation to any 
     victim or other person for the breach of which the United 
     States or any of its officers or employees could be held 
     liable in damages. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed 
     to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney 
     General or any officer under his direction.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this chapter, the 
     term `crime victim' means a person directly and proximately 
     harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or 
     an offense in the District of Columbia. In the case of a 
     crime victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, 
     incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardians of the crime 
     victim or the representatives of the crime victim's estate, 
     family members, or any other persons appointed as suitable by 
     the court, may assume the crime victim's rights under this 
     chapter, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such 
     guardian or representative.
       ``(f) Procedures To Promote Compliance.--
       ``(1) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this chapter, the Attorney General of the United 
     States shall promulgate regulations to enforce the rights of 
     crime victims and to ensure compliance by responsible 
     officials with the obligations described in law respecting 
     crime victims.
       ``(2) Contents.--The regulations promulgated under 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) designate an administrative authority within the 
     Department of Justice to receive and investigate complaints 
     relating to the provision or violation of the rights of a 
     crime victim;
       ``(B) require a course of training for employees and 
     offices of the Department of Justice that fail to comply with 
     provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of 
     crime victims, and otherwise assist such employees and 
     offices in responding more effectively to the needs of crime 
     victims;
       ``(C) contain disciplinary sanctions, including suspension 
     or termination from employment, for employees of the 
     Department of Justice who willfully or wantonly fail to 
     comply with provisions of Federal law pertaining to the 
     treatment of crime victims; and
       ``(D) provide that the Attorney General, or the designee of 
     the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of the 
     complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of the 
     final decision of the Attorney General by a complainant.''.
       (b) Table of Chapters.--The table of chapters for part II 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at 
     the end the following:

``237. Crime victims' rights....................................3771''.

       (c) Repeal.--Section 502 of the Victims' Rights and 
     Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10606) is repealed.

     SEC. 103. INCREASED RESOURCES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME 
                   VICTIMS' RIGHTS.

       (a) Crime Victims Legal Assistance Grants.--The Victims of 
     Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 1404C the following:

     ``SEC. 1404D. CRIME VICTIMS LEGAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director may make grants as provided 
     in section 1404(c)(1)(A) to State, tribal, and local 
     prosecutors' offices, law enforcement agencies, courts, 
     jails, and correctional institutions, and to qualified public 
     and private entities, to develop, establish, and maintain 
     programs for the enforcement of crime victims' rights as 
     provided in law.
       ``(b) Prohibition.--Grant amounts under this section may 
     not be used to bring a cause of action for damages.
       ``(c) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729 
     through 3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known 
     as the `False Claims Act'), may be used for grants under this 
     section, subject to appropriation.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to funds 
     made available under section 1402(d) of the Victims of Crime 
     Act of 1984, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry 
     out this title--
       (1) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $5,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 to United States 
     Attorneys Offices for Victim/Witnesses Assistance Programs;
       (2) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $5,000,000 in each 
     of the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, to the Office 
     for Victims of Crime of the Department of Justice for 
     enhancement of the Victim Notification System;
       (3) $300,000 in fiscal year 2005 and $500,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, to the Office 
     for Victims of Crime of the Department of Justice for staff 
     to administer the appropriation for the support of 
     organizations as designated under paragraph (4);
       (4) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $11,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, to the 
     Office for Victims of Crime of the Department of Justice, for 
     the support of organizations that provide legal counsel and 
     support services for victims in criminal cases for the 
     enforcement of crime victims' rights in Federal 
     jurisdictions, and in States and tribal governments that have 
     laws substantially equivalent to the provisions of chapter 
     237 of title 18, United States Code; and
       (5) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $7,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, to the Office for 
     Victims of Crime of the Department of Justice, for the 
     support of--
       (A) training and technical assistance to States and tribal 
     jurisdictions to craft state-of-the-art victims' rights laws; 
     and
       (B) training and technical assistance to States and tribal 
     jurisdictions to design a variety of compliance systems, 
     which shall include an evaluation component.
       (c) Increased Resources To Develop State-of-the-Art Systems 
     for Notifying Crime Victims of Important Dates and 
     Developments.--The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 
     10601 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1404D 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 1404E. CRIME VICTIMS NOTIFICATION GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director may make grants as provided 
     in section 1404(c)(1)(A) to State, tribal, and local 
     prosecutors' offices, law enforcement agencies, courts, 
     jails, and correctional institutions, and to qualified public 
     or private entities, to develop and implement state-of-the-
     art systems for notifying victims of crime of important dates 
     and developments relating to the criminal

[[Page H8181]]

     proceedings at issue in a timely and efficient manner, 
     provided that the jurisdiction has laws substantially 
     equivalent to the provisions of chapter 237 of title 18, 
     United States Code.
       ``(b) Integration of Systems.--Systems developed and 
     implemented under this section may be integrated with 
     existing case management systems operated by the recipient of 
     the grant.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to 
     funds made available under section 1402(d), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       ``(2) $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 
     2008, and 2009.
       ``(d) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729 
     through 3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known 
     as the `False Claims Act'), may be used for grants under this 
     section, subject to appropriation.''.

     SEC. 104. REPORTS.

       (a) Administrative Office of the United States Courts.--Not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act and 
     annually thereafter, the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts, for each Federal court, shall report to 
     Congress the number of times that a right established in 
     chapter 237 of title 18, United States Code, is asserted in a 
     criminal case and the relief requested is denied and, with 
     respect to each such denial, the reason for such denial, as 
     well as the number of times a mandamus action is brought 
     pursuant to chapter 237 of title 18, and the result reached.
       (b) Government Accountability Office.--
       (1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     that evaluates the effect and efficacy of the implementation 
     of the amendments made by this title on the treatment of 
     crime victims in the Federal system.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare 
     and submit to the appropriate committees a report containing 
     the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).

                   TITLE II--DEBBIE SMITH ACT OF 2004

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Debbie Smith Act of 
     2004''.

     SEC. 202. 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 involved in forensic 
     science and nationally

[[Page H8182]]

     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. 203. 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. 204. 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. 205. 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. 206. 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 III--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2004

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``DNA Sexual Assault Justice 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 302. 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 2004, 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. 303. 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;
       (2) court officers, including State and local prosecutors, 
     defense lawyers, and judges;

[[Page H8183]]

       (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. 304. 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. 305. 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. 306. 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. 307. 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. 308. 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. 309. 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. 310. 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. 311. 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, controlled substances, forensic 
     pathology, questionable documents, and trace evidence.

[[Page H8184]]

       ``(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. 312. 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 303 and 304;
       (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 305;
       (6) the steps taken to establish the National Forensic 
     Science Commission, and the activities of the Commission 
     under section 306;
       (7) the use of funds by the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     under section 307;
       (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 308;
       (9) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible 
     entities to eliminate forensic science backlogs under the 
     amendments made by section 311;
       (10) State compliance with the requirements set forth in 
     section 413; and
       (11) any other matters considered relevant by the Attorney 
     General.

               TITLE IV--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Innocence Protection Act 
     of 2004''.

        Subtitle A--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing

     SEC. 411. 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 2004; 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.
       ``(3) Costs.--The costs of any DNA testing ordered under 
     this section shall be paid--

[[Page H8185]]

       ``(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 2004;
       ``(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 2004, 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 to any 
     offense committed, and to any judgment of conviction entered, 
     before, on, or after that date of enactment.

[[Page H8186]]

     SEC. 412. 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. 413. 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 303, 305, 307, and 412 
     shall be reserved for grants to eligible entities that--
       (1) meet the requirements under section 303, 305, 307, or 
     412, 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. 421. 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. 422. 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. 423. 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;
       (C) a long-term statewide strategy and detailed 
     implementation plan that--

[[Page H8187]]

       (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 421(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 426(b).

     SEC. 424. 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 421, 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 421(d)(1)(A), 
     an entity described in section 421(d)(1)(B), or selection 
     committee or similar entity described in section 
     421(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 
     421(d)(1)(C), to--
       (i) establish qualifications for attorneys who may be 
     appointed to represent indigents in capital cases in 
     accordance with section 421(d)(2)(A);
       (ii) establish and maintain a roster of qualified attorneys 
     in accordance with section 421(d)(2)(B);
       (iii) assign attorneys from the roster in accordance with 
     section 421(d)(2)(C);
       (iv) conduct, sponsor, or approve specialized training 
     programs for attorneys representing defendants in capital 
     cases in accordance with section 421(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 421(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 421(d)(2)(F), 
     including a statement setting forth--

       (I) if the State employs a public defender program under 
     section 421(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 
     421(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 421(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 422, 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 422(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 422(b)(1)(B);
       (C) assessed the performance of State and local prosecutors 
     who litigate State capital cases in accordance with section 
     422(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 
     422(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 422(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. 425. 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 424, 
     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 
     421(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 423(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 421 and 422 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 421(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 421.
       (2) Rule of construction.--The requirements of this 
     subsection apply in addition to, and not instead of, the 
     other requirements of this section.

[[Page H8188]]

     SEC. 426. 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 421 and the uses described in section 422, except 
     as provided in section 425(f).

         Subtitle C--Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted

     SEC. 431. 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. 432. 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. After one hour of debate on the bill, it 
shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 
108-737 if offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
or his designee, which shall be considered read and shall be debatable 
for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5107, the Justice for 
All Act of 2004. This bill is called ``justice for all'' because it 
will enhance the rights and protections of all persons who are involved 
in the criminal justice system.
  It does this through two different but complimentary mechanisms. 
First, a new set of statutory victims' rights that are both enforceable 
in a court of law and supported by fully-funded victims-assistance 
programs; and, two, a comprehensive DNA bill that seeks to ensure that 
the true offender is caught and convicted of the crime.
  Victims of crime have long complained that theirs are the forgotten 
voices in the criminal justice system. For example, Roberta Roper, 
whose daughter Stephanie was kidnapped, brutally raped, tortured and 
murdered in 1982, testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
that, unlike her daughter's killers, she had no right to be informed, 
no rights to attend the trial and no rights to be heard before 
sentencing.

                              {time}  1115

  Her experience, and that of many others like her, have led victims' 
rights advocates to push for a victims' rights statute to 
counterbalance the rights provided to the accused under the 
Constitution.
  The victims' rights portion of this bill originated with S. 2329, 
which passed the Senate on April 22, 2004, by a vote of 96 to 1. Like 
S. 2329, this bill contains eight enumerated rights for the victim, 
including the right to be reasonably protected from the accused, the 
right to timely notice of public court proceedings involving the crime, 
the right not to be excluded from such public court proceedings, the 
right to be reasonably heard at those proceedings, the reasonable right 
to confer with the prosecutor, the right to restitution, the right to 
proceedings free from unreasonable delay and the right to be treated 
with fairness and respect.
  Each of these rights is enforceable by both the prosecutor and the 
crime victim. The crime victim and the prosecutor may assert the crime 
victim's right and, if necessary, seek a stay of any proceedings in 
which the victim's rights are being denied. The government or the crime 
victim can then seek a writ of mandamus from the appropriate Court of 
Appeals to ensure that the crime victim's rights are protected.
  In addition, the Justice for All Act contains important provisions to 
ensure that the criminal justice system will continue to operate in an 
efficient manner and that there will be an appropriate level of 
finality to all proceedings.
  Finally, this legislation will provide funds for victims' assistance 
programs at both the Federal and State level. Of particular importance 
are funds to support programs that provide legal counsel for crime 
victims. These funds will help to develop a body of laws to protect the 
rights of victims in the Federal courts. The National Crime Victim Law 
Institute is but one example of an organization that provides the type 
of legal counsel envisioned by the bill.
  The bill is not identical to the Senate-passed bill, but it is close. 
Since Senate passage, the committee has worked with many interested 
parties on these issues. That process resulted in H.R. 5107 which, as 
introduced, addressed many of the concerns raised by S. 2329. However, 
at the Committee on the Judiciary's markup, I stated that we will 
continue to work on this bill until we have the best bill possible. 
After several more weeks of negotiations, I believe that the manager's 
amendment, which I will offer in a bit, moves even further in the right 
direction and now represents that best possible bill.
  The second important element of the Justice for All Act contained in 
titles II through IV pertains to the use of DNA technology. These 
provisions come from H.R. 3214 which passed the House by a vote of 357 
to 67 on November 5, 2003, but continues to await action in the Senate. 
The DNA portion of the Justice for All Act as introduced was identical 
to the version of H.R. 3214 passed by the House last November.
  Titles II through IV of the Justice for All Act seek to resolve 
another problem that victims face, the frustration and depression over 
the length of time it takes to track down and apprehend the attacker. 
DNA samples can help to quickly apprehend offenders and solve crimes if 
law enforcement agencies have access to the most up-to-date testing 
capabilities. Additionally, DNA technology is increasingly vital to 
ensuring accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system. DNA can 
identify criminals with incredible accuracy when biological evidence 
exists, and DNA can be used to clear suspects and exonerate persons 
mistakenly accused or convicted of crimes.
  The current Federal and State DNA collection and analysis system 
needs improvement. The Justice for All Act will provide the necessary 
funding to ensure these critical programs have access to the necessary 
equipment and training. It will provide funds to eliminate the backlog 
of DNA samples in need of testing and provide greater access to 
potentially exculpatory evidence to those who may have been wrongfully 
convicted of a crime.
  However, as we did with the victims' rights portion of the bill, we 
have continued to work with all parties to address concerns relating to 
the DNA testing portions of the bill. Those changes, which are 
reflected in the manager's amendment, greatly improve the bill, and I 
will describe them in greater detail when the amendment comes up.
  As I mentioned earlier, this bill has been the process of lengthy 
negotiations among many different parties. Most of the parties have 
worked to get this result, and I think they now believe that this is a 
good product. Unfortunately, however, the Department of Justice was 
unable to come to this conclusion. I, and the other cosponsors of this 
legislation, bent over backwards to satisfy their concerns. No matter 
how much we bent, nothing would satisfy them. As chairman of the 
committee with the authorizing jurisdiction over the department, I am 
very disappointed with its position on this bill. This bill contains 
many, many good things for the department, and its absolute obstinence 
despite many, many efforts to compromise is completely unreasonable.
  This reminds me of the debate over the breakup of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service in 2002, a clearly dysfunctional agency that 
needed reform. Out of blind bureaucratic inertia, the department 
opposed that much-needed legislation until the very last moment. In 
short, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the department will come to 
its senses, throw off its blinders and endorse this good and important 
legislation.
  I would finally like to thank those who did cooperate in this 
process. The chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) has been a tireless advocate for 
victims' rights, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking

[[Page H8189]]

Member Conyers), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
LaHood), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and all of the 
other important cosponsors for this important bill.
  In addition, I want to thank my own staff, Katy Crooks, and general 
counsel, Philip Kiko, Jay Apperson, and Stewart Jeffries, as well as 
staffers of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), Mark 
Agrast and Christine Leonard. This would not have happened without 
their tireless work. I urge my colleagues to support this very good 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) just indicated, this is 
really the culmination of an extraordinary bipartisan effort towards a 
common goal. I would echo his kudos for so many Members on both sides 
of the aisle, as well as staff. My colleague, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood) who has been here from the beginning; this has 
been an odyssey, if you will, of some 4 or 5 years. On our side of the 
aisle, I want to make particular note of the efforts of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Weiner), the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) and, of course, my friend who I serve with on the 
Committee on the Judiciary, my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Green). But it has to be stated that without the efforts of the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), we would not be here today. It is really that 
simple, and I want to acknowledge his Herculean efforts.
  This comprehensive legislation seeks to repair, if you will, the two 
sides of injustice when mistakes happen. I encourage my colleagues, Mr. 
Speaker, to consider today that the victims of the criminal justice 
system do not always look alike; they just get caught in this system in 
different ways. Think of victims like Debbie Smith of Virginia for whom 
title II of this bill is named. As she has said, and these are her 
words, ``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'' and commit that crime again.
  Debbie Smith is a courageous advocate who has done so much to help 
her fellow survivors of sexual assault. Yet, it took 6 years for the 
DNA evidence to be tested in her case, evidence that ultimately led to 
the capture of that rapist. Only then was she free from what she has 
called an ``emotional prison.''
  And there are other categories of victims in America today, 
individuals charged with false accusations and imprisoned based on 
wrongful convictions. Like my friend, Kirk Bloodsworth of Maryland, the 
first death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing after 10 years 
on death row. Kirk had to convince his lawyer to get the test. DNA 
established Kirk's innocence, and it also led to the identification and 
conviction of the real perpetrator, the real murderer, within this past 
year.
  Debbie Smith and Kirk Bloodsworth are both among the innocent whom we 
seek to protect, Mr. Speaker. Think of the human costs when an innocent 
person is executed or spends long years in jail. Imagine the scars of a 
victim who waits years to know the identity of their assailant. Mr. 
Speaker, we are not talking about hypothetical scenarios here; we are 
talking about real people, ordinary Americans facing the most extreme 
miscarriages of justice.
  Just this past week in Michigan, a murder case was thrown out of 
court after DNA evidence demonstrated that the defendant was innocent. 
Almost every week there is a news story about the use of DNA evidence 
to exonerate the innocent. Earlier this year in Texas, DNA exonerated 
Josiah Sutton. During Mr. Sutton's trial, he asked for a DNA test, but 
his attorney told him that he did not have enough money to obtain it. 
Mr. Sutton was convicted on charges of rape and sentenced to 25 years 
in prison.
  Four and a half years into that sentence, Mr. Sutton benefited from a 
moment of serendipity, pure chance, if you will. Listening to the 
radio, his mother heard about an investigation into DNA testing 
problems at a Houston crime lab. She called reporters, who agreed to 
investigate. A UCLA professor conducted an analysis of the DNA evidence 
and concluded there was no basis for Mr. Sutton's conviction. Since 
then, he has been fully exonerated, and the crime lab has been shut 
down.
  Well, this bill would help the States protect victims. This 
comprehensive legislation, as the chairman indicated, contains four 
titles. I will not review them now; the chairman has done a more than 
adequate job. It also includes the original bill that was filed by 
myself and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) entitled the 
Innocence Protection Act. And here, in the final hours of this 
legislative session, the version of the Innocence Protection Act that 
is included in this bill, it is not all that we wanted, but it is an 
important step forward, and as I just enumerated by pointing just to 
two different cases, it is long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, the criminal justice system is about the search for the 
truth, and like all human enterprises, it is fallible. Judges and 
jurors and police, eye witnesses, defense counsel and prosecutors are 
all human beings and all make mistakes. I served as a prosecutor for 
some 20 years. I made mistakes, and those mistakes are etched forever 
in my mind.
  But we have the means now at our disposal to minimize the possibility 
of error, and especially where lives are at stake, we have no choice, 
we have no option, we must take advantage of them. Because this bill at 
its core is about restoring public confidence in the integrity of the 
American justice system, that system, which really does set us apart, 
sets our democracy apart among the family of nations, that makes us the 
viable, healthy democracy that we are.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to accept the manager's amendment, 
to pass this bill, and, hopefully, in the course of the next several 
days, there will be an awakening, if you will, elsewhere in this city, 
and the bill should be signed before too long, because our system is at 
stake.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the original 
author of the Innocents Protection Act, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. LaHood).
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I offer my thanks to the chairman of the 
committee for hanging in there with us and being so persistent about 
this important piece of legislation. My thanks to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for also hanging in there with us 5 years 
ago when he and I collaborated on this and introduced this bill. I 
think we had an idea it would take this long, but I think we are 
getting close. And if we can persuade the other body that this is the 
right approach and a good bill, I think we will have come a long way 
over the last 5 years to perfect a bill.
  I really thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). He really has helped us 
perfect this idea that there has to be 100 percent certainty in capital 
cases and in death penalty cases.
  As a proponent of capital punishment, I believe very strongly that it 
can be a deterrent, but there has to be 100 percent certainty; and that 
is really what one of the titles the Innocents Protection Act's title 
of this bill really allows for and provides for. We could not be here 
today without really the leadership of the chairman. So I am grateful 
to him.
  When we look in the eyes of people like Kirk Bloodsworth and Debbie 
Smith and to be able to tell them that we are getting close to solving 
some very serious problems and really trying to get to perfection in a 
flawed system. I am very proud of the students at the Northwestern 
University in Chicago for the work that they did that really 
highlighted the flaw in this system after a study where they looked at 
all death penalty cases in Illinois.

[[Page H8190]]

  And as a result of their study, 12 people were released from death 
row because it was found that they were innocent. And at that point I 
think we all realized that there were 12 people on the street that were 
guilty of the crimes that were free people. And that kind of initiative 
and that kind of study really emboldened us to move ahead with this 
legislation. We could not have done it without them.
  We could not have done it without the determination of people like 
Kirk Bloodsworth and Debbie Smith and the chairman and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. Speaker, I have prepared remarks that really go into more detail, 
but I just wanted to be here today to say thanks to all those who have 
had the determination to make this happen. I ask all Members to support 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a supporter of the death penalty, and 
supporter of this bill. In the 106th and 107th Congresses, I sponsored 
the Innocence Protection Act with Mr. Delahunt, which is now included 
as section 3 in the Justice For All Act.
  I am a proponent of the death penalty, as a deterrent to violent 
crime, and this bill provides the materials necessary to repair our 
flawed system. I believe that 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 post-conviction DNA testing to establish innocence 
and compensate those who have served time for crimes they did not 
commit.
  In order to continue to rightfully punish our guilty, we must 
establish minimum standards of competency for 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.
  A death sentence is the ultimate punishment. Its absolute finality 
commands that we be 100 percent certain of an individual's guilt. In 
protecting the innocent, we also make sure the guilty do not go free.
  I applaud the chairman for his determination in crafting this 
bipartisan piece of legislation that assures fundamental accuracy and 
fairness in our judicial system.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff), a distinguished colleague and prominent 
member of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, as a co-sponsor of the Advancing Justice 
Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which passed overwhelmingly in the 
House in November 2003, I rise in strong support of the bill on the 
floor today, the Justice For All Act, which I am also proud to be an 
original co-sponsor of.
  At the outset I want to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). From the very beginning we spoke about 
this bill, two former prosecutors, and while I had been focused mainly 
on the power of DNA to solve unsolved crimes, to go after violent 
felons who still walk the streets, my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), made the equally compelling point that 
DNA evidence has the power to exonerate those charged with the most 
serious crimes, to exonerate those on death row even; as has been 
proved the case, not merely calling into question evidence in an 
original trial, but rather proving conclusively the innocence of people 
who faced the ultimate penalty.
  The DNA database improvements in this bill will help solve countless 
crimes and also exonerate innocent individuals wrongly imprisoned.
  As a former prosecutor, I have witnessed the powerful force that DNA 
profiles have in solving crimes. The FBI's DNA database contains around 
2 million DNA profiles and has yielded thousands of matches in criminal 
investigations, but thousands of additional matches can and should be 
made. For this reason I worked on legislation last year to increase the 
effectiveness of DNA databases. This legislation was aimed at 
replicating on a nationwide basis the tremendous State successes in 
solving crimes using DNA.
  States have taken the lead in expanding DNA and crime-solving 
efforts. For example, in Virginia those efforts have yielded tremendous 
results with forensics officials making over a thousand cold hits, 
finally providing resolution to a great number of unsolved crimes. The 
legislation before us today makes important changes in Federal law in 
order to replicate these tremendous successes on a nationwide basis. 
These additional tools will provide additional database searching 
capabilities for Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies, 
helping to solve thousands of cold cases including unsolved murders and 
unsolved rape cases.
  In addition, the authorization of much needed funding to eliminate 
the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime 
labs and the important Innocents Protection Provision will help ensure 
that inmates have access to DNA testing to establish their innocence.
  I am pleased the House of Representatives is poised to approve these 
changes in a bipartisan fashion, and I hope this legislation will be 
approved by the Congress as a whole and quickly enacted into law.
  In conclusion, I want to again thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), for his pioneering efforts on the 
Innocents Protection Act for bringing really to this body an awareness 
of the power of DNA to exonerate those who have been wrongly convicted 
of the most devastating cases facing the ultimate penalty. We could not 
have more important work before this body.
  I want to compliment the commitment of the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for 
his superlative leadership in this legislation, without which we would 
not be here on the floor today.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman and thank him 
for his leadership, particularly the aspect of the bill which promotes 
and supports victims of crime.
  Providing crime victims with dignity and respect through an 
established and enforceable set of rights ensures that justice is not 
reserved only for the accused but extends to those who have personally 
been affected by the crimes. And after all, we have thousands and 
thousands of people in this country that are affected in an adverse way 
by crime every single year.
  The proposal before us today, the Justice For All Act, H.R. 5107, 
draws heavily from the Crime Victim's Rights legislation providing 
victims with substantive enforceable rights such as the right to be 
present during proceedings and the right to confront assailants at 
those proceedings and the right to be notified about the release or 
escape of the perpetrator from custody.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) also for including in the bill protections that DNA 
testing can afford families who may have members missing or their 
remains unidentified.
  I want to particularly thank and recognize the courageous person in 
the greater Cincinnati area, that is Deborah Culberson, who lost her 
daughter, Keri, to a terrible murder, and the perpetrator is behind 
bars, but they have not been able to locate or identify her daughter's 
remains. And she has stepped forward and she has been just a very 
forceful person behind making sure that we have a DNA database which 
families who have lost loved ones may be able to identify and, 
therefore, provide at least some closure to that family. It is a 
terrible tragedy.
  This may not directly benefit her, but it may benefit others in the 
future who face these tragedies in their own families.
  There is no question that the rights afforded by H.R. 5107 are a 
positive step toward making certain justice is served not only for the 
accused but for the innocent victims. I would strongly encourage very 
strong bipartisan support for this legislation. It is important 
legislation. Some of it is a first step and many of us think we may in 
the future be able to go further. But I think this is a very positive 
step. I want to once

[[Page H8191]]

again thank and recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for his leadership on this.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Weiner), a member of the committee who has 
championed a particular title in this bill and who has brought to the 
attention of the Committee on the Judiciary the need to do something 
about testing for rape kits.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that in DNA people see this 
issue through many different prisms, all of them positive. For those of 
us in this Chamber who are concerned about law enforcement, DNA is 
truly a miracle. It is better than a fingerprint. It is better than a 
video tape. It is better than an eye witness. It is better than a lie 
detector. With DNA we can find out who did a crime, and as other 
speakers have spoken to here, we can also find out who did not do it.
  But the prism I look at this issue through was formed early in my 
congressional career. The prism I look at DNA through is a series of 
cardboard boxes all stacked in a refrigerated warehouse in Long Island 
City. That is where I found rape kits that were evidence for crime 
scenes, completely anonymous except for the numbers written on the side 
of these cardboard boxes, 16,000 of them in early 1999 when I was first 
elected, all collected at crime scenes in New York City, all that had 
not been analyzed, all that had not been processed, all representing a 
victim that was awaiting justice.
  That backlog is heartrending. That backlog does not represent a 
simple number on the box. That backlog represent an individual, an 
individual crime. And the mystery was that it was not being stored in 
that refrigerated warehouse because of any bureaucratic problem. It was 
not being stored there because of any legal loggerhead. It came down to 
one thing: money.
  In 1999 I was proud to introduce in this House for the first time an 
authorization for congressional funding to help cities and states dig 
out of their backlog. With former Congressman Gilman and former 
Congressman McCollum we passed for the first time the Backlog 
Elimination Act. Because of that law, now localities across this 
country have been able to reduce their backlogs. They have not been 
eliminated. Also authorized in that law was a study that we learned the 
problem was not just in New York City; it was in small-town sheriffs' 
offices all around this country, in suburbs, in communities large and 
small.
  The analysis of those rape kits did not just provide statistics; it 
provided hits on cold cases. In New York City alone 154 cold cases that 
had been put on the shelf literally and figuratively were solved. They 
got leads in more than 200 other cases.
  Let us remember the nature of sexual assault. Experts tell us again 
and again that it is a recidivist crime. Someone that we are able to 
catch once and take off the street could conceivably not only solve 
several crimes but prevent several more from happening.
  Last year the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and I tried to 
ramp up this issue one more time. And we realized that we had in 
partnership the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who also saw DNA testing as an 
enormous opportunity. I believe we have crafted under the guidance of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), frankly, a bill that 
in anyone's prism would be seen as positive. There is no reason even in 
this moment of pitch partisanship in this House and in the other body, 
even in this time there is no reason why we should sit any longer on 
this legislation.
  I would urge in the strongest possible terms that we pass this 
legislation. We have passed in similar ways out of the committee and on 
this floor before. We have unified this House behind the issue of using 
DNA to bring justice to those who did crimes, justice to those who did 
not do crimes, and justice to those victims of crimes and their 
families.
  I would urge in the strongest terms possible that we not allow 
election-year politics to stop the other body from doing justice by 
this legislation. I urge passage of H.R. 5107.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by joining my voice 
with others in saluting the chairman. Without his tireless efforts, 
quite simply we would not be here today, and also, of course, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner). Their ideas have made this bill so much better, so much 
stronger and we are all in their debt.
  Mr. Speaker, over 300,000 women and 92,000 men are raped each year in 
this country, the United States. Those numbers represent lives 
destroyed and families shattered. Today we fight back. We will put an 
end to headlines like this one from CNN dated June 29, 2004: ``A 
suspected serial rapist on the street while his DNA sat in the police 
crime lab for years.''

                              {time}  1145

  The rapist in that case reported assaulting upwards of 50 women since 
1988, and yet his DNA sat untested for 2\1/2\ years in an Ohio crime 
lab. I wish I could tell my colleagues that that case was unique. 
Hardly.
  There are thousands and thousands and thousands of untested crime 
scene DNA kits collecting dust on shelves. That means that there are 
likely innocent Americans wrongly sitting behind bars, and even more 
likely, guilty Americans still walking the streets. How can we not act 
and act today?
  This bill will help. This bill will save lives.
  Title II of the bill, the Debbie Smith Act, will provide grants to 
State and local authorities to get rid of their backlogs, to train more 
experts, to ensure better handling and processing of evidence.
  In fact, some estimate that it could quickly lead to solving as many 
as 66,000 open rape and murder cases. That is 66,000 victims and their 
families who would finally have a little justice and, perhaps, just 
perhaps, a little peace of mind.
  How can we not act on this measure? How can we not offer this 
lifeline to victims and their families? How can we not act to prevent 
future crimes by tracking down those who have already attacked and will 
most certainly attack again?
  This is good work. It is important work. I urge my colleagues' 
support. Let us get this done.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler), one of the leaders on the Democratic side on the 
House Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I rise in support of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Act. Although 
the science of DNA analysis has vastly improved our ability to identify 
the guilty and to exonerate the innocent, neither our laws nor the 
resources we have made available have allowed our criminal justice 
system to make full use of that technology. This legislation would go a 
long way toward correcting that terrible gap.
  I want to congratulate, in particular, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) who introduced the Innocence Protection 
Act several years ago and has worked tirelessly on this matter ever 
since. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude. No one whose innocence 
can be proved by DNA evidence should languish in prison because of 
procedural or financial obstacles to the use of that DNA evidence, and 
no one whose guilt can be proved by DNA evidence should remain 
unconvicted and free to menace others because of procedural or 
financial obstacles to the use of that DNA evidence.
  It is imperative, in connection with one of the titles of this bill, 
that we eliminate the shameful backlog of untested rape kits, and this 
bill will go a long way towards that goal. I have worked with NOW, 
RAINN and Lifetime 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 
quickly. Today, we are one step closer to that goal.
  I am pleased that this bill includes a provision very similar to the 
Rape Kit DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination

[[Page H8192]]

Act, which I introduced in March of 2002. That legislation would have 
provided $250 million to eliminate the rape kit backlog. I am also 
pleased that, like my bill and like the bill introduced by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney), this legislation adds funding specifically for rape 
kits.
  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, as this bill does and as I hope the Senate will go along 
with, but I am hopeful that we will also actually appropriate the money 
we are today acknowledging is needed to do the job right.
  This issue is too important to ignore. Police departments must have 
the resources they need to solve crimes and put criminals behind bars.
  This legislation represents a serious effort to combat crime, to 
locate and apprehend rapists, to use powerful evidence to put them in 
prison, and in the larger sense, it also represents a serious effort to 
take out of prison people who do not belong there in light of the 
capability of DNA evidence to prove their innocence.
  We have adopted similar legislation before. I urge its adoption now, 
and I hope the Senate will go along.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who also has been a champion in terms of 
protecting the victims of rape and making an effort to secure the 
apprehension of those who perpetrated that particularly heinous crime.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and for his leadership on so many important issues before this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Justice for All Act, and 
I would like to commend the truly heroic leadership of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan 
(Ranking Member Conyers) and the efforts of many, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and especially the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his tireless work on the Innocence 
Protection Act and for my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Green), who has worked selflessly on passing the Debbie Smith Act for 
many, many years.
  This marks the second time this bill has passed this body this year, 
and I do not understand why both bodies cannot come together to pass 
the same legislation, which so many people support in a bipartisan 
manner, that will lock up the guilty and free the innocent. The longer 
we delay, the longer the victims of sexual assault and rape must wait 
to see their attackers put in prison.
  This bill includes provisions to protect the rights of crime victims, 
as well as legislation, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology 
Act, which includes the Debbie Smith Act and the Innocence Protection 
Act; and the House overwhelmingly passed, last year, both of these to 
improve the use of DNA technology in prosecuting criminals.
  DNA is accurate, it never forgets, it cannot be intimidated by a 
prosecutor; and we have to put this technology to use in convicting 
criminals and freeing the innocent.
  In the 105th Congress, I offered legislation to provide funding to 
process the backlog of DNA evidence in rape cases. After holding a 
hearing, along with former Representative Steve Horn, with a courageous 
rape survivor, Debbie Smith, she recounted how in 1989 she was dragged 
from her kitchen and raped in her backyard while her husband was asleep 
upstairs. She lived in fear for years because the rapist said that he 
would come back and kill her. Then she finally learned after 6 years 
that, through DNA processing, they had found a cold hit identifying her 
assailant, who had been jailed 6 months after her assault for another 
crime, but for 6 long years she literally lived in agony.
  It was because of Debbie Smith's story that I introduced the Debbie 
Smith Act, which would help combat the epidemic of violence against 
women in the United States, where a sexual assault occurs every 2 
minutes.
  We know that DNA processing techniques could serve as a conclusive 
proof in countless other rape cases, and many of us were outraged when 
we learned that there were hundreds of thousands of backlogged rape 
kits collecting dust across this country, but they did not have 
adequate support for the crime labs and adequate government funding to 
process them.
  The bill would accomplish several critical objectives in Title II of 
the bill, the Debbie Smith Act, which includes providing funding to 
process the backlog of DNA evidence, setting national standards for DNA 
evidence collection, creating a national DNA file in the FBI for 
rapists and criminals who cross State lines, and providing grant money 
for a sexual assault forensic examiner program. The police tell us if 
they have the evidence from the same program, it almost always leads to 
a conviction. It also provides funding to train law enforcement 
authorities on the collection and handling of DNA evidence.
  I want to say that the dismal reality in this country is that only 6 
percent, according to the FBI, only 6 percent of women who have been 
raped will ever see their attacker spend a day in jail. Yet we know 
that each unprocessed DNA kit represents a life like Debbie Smith's, 
and it represents a rapist which the FBI tells us will attack, on the 
average, eight times. By processing this evidence, we may be able not 
only to convict rapists, but to prevent them from harming other men and 
women in our country.
  So this is tremendously important legislation, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) have talked 
about other aspects of it. We should all join in passing it. I hope 
that every Member of this body will join in supporting this important 
effort.
  May I add that Lifetime Television started a national petition in 
support of this bill. Many, many organizations, RAINN and others, have 
worked tirelessly with this body to pass it. We thank them, too.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I just want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) for such hard work on this bill and for making the 
changes that they have made to it to make it a better bill. I also want 
to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his 
untiring work on this issue over so many years, and certainly we need 
something like this bill. We need to make sure that those who are 
innocent have their day in court, all they need in court.
  I do have some concerns about this bill. I feel compelled to note 
them. There are still some problematic areas here.
  For example, H.R. 5107 contains a provision permitting post-
conviction DNA testing of convicts who have pleaded guilty. Even though 
those convicts may have not even requested DNA testing that was 
available at the time of their trial, this will permit defendants to 
reopen cases, to retraumatize victims and waste resources, even if 
there is no reason to think that testing will change the outcome of the 
case.
  The bill also contains a 5-year limitation on the duration of its 
proposed post-conviction DNA testing remedy, but it also contains a 
large loophole. A convicted inmate may seek new testing more than 5 
years after the conviction if they can prove that it is in the interest 
of justice. This is an opportunity to flout the time limits and will 
undoubtedly attract lawyers to do so. There is no reason to permit this 
testing past the 5-year mark. To do so simply invites abuse and 
retraumatizes victims.
  A person who is actually innocent, think about it, they have every 
reason to seek relief promptly, to request an available test 
immediately. Those who seek to delay that are simply looking to hide 
something. They are looking to delay until it is impossible for the 
government to retry the case. Think about it. Years later, if we have a 
case where eyewitness and other testimony might conflict or actually 
supplement or add to DNA testing there, it is impossible to retry a 
case 20 years later because witnesses may be gone, other evidence may 
be gone. So we need to make sure

[[Page H8193]]

that the remedies are sought early, not later.
  With that, I hope that these other concerns are addressed with the 
other body so that we can have a good bill on this subject.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush), my friend, who has championed justice 
throughout his career. And I would point out that it was in Illinois, 
through the efforts of some students at the Northwestern School of 
Journalism that first brought this to the attention of the country, and 
that a former governor in Illinois, George Ryan, had the courage to 
raise this issue, to make it a national issue and to bring it to the 
attention of those who are concerned about the search for truth.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 5107.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the full committee, and I certainly 
want to congratulate and commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt).

                              {time}  1200

  The gentleman's tireless work, his dedicated work over the many years 
has certainly borne fruit in this legislation, and I want to extend my 
congratulations to all those who have played such a vital role in 
bringing this legislation to the floor here this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we are considering provides grants, 
approximately $2 billion over 5 years, to States and local governments 
for DNA testing. This bill would help eliminate the backlog in the 
testing of DNA samples from criminal defendants and inmates, including 
those from rape kits. It would also enhance access to DNA analysis by 
inmates and improve the quality of legal representation in State 
capital cases. But, Mr. Speaker, more importantly, this bill will also 
provide victims of crimes with new rights, such as the right to a 
reasonable, accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding 
involving the crime of or the release or the escape of the accused, so 
vital, so necessary for the victims of crime in our country today. It 
would also allow victims to be reasonably heard at any public 
proceeding involving the release, plea or sentencing of the accused.
  Mr. Speaker, as it has been stated time and time again, something is 
wrong with our criminal justice system here in America. I believe that 
the criminal justice system here in America is broken. Time and time 
again we have seen innocent people spend years on death row for crimes 
that they did not commit.
  Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that a death sentence is the ultimate 
punishment in the criminal justice system, and the imposition of such a 
sentence warrants absolute certainty, a 100 percent certainty that the 
person accused is guilty of the crime committed. That said, Mr. 
Speaker, all safeguards should be utilized, including DNA testing, 
before capital sentences are imposed.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and 
others have alluded to the actions of our State, our Governor, and, Mr. 
Speaker, I am proud to stand in support of this legislation. I think it 
is a testimony to his courage that the Congress is now considering this 
bill.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my friend and colleague and a leader on 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer my sincere 
applause to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). I know the work they have done 
and the effective work our chairman has done. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has done a very effective job, along with 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  I mentioned in the rule the very important elements, and I want to 
again refer very quickly to those important elements of this 
legislation and to the legislation that I introduced, H.R.89, Save Our 
Children: Stop the Violent Predators Against Children DNA act of 2003. 
This legislation that we will be passing, and I hope we can work it out 
with the Senate, will lay the groundwork for legislation that will help 
enhance victims' rights and bring about justice.
  I happen to represent an organization that I have worked with over a 
number of years, called Justice For All, a victims' rights 
organization, and this is a good day for them because it does have 
elements of protecting or respecting victims. As the co-chair and 
founder of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I have deeply been 
impacted by the negative violent acts against our children, and I 
believe the legislation I coauthored will be a wonderful complement to 
this.
  We realize the important role that archived DNA evidence played in 
the case of Elizabeth Smart who was kidnapped from her bedroom at 
knifepoint in 2002 by Mitchell, 50, and his wife, Wanda Barzee. So we 
realize this can be an important component to this legislation.
  We also know this legislation will be helpful to the DNA labs around 
the country. I have mentioned the Houston judicial system, which 
convicted Josiah Sutton in 1998 of the rape of a woman whose body was 
dumped in a Fort Bend County field. The court eventually granted him 
bail in March after an independent lab determined that he was sentenced 
to 25 years in prison for a rape he did not commit, but he stayed in 
prison for a very long period of time.
  This DNA bill will help get us back on track for the victims and the 
innocent. Attorney Neufeld remarked that the most important question 
for the people of Houston and the people of Texas is what went wrong 
that allowed this young man to be convicted for a crime he did not 
commit?
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me indicate that I happen to think that the 5-
year provision on filing a motion could be extended, but I am grateful 
that lawyers can show that, if there is compelling evidence or show 
that there is an added reason to go beyond the 5 years, that they will 
have it. I would have preferred a straight 10-year period, because, Mr. 
Speaker, I can assure you that people incarcerated do not have the 
resources, do not hear about it, do not know, and there are not all 
these lawyers running around to represent incarcerated persons. This 
balance is for the victims' families and the tragedy that comes about.
  And the last thing I will say is that I hope we look at the standards 
so that we can be assured of the victims' rights but also the 
protection of this bill. Again, this is a blow against injustice. This 
is a strike for justice and fairness as relates to those incarcerated 
unfairly or charged unfairly and for our victims. And I ask my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important legislation that is 
the result of much work and bi-partisan collaboration. Our work on this 
legislation, H.R. 5107, the Justice For All Act of 2004 will have far-
reaching implications for victims of violent or sexual crimes, 
suspected perpetrators of these crimes, and individuals who have been 
wrongfully implicated for the commission of these crimes. Therefore, it 
is vital that we have good faith collaboration among our colleagues in 
passing it through this body and on the Floor of the Committee of the 
Whole.
  While I am a co-sponsor of this legislation, as I was of one of its 
components, H.R. 3214, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology 
Act, I hope that I am able to work with my colleagues to incorporate 
important provisions of legislation that I introduced, H.R. 89, the 
``Save Our Children: Stop the Violent Predators Against Children DNA 
Act of 2003'' into this legislation as we move to debate before the 
Committee of the Whole.
  As co-founder and chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am 
deeply committed to doing everything possible to ensure the safety of 
our children and the expeditious capture of predators that seek to do 
them harm. The thrust of my legislation is to create a DNA database of 
child sexual offenders, to supplement the database currently maintained 
by each of the 50 States, so that we can better protect America's 
children from these criminals.
  I introduced this legislation, in part, as a result of the important 
role that property-kept and archived DNA evidence played in the case of 
Elizabeth Smart, who was kidnapped from her bedroom at knifepoint in 
2002 by Mitchell, 50, and his wife Wanda Barzee, 58. The safe return of 
Elizabeth Smart has shown

[[Page H8194]]

us that the involvement of DNA evidence can help prevent what otherwise 
might have been a tragic ending.
  The technological tool that this legislation employs must be improved 
because it plays such a key role in streamlining and expediting our 
criminal justice system. Our law enforcement agencies are becoming 
increasingly more reliant upon the analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid 
(DNA) to verify or rule out the identity of a suspect or a charged 
individual in processing criminal cases. The more reliant we become, 
the more our individual rights are at stake. We must, however, 
significantly raise the bar of our technology and the standards of 
review for DNA and ballistics crime lab accreditation to minimize 
mistakes that cost people years of their lives.
  Provided that our bipartisan coalition is fortunate enough to pass 
this legislation today, as I stated before, I hope to engage with my 
colleagues to fashion the inclusion of provisions of my legislation in 
the bill as transmitted to the Committee of the Whole.
  On July 7, I offered an amendment to H.R. 4754, the Commerce, 
Justice, and State Department Appropriations bill. The Jackson-Lee 
amendment called for a $10 million increase of the Community Oriented 
Policing Services (COPS) program that deals with DNA analysis and 
sought to minimize the margin of error that threatens individual 
liberties and rights.


                        crime lab accreditation

  The certification of our crime labs for conformance to our accepted 
standards is done by groups such as the American Society of Crime 
Laboratory Directors (ASCLD). The accreditation process is part of a 
laboratory's quality assurance program that should also include 
proficiency testing, continuing education and other programs to help 
the laboratory give better overall service to the criminal justice 
system. Certification and accreditation are done via a process of self-
evaluation led by individual crime laboratory directors.
  Our labs are not functioning at optimum levels, and this sub-par 
performance translates to the miscarriage of justice and prosecution of 
innocent people. Improvement of lab performance begins with tighter 
employment policies for the lab staff. For example, the ASCLD's 
Credential Review Committee has a DNA Advisory Board and codified 
standards for its technical staff. The following was taken from its 
website:

       DNA Advisory Board Standard 5.2.1.1 provides a mechanism 
     for waiving the educational requirements for current 
     technical leaders/technical managers who do not meet the 
     degree requirements of section 5.2.1 but who otherwise 
     qualify based on knowledge and experience. Consequently, 
     ASCLD has established this procedure for obtaining a waiver.
       One waiver is available per laboratory if the current 
     technical leader/technical manager does not meet the degree 
     requirements of DAB Standard 5.2.1. Waivers are available 
     only to current technical leaders/technical managers. Waivers 
     are permanent and portable for the recipient individual. A 
     laboratory may request a second waiver if the first 
     recipient leaves the employ of the laboratory.

  Although experience is quite important in selecting staff, formal 
education and increased resources are vital when it comes to technical 
performance and the legal implications of that performance. I hope that 
the State and local grant programs found in sections 204, 206, 304, 
308, and 412 will help cities like Houston vastly improve the standards 
of its DNA/ballistics lab accreditation.


                 texas law and crime lab accreditation

  In 2001, Texas passed a law formalizing a process for post-conviction 
access to DNA testing. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, however, 
has not applied the law as it was designed to work and has denied 
access to testing in a number of cases.
  The Texas House passed a bill in April of last year requiring crime 
laboratories that test DNA to meet accreditation standards, a law 
designed to prevent future scandals like the one that recently plagued 
the Houston Police Department.
  The Houston Judicial System convicted Josiah Sutton in 1998 for the 
rape of a woman whose body was dumped in a Fort Bend County field. But 
the Court eventually granted him bail in March after an independent lab 
determined that he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for a rape he 
didn't commit. An audit and an ongoing series of retesting of DNA 
samples by the Texas Department of Public Safety and a crime lab 
professional from Tarrant County revealed potential contamination 
problems at the subject lab as well as poor working conditions and 
inadequate training.
  Attorney Neufeld remarked that:

       [t]he most important question for the people of Houston and 
     the people of Texas is, ``What went wrong that allowed this 
     young man to be convicted for a crime he didn't commit?''
       And it is absolutely clear that what you have going on is a 
     system of malpractice by the Houston crime laboratory that 
     allows its criminalists to distort and conceal evidence.

  What I fear about the dangers of poor training and placement of 
checks may be summed up by what Neufeld added:

       One of the biggest problems of . . . [crime labs] is that 
     they [are] much more concerned with being a servant to the 
     police and prosecutors than they [are] to science . . . [a]nd 
     if people want to pursue a career in science, the word 
     science has to come before law enforcement.

  The objectivity that is required to make forensic science effective 
must be divorced from the latitude exercised by some of our law 
enforcement personnel. Therefore, we must include adequate technology 
and resources to prevent injustice and the ruination of young lives 
like the young Houston man, Josiah Sutton.
  Furthermore, other problems with DNA testing in criminal cases affect 
the inmate directly. The discretion with which the decision whether to 
use DNA testing leaves room for inconsistent adjudication and 
differential treatment of convicted persons. Statutory guidelines 
regarding when to order the test would exclude some cases that might 
not meet the standards but still might deserve testing. Moreover, some 
inmates who seek exoneration may request executive clemency. In 
addition to requiring very difficult measures to achieve justice, some 
argue that the tests administered are inadequate because they do not 
provide specific, clear, and fair procedures for inmates to bring claim 
of innocence.
  In addition to negligent handling or unskilled analysis of DNA 
evidence, the backlog of cases causes our criminal justice system to 
crumble despite the level of sophistication of our technology. Houston 
police have turned over about 525 case files involving DNA testing to 
the Harris County district attorney's office, which has said that at 
least 25 cases warrant re-testing, including those of seven people on 
death row. The numbers will grow significantly as more files are 
collected and analyzed, according to the assistant district attorney 
supervising the project.
  The Fort Worth police crime lab's serology/DNA unit has been 
criticized recently for a backlog that was slowing down court cases. 
The unit's performance suffers from understaffing and overworking.
  My concern as to the practice of using these DNA tests is that the 
inmates' civil liberties and rights to due process are continually 
placed into jeopardy because of a lack of resources. Furthermore, our 
staffing and personnel problems threaten to undermine the benefits of 
technology.
  Mr. Speaker, with this legislation, I hope that the problems that I 
have enumerated can be mitigated and addressed. I support this 
legislation and ask that my colleagues do the same.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) was one of the most vexatious issues in the negotiations that 
are leading up to the manager's amendment, which I will offer shortly. 
And the most difficult of the issues that the manager's amendment deals 
with relates to the time limit for seeking post-conviction DNA testing.
  On one side there were a group of people who wanted to have no time 
limit at all, and a motion could be made at any time as long as the 
defendant was still alive and in jail. On the other side, there were 
people who wanted to have a hard and fast limit, and the shorter the 
limitation possible they were in favor of. Those people said that 
defendants would simply game the system waiting until the witnesses had 
died and the DNA had evaporated and, consequently, there would not be 
enough evidence to conduct a retrial.
  The compromise that was worked out, I think, is a fair one. For the 
first 5 years after conviction, there is a rebuttable presumption in 
favor of the test. After 5 years, there is a rebuttable presumption 
against the test, but the defendant can get a motion granted if the 
court finds that the applicant was incompetent at trial, there is newly 
discovered DNA evidence, or that denial of the motion to retest would 
result in manifest injustice or for good cause shown.
  So, for the first 5 years, the burden is on the prosecution to show 
that the test should not be granted. After 5 years, the burden 
effectively is on the defendant to show that the test should be granted 
for the reasons that I have enumerated.
  I believe that takes care of the concerns that the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) has expressed, and I would

[[Page H8195]]

urge adoption of the manager's amendment and overwhelming support of 
the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National 
District Attorneys Association expressing support for the manager's 
amendment to H.R. 5107 be included in the Record.

                                       National District Attorneys


                                                  Association,

                                  Alexandria, VA, October 6, 2004.
     Hon. Jim Sensenbrenner,
     Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Conyers Jr.,
     Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers: As 
     President of the National District Attorneys Association I 
     want to express my support for the Managers Amendment that I 
     understand has been offered to H.R. 5107 the ``Justice For 
     All Act.''
       The Amendment has addressed our major concerns with the 
     ``Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act.'' The clear 
     indication that Capital Resource Centers are not to be funded 
     through federal funds is important as is the stipulation that 
     the funding is to be used for training counsel in capital 
     cases.
       While the compromise standard for new trials does not reach 
     our criteria of a ``preponderance'' it is a marked 
     improvement over prior efforts.
       The importance of DNA to our system of criminal justice 
     cannot be over emphasized and the problems that our 
     laboratories and courts are encountering are in our daily 
     headlines. ``The Justice For All Act'' provides the resources 
     desperately needed by the states to overcome serious 
     impediments to the effective use of DNA to seek justice and 
     truth in our criminal justice system.
           Sincerely,

                                            Paul F. Walsh Jr.,

                            District Attorney, Bristol County, MA,
               President, National District Attorneys Association.

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as a woman, a former prosecutor and 
judge, and Federal representative for Ohio's 15th district, I rise 
today in support of H.R. 5107, the Justice For All Act.
  Sadly, for far too many women, the grief of rape and other forms of 
sexual assault is compounded by the lack of apprehension, prosecution 
and conviction of the perpetrator. As my community has recently 
witnessed first hand with the arrest of accused serial rapist Robert 
Patton, Jr. in the Columbus area, linking DNA obtained at rape scenes 
to the DNA of felons already convicted of crimes through the FBI's 
combined DNA Index System is often the best change we have to close a 
painful chapter in the lives of women who have been the victims of rape 
and sexual assault. It is also the best chance to put rapists behind 
bars before they have a chance to repeat their crimes.
  Last year, the Federal government provided $100 million to speed up 
the processing of untested DNA through the Department of Justice and 
the DNA Index System. And recently, the House passed legislation to 
increase this amount by over 75 percent to $176 million--mirroring the 
President's budget request.
  Funding is critical, but it is only part of the solution. Making 
needed improvements to the way the system operates is also essential.
  That's why I signed on as an original cosponsor and plan to vote for 
the Justice for All Act today. This legislation will not only increase 
the amount of funding available for DNA analysis, but it will also lift 
some of the barriers that currently stand in the way of ensuring DNA 
technology is used effectively and efficiently. Specifically, it will 
focus on eliminating the backlog of DNA samples collected from crime 
scenes and convicted offenders and improving the DNA testing capacity 
of federal, state, and local crime laboratories. These two initiatives 
will have a direct effect on crime fighting in my state of Ohio, which 
has an extensive backlog of DNA samples that need to be tested.
  I pledge to continue to work with my colleagues to further identify 
the gaps in our system and push for, and implement, effective 
solutions. And I call upon our partners at the state and local level to 
do the same. Together, with the support of law enforcement and the 
citizens in our community, we can put into place a speedier and fairer 
justice system for victims of rape and sexual assault, always keeping 
in mind our ultimate goal of preventing these heinous crimes in the 
first place.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Crime Victims' Rights 
Act was included in H.R. 5107, the Justice for All Act. I have long 
been an advocate of victim's rights. I am the author of the first State 
anti-stalking law in the country. At the Federal level, I introduced 
the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act, which was signed 
into law, making it a felony to cross State lines to stalk someone.
  As a State senator, I worked to establish rights for crime victims in 
California's state constitution as author and campaign co-chair of 
Proposition 115, the Crime Victims/Speedy Trial Initiative. I have been 
working for the passage of a Federal victims' rights bill for quite 
sometime. I introduced a victim's rights bill in the House and 
cosponsored the Chabot bill, included in H.R. 5107.
  Because victims' rights vary from State to State, a Federal law would 
help ensure that all victims have at least a minimum level of rights in 
the criminal justice process. Our legal system must properly protect 
the rights of the accused and it should provide similar protection for 
the rights of victims. The bill establishes enhanced rights and 
protections for all victims of crime and spells out how these rights 
are to be enforced. In addition, the bill helps States implement and 
enforce victim's rights laws and retain their full power to protect 
victims in the ways most appropriate to local concerns and local needs.
  This bill is a positive step forward for crime victims' rights and I 
look forward to it becoming law.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment:
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:
       Page 2, after line 7, in the item in the table of contents 
     relating to TITLE I, strike ``CAMBELL'' and insert 
     ``CAMPBELL''.
       Page 3, line 1, strike ``CAMBELL'' and insert ``CAMPBELL''.
       Page 4, line 12, insert after ``proceeding'' the following: 
     ``, or any parole proceeding,''.
       Page 4, line 16, insert after ``the court'' the following: 
     ``, after receiving clear and convincing evidence,''.
       Page 4, line 18, strike ``affected'' and insert 
     ``altered''.
       Page 4, line 21, insert after ``proceeding'' the following: 
     ``in the district court''.
       Page 4, lines 21-22, strike ``or sentencing'' and insert 
     ``, sentencing, or any parole proceeding''.
       Page 5, line 10, strike ``Before'' and all that follows 
     through ``the right'' on line 11 and inserting ``Before 
     making a determination''.
       Page 7, line 2, strike ``such motion'' and insert ``any 
     motion asserting a victim's right''.
       Page 7, line 12, strike ``day,'' and all that follows 
     through ``trial,'' and insert ``days''.
       Page 7, line 13, insert after the period the following: 
     ``If the court of appeals denies the relief sought, the 
     reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated on the record 
     in a written opinion.''.
       Page 7, line 20, strike ``, or'' and all that follows 
     through the end of line 22 and insert ``. A victim may make a 
     motion to re-open a plea or sentence only if--
       ``(A) the victim has asserted the right to be heard before 
     or during the proceeding at issue and such right was denied;
       ``(B) the victim petitions the court of appeals for a writ 
     of mandamus within 10 days; and
       ``(C) in the case of a plea, the accused has not pled to 
     the highest offense charged.

     This paragraph does not affect the victim's right to 
     restitution as provided in title 18, United States Code.''.
       Page 15, strike line 4 and all that follows through the end 
     of the bill (titles II, III, and IV) and insert the following 
     new titles:

                   TITLE II--DEBBIE SMITH ACT OF 2004

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Debbie Smith Act of 
     2004''.

     SEC. 202. 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)--

[[Page H8196]]

       (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 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) Use of Funds for Other Forensic Sciences.--The 
     Attorney General may award a grant under this section to a 
     State or unit of local government to alleviate a backlog of 
     cases with respect to a forensic science other than DNA 
     analysis if the State or unit of local government--
       ``(1) certifies to the Attorney General that in such State 
     or unit--
       ``(A) all of the purposes set forth in subsection (a) have 
     been met;
       ``(B) a significant backlog of casework is not waiting for 
     DNA analysis; and
       ``(C) there is no need for significant laboratory 
     equipment, supplies, or additional personnel for timely DNA 
     processing of casework or offender samples; and
       ``(2) demonstrates to the Attorney General that such State 
     or unit requires assistance in alleviating a backlog of cases 
     involving a forensic science other than DNA analysis.
       ``(m) 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. 203. 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 charged in an indictment or 
     information with 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 charged in an indictment or 
     information with a crime, and DNA samples that are 
     voluntarily submitted solely for elimination purposes shall 
     not be included in the National 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:

[[Page H8197]]

       ``(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.''
       (e) Increased Penalties for Misuse of DNA Analyses.--(1) 
     Section 210305(c)(2) of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 
     (42 U.S.C. 14133(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``$100,000'' 
     and inserting ``$250,000, or imprisoned for a period of not 
     more than one year, or both''.
       (2) Section 10(c) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 
     Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135e(c)) is amended by striking 
     ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$250,000, or imprisoned for a 
     period of not more than one year, or both''.
       (f) Report to Congress.--If the Department of Justice plans 
     to modify or supplement the core genetic markers needed for 
     compatibility with the CODIS system, it shall notify the 
     Judiciary Committee of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee 
     of the House of Representatives in writing not later than 180 
     days before any change is made and explain the reasons for 
     such change.

     SEC. 204. 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, except for a felony 
     offense under chapter 109A, 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. 205. 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. 206. 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, 
     even if the laboratory makes a reasonable profit for the 
     services.
       ``(B) Redemption.--A voucher or contract under subparagraph 
     (A) may be redeemed at a laboratory operated on a nonprofit 
     or for-profit basis, 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 III--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2004

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``DNA Sexual Assault Justice 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 302. 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 2004, 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. 303. DNA TRAINING AND EDUCATION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, 
                   CORRECTIONAL PERSONNEL, AND COURT OFFICERS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to 
     provide training, technical assistance, education, and 
     information relating to the identification, collection, 
     preservation, analysis, and use of DNA samples and DNA 
     evidence by--
       (1) law enforcement personnel, including police officers 
     and other first responders, evidence technicians, 
     investigators, and others who collect or examine evidence of 
     crime;
       (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.
       (b) 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. 304. 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. 305. DNA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Improving DNA Technology.--The Attorney General shall 
     make grants for research and development to improve forensic

[[Page H8198]]

     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. 306. 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. 307. 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. 308. DNA IDENTIFICATION OF MISSING PERSONS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to 
     promote the use of forensic DNA technology to identify 
     missing persons and unidentified human remains.
       (b) Requirement.--Each State or unit of local government 
     that receives funding under this section shall be required to 
     submit the DNA profiles of such missing persons and 
     unidentified human remains to the National Missing Persons 
     DNA Database of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (c) 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. 309. 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 $250,000, or imprisoned for a period of not 
     more than one year. Each instance of disclosure, obtaining, 
     or use shall constitute a separate offense under this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 310. 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 American Indian and Alaska Native women;
       ``(B) enhancing the response to violence against American 
     Indian and Alaska Native 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 American 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 American Indian and Alaska Native women; and
       ``(B) individuals or organizations that propose to 
     incorporate as nonprofit, nongovernmental tribal coalitions 
     to address domestic violence and sexual assault against 
     American Indian and Alaska Native 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. 311. 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, 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;

[[Page H8199]]

       (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. 312. 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 title and the 
     amendments made by this title.
       (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 title are carried out;
       (3) the distribution of grant amounts under this title 
     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 303 and 304;
       (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 305;
       (6) the steps taken to establish the National Forensic 
     Science Commission, and the activities of the Commission 
     under section 306;
       (7) the use of funds by the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     under section 307;
       (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 308;
       (9) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible 
     entities to eliminate forensic science backlogs under the 
     amendments made by section 202;
       (10) State compliance with the requirements set forth in 
     section 313; and
       (11) any other matters considered relevant by the Attorney 
     General.

               TITLE IV--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Innocence Protection Act 
     of 2004''.

        Subtitle A--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing

     SEC. 411. 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 
     the court finds that all of the following apply:
       ``(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) 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--
       ``(i) 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 2004; or
       ``(ii) knowingly fail to request DNA testing of that 
     evidence in a prior motion for postconviction DNA testing; 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 may 
     produce new material evidence that would--
       ``(A) support the theory of defense referenced in paragraph 
     (6); and
       ``(B) 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.
       ``(10) The motion is made in a timely fashion, subject to 
     the following conditions:
       ``(A) There shall be a rebuttable presumption of timeliness 
     if the motion is made within 60 months of enactment of the 
     Justice For All Act of 2004 or within 36 months of 
     conviction, whichever comes later. Such presumption may be 
     rebutted upon a showing--
       ``(i) that the applicant's motion for a DNA test is based 
     solely upon information used in a previously denied motion; 
     or
       ``(ii) of clear and convincing evidence that applicant's 
     filing is done solely to cause delay or harass.
       ``(B) There shall be a rebuttable presumption against 
     timeliness for any motion not satisfying subparagraph (A) 
     above. Such presumption may be rebutted upon the court's 
     finding--
       ``(i) that the applicant was or is incompetent and such 
     incompetence substantially contributed to the delay in the 
     applicant's motion for a DNA test;
       ``(ii) the evidence to be tested is newly discovered DNA 
     evidence;
       ``(iii) that applicant's motion is not based solely upon 
     the applicant's own assertion of innocence and, after 
     considering all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding 
     the motion, a denial would result in a manifest injustice; or
       ``(iv) upon good cause shown.
       ``(C) For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `incompetence' has the meaning as defined in 
     section 4241 of title 18, United States Code;
       ``(ii) the term `manifest' means that which is 
     unmistakable, clear, plain, or indisputable and requires that 
     the opposite conclusion be clearly evident.
       ``(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.
       ``(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

[[Page H8200]]

     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 compelling 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 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) Not a motion under section 2255.--A motion under this 
     section shall not be considered to be a motion under section 
     2255 for purposes of determining whether the motion 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 the biological evidence in a 
     court proceeding conducted after the date of enactment of the 
     Innocence Protection Act of 2004;
       ``(3) after a conviction becomes final and the defendant 
     has exhausted all opportunities for direct review of the 
     conviction, the defendant is notified 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;
       ``(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; or
       ``(5) the biological evidence has already been subjected to 
     DNA testing under section 3600 and the results included the 
     defendant as the source of such evidence.
       ``(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 2004, 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 title;
       (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 title, 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 to any 
     offense committed, and to any judgment of conviction entered, 
     before, on, or after that date of enactment.

     SEC. 412. 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,

[[Page H8201]]

     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana 
     Islands.

     SEC. 413. 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 303, 305, 308, and 412 
     shall be reserved for grants to eligible entities that--
       (1) meet the requirements under section 303, 305, 308, or 
     412, 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 persons convicted after trial and under a sentence 
     of imprisonment or death for a State felony offense, in a 
     manner that ensures a reasonable process for resolving claims 
     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 persons under a sentence of imprisonment or 
     death for a State felony 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. 421. 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) Apportionment of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Of the funds awarded under subsection 
     (a)--
       (A) not less than 75 percent shall be used to carry out the 
     purpose described in subsection (c)(1)(A); and
       (B) not more than 25 percent shall be used to carry out the 
     purpose described in subsection (c)(1)(B).
       (2) Waiver.--The Attorney General may waive the requirement 
     under this subsection for good cause shown.
       (e) 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)(i) monitor the performance of attorneys who are 
     appointed and their attendance at training programs; and
       (ii) remove from the roster attorneys who--
       (I) fail to deliver effective representation or engage in 
     unethical conduct;
       (II) fail to comply with such requirements as such program, 
     entity, or selection committee or similar entity may 
     establish regarding participation in training programs; or
       ``(III) during the past 5 years, have been sanctioned by a 
     bar association or court for ethical misconduct relating to 
     the attorney's conduct as defense counsel in a criminal case 
     in Federal or State court; and
       (F) ensure funding for the 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. 422. 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. 423. 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;

[[Page H8202]]

       (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;
       (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 421(e)(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 426(b).

     SEC. 424. 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 421, 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 421(e)(1)(A), 
     an entity described in section 421(e)(1)(B), or a selection 
     committee or similar entity described in section 
     421(e)(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 
     421(e)(1)(C), to--
       (i) establish qualifications for attorneys who may be 
     appointed to represent indigents in capital cases in 
     accordance with section 421(e)(2)(A);
       (ii) establish and maintain a roster of qualified attorneys 
     in accordance with section 421(e)(2)(B);
       (iii) assign attorneys from the roster in accordance with 
     section 421(e)(2)(C);
       (iv) conduct, sponsor, or approve specialized training 
     programs for attorneys representing defendants in capital 
     cases in accordance with section 421(e)(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 421(e)(2)(E); and
       (vi) ensure funding for the cost of competent legal 
     representation by the defense team and outside experts 
     selected by counsel, in accordance with section 421(e)(2)(F), 
     including a statement setting forth--

       (I) if the State employs a public defender program under 
     section 421(e)(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 
     421(e)(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 421(e)(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 422, 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 422(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 422(b)(1)(B);
       (C) assessed the performance of State and local prosecutors 
     who litigate State capital cases in accordance with section 
     422(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 
     422(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 422(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. 425. 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 subtitle, the Inspector General of 
     the Department of Justice (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Inspector General'') shall--
       (A) submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate 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 to the 
     Attorney General 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 
     421(e)(1)(C), the Inspector General shall submit to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, not later 
     than the end of the first fiscal year for which such State 
     receives funds, a determination as to whether the State is in 
     substantial compliance with the requirements of the 
     applicable State statute.
       (4) Comments from public.--The Inspector General shall 
     receive and consider comments from any member of the public 
     regarding any State's compliance with the terms and 
     conditions of a grant made under this subtitle. To facilitate 
     the receipt of such comments, the Inspector General shall 
     maintain on its website a form that any member of the public 
     may submit, either electronically or otherwise, providing 
     comments. The Inspector General shall give appropriate 
     consideration to all such public comments in reviewing 
     reports submitted under section 424 or in establishing the 
     priority for conducting evaluations under this section.
       (b) Administrative Review.--
       (1) Comment.--Upon the submission of a report under 
     subsection (a)(1) or a 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 a report under subsection (a)(1) or a 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, issue guidance to the State 
     regarding 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 
     the issuance of guidance under paragraph (2), the Attorney 
     General shall submit a report to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate 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 421 and 422 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

[[Page H8203]]

     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 421(e)(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 421.
       (2) Rule of construction.--The requirements of this 
     subsection apply in addition to, and not instead of, the 
     other requirements of this section.

     SEC. 426. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization for Grants.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated $75,000,000 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 421 and the uses described in section 422, except 
     as provided in section 425(f).

         Subtitle C--Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted

     SEC. 431. 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. 432. 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 House Resolution 823, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on September 22, 2004, the Committee on the Judiciary 
met and considered this combined Victim Rights-DNA bill. It was 
reported voted favorably, without amendment, on a voice vote. At the 
time, I assured my colleagues who raised concerns about the legislation 
that we would work with them as well as the Department of Justice to 
address the concerns. I believe this amendment represents a positive 
compromise in our efforts to address those concerns while protecting 
victims and ensuring DNA testing will be available to exonerate the 
innocent and to identify the guilty.
  In the victims' rights portion of the legislation, we worked out a 
number of provisions with the authors of that part of the bill and the 
victims' rights groups to address issues raised by the Department of 
Justice, the courts, and outside groups. The result was a compromise 
that I believe effectively addresses the needs of victims of crime to 
be more involved in the criminal justice process but will not result in 
delaying court proceedings nor infringing on the right of a defendant 
to a speedy trial.
  To address privacy concerns raised about DNA databases, my amendment 
includes increased penalties for misuse of DNA analyses from $100,000 
to $250,000, and the possibility of a year in prison to discourage any 
person who would seek to misuse DNA for personal gain.
  The amendment also requires a report to Congress if the Justice 
Department plans to modify or supplement the core generic markers 
needed for compatibility with the national DNA database. This is 
essential to reassure those who raise civil liberty concerns that DNA 
samples entered into the combined database would not be used for 
inappropriate purposes.
  The legislation authorizes a substantial amount of money to provide 
grants to States to eliminate their DNA backlogs. Some have raised the 
concern that there may be some States that do not have a substantial 
backlog and, thus, would not receive funds. To ensure that the States 
are effectively using their resources, the amendment allows a State 
that has no DNA backlog to apply for grants for other forensic 
sciences.
  With regard to the provision relating to the post-conviction DNA 
testing, the amendment offers a compromise, as I have previously 
stated, between those who wish to have no time limit on the ability of 
convicted persons seeking DNA testing and those who insist on a 
limitation of time, lest convicted persons game the system by waiting 
until the witnesses have died or waiting until the evidence has 
evaporated, thus effectively preventing a retrial.
  The compromise provides for a 5-year period in which there would be a 
rebuttable presumption in favor of granting the DNA test. After 5 
years, there is a presumption against granting a test unless the court 
finds that the applicant was incompetent, there is newly discovered DNA 
evidence, denial would result in a manifest injustice, or for other 
good cause shown. The amendment also includes tighter language to 
ensure that defendants cannot make repetitive motions for relief.
  Because some of my colleagues in the Department of Justice raised 
concern about the standard for granting a new trial, the amendment 
increases the standard for obtaining a new trial to require that there 
be compelling evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal. 
This represents a compromise from the preponderance of evidence and 
clear and convincing evidence.
  With respect to funding prosecution and defense representation in 
capital cases, the original bill and this amendment do not allow funds 
to be used directly or indirectly to fund representation in specific 
capital cases. Additionally, report language on the DNA provision 
prohibits the creation of capital resource centers.
  This amendment tightens the provisions relating to the training and 
appointment of capital counsel. The amendment specifies that no less 
than 75 percent of the funds shall be used to carry out training for 
representation and the creation of an effective system at the trial 
court level. No more than 25 percent of the funds shall be used to 
carry out training and systems for appellate representation.
  The amendment also reduces the authorization of grants to States to 
provide training to defense attorneys and prosecutors, and to establish 
a system of appointment of counsel in capital cases.
  Finally, the amendment provides for notification 180 days before the 
destruction of biological evidence, and provides that the time period 
will not begin to run until any direct appeal of the conviction was 
complete. This will ensure that the evidence in the case is preserved 
to benefit both the defendant and the government if the conviction is 
reversed.
  I believe this amendment represents a good compromise package which 
will help ensure justice for all. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I support the amendment offered by the chairman for the reasons 
that he has enumerated.

                              {time}  1215

  I would also make the observation, Mr. Speaker, in line with the 
points made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and particularly the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) regarding the ability of law 
enforcement to identify sexual predators in the aftermath of the 
efforts made in New York City to reduce that backlog of DNA tests in 
those boxes that were sitting in that cold storage warehouse somewhere 
in Long Island.
  I would remind those that are concerned about removing sexual 
predators from the streets of our communities in this country, and 
particularly let me remind our colleagues in government at the 
Department of Justice, the passage of this bill will undoubtedly lead, 
not to hundreds but to thousands of rapists and other sexual predators 
being identified. And as the gentleman from New York indicated, there 
is a likelihood, particularly in this category of criminals who tend to 
have a

[[Page H8204]]

high rate of recidivism, that they are committing these crimes again 
all over this country.
  Let me suggest that this particular act, Justice for All, is and will 
be, if signed by the President, one of the most effective means of 
reducing the incidence of sexual violence in this country. We have an 
opportunity here to defend women and others that are victims of sexual 
predators. I would think that that fact alone would compel those who 
are in opposition to this bill, whoever they may be, to rethink their 
position and support it.
  Let me conclude by saying again to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), this has been a remarkable effort, and to you, Mr. 
Speaker. This proposal before us today, this resolution, really does 
reflect a good-faith effort to address concerns raised by victims 
organizations, lawyers, civil liberties groups, prosecutors, and all 
those who have an interest in justice.
  I urge the passage of the manager's amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
823, the previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________