[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.
____________________