[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 18, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H3502-H3505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KATIE SEPICH ENHANCED DNA COLLECTION ACT OF 2010
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4614) to amend part E of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for incentive
payments under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
program for States to implement minimum and enhanced DNA collection
processes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4614
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA
Collection Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. INCENTIVE PAYMENTS UNDER THE BYRNE GRANTS PROGRAM FOR
STATES TO IMPLEMENT MINIMUM AND ENHANCED DNA
COLLECTION PROCESSES.
Section 505 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Payment Incentives for States to Implement Minimum
and Enhanced DNA Collection Processes.--
``(1) Payment incentives.--
``(A) Bonus for minimum dna collection process.--Subject to
subparagraph (B), in the case of a State that receives funds
for a fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2011) under
this subpart and has implemented a minimum DNA collection
process and uses such process for such year, the amount of
funds that would otherwise be allocated under this subpart to
such State for such fiscal year shall be increased by 5
percent.
``(B) Bonus for enhanced dna collection process.--In the
case of a State that receives funds for a fiscal year
(beginning with fiscal year 2011) under this subpart and has
implemented an enhanced DNA collection process and uses such
process for such year, the amount of funds that would
otherwise be allocated under this subpart to such State for
such fiscal year shall be increased by 10 percent.
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Minimum dna collection process.--The term `minimum
DNA collection process' means, with respect to a State, a
process under which the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation is searched at least one
time against samples from the following individuals who are
at least 18 years of age:
``(i) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with,
or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that
consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt
to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.
``(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with,
or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has
an element
[[Page H3503]]
involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and
that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 5 years, or
an attempt to commit such an offense.
``(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged
with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that
has an element of kidnaping or abduction punishable by
imprisonment for 5 years or more.
``(B) Enhanced dna collection process.--The term `enhanced
DNA collection process' means, with respect to a State, a
process under which the State provides for the collection,
for purposes of inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System
(CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of DNA
samples from the following individuals who are at least 18
years of age:
``(i) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with
a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or
voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or
voluntary manslaughter.
``(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged
with a criminal offense under State law that has an element
involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and
that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, or
an attempt to commit such an offense.
``(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged
with a criminal offense under State law that consists of a
specified offense against a minor (as defined in section
111(7) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
(42 U.S.C. 16911(7)), or an attempt to commit such an
offense.
``(iv) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged
with a criminal offense under State law that consists of
burglary or any attempt to commit burglary.
``(v) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with
a criminal offense under State law that consists of
aggravated assault.
``(3) Expungement of profiles.--The expungement
requirements under section 210304(d) of the DNA
Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132(d)) shall apply
to any samples collected pursuant to this subsection for
purposes of inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System
(CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
``(4) Reports.--The Attorney General shall submit to the
Committee of the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
and the Committee of the Judiciary of the Senate an annual
report (which shall be made publicly available) that--
``(A) lists the States, for the year involved--
``(i) which have (and those States which have not)
implemented a minimum DNA collection process and use such
process; and
``(ii) which have (and those States which have not)
implemented an enhanced DNA collection process and use such
process;
``(B) describes the increases granted to States under
paragraph (1) for the year involved and the amounts that
States not receiving an increase under such paragraph would
have received if such States had a minimum or enhanced DNA
collection process; and
``(C) includes statistics, with respect to the year
involved, regarding the benefits to law enforcement resulting
from the implementation of minimum and enhanced DNA
collection processes, including the number of matches made
due to the inclusion of arrestee profiles under such a
process.
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection for each of
the fiscal years 2011 through 2015, in addition to funds made
available under section 508, such sums as may be necessary,
but not to exceed the amount that is 10 percent of the total
amount appropriated pursuant to such section for such fiscal
year.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
General Leave
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010,
otherwise known as Katie's Law, will help prevent violent crime, help
exonerate the innocent, give our police access to cutting-edge forensic
techniques, and reduce the cost of criminal investigations. More
importantly, Katie's Law will help victims of violent crime and their
families get answers and the closure that they need.
Katie's Law encourages the States to adopt effective DNA collection
procedures. States that meet the minimum standards set by the bill are
entitled to a 5 percent bonus in Byrne/JAG funding for State and local
law enforcement. States that adopt the enhanced standards are entitled
to a 10 percent bonus. These funds are in addition to funds awarded
through Byrne/JAG. States that do not adopt collection procedures that
meet the new Federal standards are not penalized in any way. Katie's
Law also directs the Attorney General to report to Congress once a year
on the progress made by the States in adopting new collection
procedures.
Katie's Law is named for Katie Sepich, who is remembered as a vibrant
young woman and a graduate student at New Mexico State University. In
the summer of 2003, Katie was brutally raped and murdered just outside
her home. Katie's parents, Jayann and Dave Sepich, waited for 3 long
years as the investigation continued, without producing any strong
leads. In January, 2006, thanks to the efforts of the Sepich family,
the New Mexico State legislature passed a measure to require the
collection of DNA evidence in the investigation of certain felonies.
Months later, investigators linked a DNA sample from Katie's attacker
to a sample taken from a repeat violent offender who had been in and
out of police custody for years. Confronted with the evidence, the
suspect pled guilty to the crime and is now serving 69 years in prison
without parole.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the law enforcement officers who solved this
crime. But consider the fact that Katie's assailant was arrested for
aggravated burglary just weeks after attacking Katie. If a DNA sample
from that individual had matched evidence from the crime scene, the
case might have been solved years earlier; police officers could have
saved thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours; and Katie's
family might not have spent 3 painful years in investigatory limbo.
Katie's Law provides the resources necessary to solve crimes sooner.
This measure passed the House with overwhelming support last Congress,
and has cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. I commend my
colleagues, Harry Teague and Adam Schiff, for their tireless work on
this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4614.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4614, which I am proud to be a
cosponsor of. The Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act authorizes
incentive grants to States that implement programs to collect DNA
samples from felony arrestees. DNA arrestee programs provide an
important law enforcement tool to identify the perpetrators of open and
unsolved cases. DNA arrestee programs can also prevent crime by linking
suspects to crimes and locking them up before they have a chance to
strike again.
Katie Sepich's case clearly demonstrates the value of collecting DNA
from felony arrestees. Just 3 months after brutally raping and
murdering Katie in 2003, Gabriel Avilla committed an aggravated
burglary for which he was convicted in 2004, absconded from his
sentencing, and was apprehended again in 2005. His DNA was finally
taken and matched to Katie's case--a match that could have been
obtained just 3 months after Katie's murder, saving valuable law
enforcement resources and providing some closure to Katie's families
and friends.
New Mexico's DNA arrestee law was passed in 2006. Twenty-one other
States now have similar laws, including my home State of Florida.
Florida's DNA arrestee program solved a 25-year-old murder when the
suspect was arrested last May--and his DNA collected--on felony drug
charges. In New York, DNA collected following a drunk-driving arrest
linked a suspect to three rape/homicides dating back over 20 years.
By collecting DNA samples from arrestees and uploading them into a
national DNA data base, or CODIS, States can empower police and
prosecutors not only to solve cold cases but hopefully apprehend
violent criminals before more innocent people are victimized and
precious lives are lost. H.R. 4614 provides incentive grants to States
that implement and use DNA arrestee programs.
The amended version of this bill before us today makes several
important improvements to the bill. First, it removes the provision
that would have penalized States that do not have arrestee programs by
deducting 5 percent
[[Page H3504]]
of their Federal grant money. Second, it creates a two-tiered system
for incentive grant awards based upon whether the State has a
``minimum'' or ``enhanced'' arrestee program, which I hope will provide
greater flexibility to States receiving those grants. Third, the
amended bill places a cap on the authorization level, limiting it to 10
percent of the amount appropriated for the Byrne/JAG grant program.
I support these improvements to the bill. However, I also recognize
there are other areas where the bill could also be improved. A
significant hurdle to States implementing DNA arrestee programs is the
cost. In Georgia, for instance, where legislation was introduced
earlier this year to require DNA collection from arrestees, it would
cost as much as $7 million a year to operate the program.
Unfortunately, Georgia will not be eligible for an incentive grant
under H.R. 4614 until it fully implements a DNA arrestee process. A
possible solution would be to allow States, such as Georgia, to use
grant funding to implement their DNA arrestee law, where the costs are
arguably their highest.
In addition, H.R. 4614 awards incentive grants to States with DNA
arrestee programs not just once, but year after year after year.
Perhaps the emphasis should be on those States that have not yet
enacted or implemented a DNA arrestee program. Because this grant
increase is compulsory under this bill, the Justice Department will be
required to administer the additional bonus to States even if Congress
does not appropriate additional funds for the program. There is concern
that this may ultimately result in depleting Byrne/JAG funds from
certain States, thus creating a penalty to States without the DNA
arrestee law. I hope to work with all concerned parties and resolve the
lingering issues as this legislation moves forward.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may
consume to the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Teague).
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Katie Sepich
Enhanced DNA Collection Act, or Katie's Law. First of all, I want to
thank my colleagues, Representative Schiff and Representative Reichert,
for all their hard work on this important piece of legislation. Most of
all, I want to thank Jayann and Dave Sepich, constituents of mine from
Carlsbad, New Mexico, for bringing this important issue to my attention
and for crusading tirelessly to help pass arrestee DNA laws nationwide.
This bill is named for their daughter, Katie Sepich, who was brutally
raped and murdered in Las Cruces, New Mexico, in 2003, at the age of
22. Jayann and Dave have bravely taken this devastating and horrific
experience that most people, including myself, could never imagine, and
have turned it into something that will save lives and help families
across the country. If this law had been on the books in New Mexico at
the time of Katie's murder, her case would have been solved 3 months
after her death when her killer was arrested for breaking into the home
of two women after watching them through a window. Instead, Katie's
killer was not identified until over 3 years after her murder and was
left to roam the streets for much of that time.
Since Katie's murder in 2003, New Mexico has passed a State law
allowing law enforcement to collect DNA from those arrested for certain
felonies. Twenty-two other States as well as the Federal Government
have passed similar laws. I have introduced my version of Katie's Law
at the Federal level to make sure that this life-saving law that is in
effect in my home State of New Mexico and 22 others is the standard for
every State.
The Katie's Law I have introduced will incentivize States to, at the
very least, match certain arrestees to the national DNA bank, the
Combined DNA Information System, or CODIS, by providing the States that
comply with a 5-percent increase in their Byrne/JAG funds. There is no
requirement for retention of the DNA record after it is checked against
CODIS. Katie's Law will also further incentivize those States which not
only match arrestees but also contribute to the CODIS with a 10-percent
increase in Byrne/JAG funds. Not only do these incentives encourage
States to implement arrestee DNA laws, but they provide much needed
support to local law enforcement as they work to keep our streets safe.
DNA has rightly been called the fingerprint of the 21st century. By
simply swabbing a person's cheek and then coding junk DNA with only 13
indicators, law enforcement can accurately identify perpetrators of a
crime without regard to race or criminal history. This practice
protects the privacy of arrestees, since any identifying information,
such as genetic predisposition to disease, is not coded for use by law
enforcement. In addition, my bill contains an expungement clause to
make sure there is a way for DNA to be removed from CODIS should a
person not be convicted of the crime for which they were arrested.
The full potential of DNA as a crime-solving tool cannot be realized
if we're not collecting DNA from those arrestees for certain violent
crimes. Statistics show that 70 percent of America's crimes are
committed by 6 percent of America's criminals. This means many of those
who have committed some of the most heinous crimes in our society are
repeat offenders.
{time} 1600
One study conducted in Chicago tracked the known criminal activity of
eight individuals and determined that 60 violent crimes, including 53
murders, would have been prevented if the eight individuals' DNA had
been taken on their first felony arrest. Similarly, a serial killer and
rapist from California named Chester Turner raped and murdered at least
12 women between 1987 and 1998, during which time he was also arrested
a total of 18 times. Had Turner been swabbed for DNA when he was
arrested on January 26, 1987, he would have been linked to his first
victim, and 11 women would still be alive today. These women are not
just names in a police report. They are real people with aspirations,
with families, with husbands, with people who love them, and they
didn't have to die. Worse still, an innocent man named David Jones was
wrongfully convicted of three of the Turner murders and served 11 years
in prison before he was finally absolved.
Considering the potential for false identification and the number of
repeat offenders in our criminal justice system, it's only common sense
that if someone is arrested for a crime like rape, murder, or
kidnapping, we make sure we identify them fully before we release them
back onto the streets. We use fingerprints for this very purpose, and
we should use the modern equivalent, junk DNA.
Katie's Law simply allows law enforcement to treat DNA evidence left
at the scene of a crime as they do fingerprints. The fact is that the
science has advanced, and we should allow law enforcement to use all of
the technology available to them, including the fingerprints of the
21st century, to reduce expensive and unjust false convictions, bring
closure to victims by solving cold cases, better identify criminals,
and keep those who commit violent crime from walking the streets.
Jayann and Dave have experienced something that no parent should ever
have to, the loss of a child. We have the power through advanced DNA
collection to make one less parent grieve for a child, one less husband
grieve for a wife, or one less child lose a parent.
I ask that you support this legislation.
Mr. ROONEY. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), a former sheriff and
cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to join with Mr. Teague and
Mr. Schiff to fight for Katie's Law. Think about what I just said,
``Katie's Law.'' We have a bill named after a young lady, a 22-year-old
woman whose life was ripped away from her, so we name a law, and her
name will live on. Katie Sepich from Carlsbad, New Mexico, 22 years
old. Her life was ripped away from her by a monster.
I think most Members of Congress know that I had a full career as a
police officer, a sheriff's deputy, SWAT
[[Page H3505]]
commander, homicide detective, hostage negotiator, a street cop for 33
years, and finally as the sheriff before I left the Sheriff's Office. I
know firsthand what DNA does.
In 1982, I was a 31-year-old homicide detective standing by the
riverside, collecting the bodies of three young women, 16 years old,
dead. No DNA then. All we had was blood-typing. We were fortunate,
though, that we had some bodily samples that we could take that we
froze and we saved for 19 years. In 1987, the team of detectives that
were together on that case had an opportunity to search the home of a
suspect and take body fluids from him. He chewed on a piece of gauze.
We put it in a test tube, and we froze that. In 1987, ``CSI'' of course
had not been heard of, but we were still using science--entomology,
biology, archaeology, forensic pathology, et cetera. No computers. No
DNA. Still blood-typing.
In 1998-99, the first DNA science became known to law enforcement, so
we sent our sample to the only two labs that were dealing with DNA at
that time. They said, Your samples were too fragile, too small. We
might destroy them if we tested them further, so come back in a couple
of years. In 2001, we submitted the samples, and we came back with a
DNA match on three of the bodies. With that DNA match, out of 40,000
tip sheets, 10,000 items of evidence, we solved 48 murders. We closed
50 cases. He pled guilty to 48 murders because of DNA.
I can't tell you how important Katie's Law is to saving lives. That
person who committed these 48 crimes and many, many more took the
deaths of these young women, ended their lives tragically and ruined
the lives of their families for the rest of their lives. There can
never be closure for those families and never be closure for their
friends. There can only be answers to questions, Who killed my
daughter? Who took her life and why? That's what DNA does. But it also
protects the innocent, as most of you know. There have been some over
the past several years that have actually been released from prison
because they found the guilty person.
So there are all kinds of reasons why this law needs to be passed
today, and I hope every Member votes ``yes'' to pass Katie's Law in
honor of the tragedy, the loss of Katie's life, and in honor of all
those who have been taken so senselessly.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how many
further speakers the floor manager has remaining?
Mr. ROONEY. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield for as much time as he
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
DNA is perhaps the most powerful and most reliable tool at the
disposal of criminal investigators today. As a former Federal
prosecutor during the early days of the DNA revolution, I have seen
firsthand the power of DNA to prove the guilt or innocence of a
suspect.
In 2008, I proposed an amendment to the Debbie Smith Act
reauthorization that would have put in place a 10 percent bonus in
Byrne/JAG grants for States to collect DNA profiles from anyone
arrested for certain serious felonies. It passed the House with a
strong bipartisan vote, but the clock ran out in the Senate. I could
not be more pleased that Congressman Harry Teague has taken up the
banner on this issue. I hope this year we can finally get it across the
finish line.
You have heard the tragic story of Katie Sepich, for whom this bill
is named. Katie was a bright, vivacious 22-year-old from New Mexico who
was murdered in 2003. Police were able to extract the DNA profile of
her attacker from beneath Katie's fingernails, but they got no match to
anyone in the offender database. When they finally did get a hit on the
attacker's DNA, they discovered that the murderer had been arrested
repeatedly for burglaries after 2003, but because he was never
convicted, he was not required to submit a DNA sample for the database.
Had New Mexico had arrestee testing at the time, Katie's killer would
have been taken off the streets years earlier.
There are 23 States, including my home State of California, that have
now adopted DNA collection upon arrest or indictment for at least some
violent felonies. By doing so, these States increase the power of the
national database to solve crimes. The bonus in Federal law enforcement
grants provided by Katie's Law will encourage additional States to
adopt arrestee testing law. The legislation preserves civil liberties
protections by requiring the FBI and the States to expunge the DNA of
suspects who are acquitted.
We know the power of this technology. We also know the cost of delay,
the cost of an inadequate database, and it is simply this: that as we
wait to run these samples or if we miss the opportunity to test the
samples of those arrested for violent felonies, we know with a virtual
statistical certainty that people we could take off the street, people
that have committed rape or committed murder, will, in the interim
between the time we do take the sample of the arrestee or between the
time we do erase the backlog, will go on to murder others, to rape
others. And what a tragedy it is when we have this tool not to utilize
it to its full extent.
I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership on this issue.
Harry Teague has been a great champion. Congressman Reichert has been a
great champion, and we are indebted to their leadership on this. This
legislation is the product of years of work and debate in Congress. It
will help law enforcement use DNA to solve crimes, and it will keep in
place existing civil liberties protections. So hats off to
Representatives Teague and Reichert for their leadership on this issue
and to Chairman Conyers and to Chairman Scott for their support as
well. I urge its adoption.
Mr. ROONEY. Madam Speaker, I want to personally thank Mr. Teague from
New Mexico and Mr. Reichert from Washington for their leadership on
this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California). The
question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Johnson) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4614,
as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. ROONEY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________