[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 131 (Monday, September 27, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7509-S7515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Burr):
S. 3841. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit
the creation, sale, distribution, advertising, marketing, and exchange
of animal crush videos that depict obscene acts of animal cruelty, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, Senators Merkley and Burr and I are
introducing the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010. The bill
would criminalize the creation, sale, distribution, advertising,
marketing, and exchange of animal crush videos. Representative Gallegly
has sponsored a House companion bill, the Prevention of Interstate
Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act, H.R. 5566.
Animal crush videos often depict obscene, extreme acts of animal
cruelty designed to appeal to a specific, prurient sexual fetish. These
crush videos were the target of a 1999 Federal statute that the United
States Supreme Court struck down earlier this year in U.S. v. Stevens.
In Stevens, the Supreme Court overturned the 1999 Act banning
depictions of animal cruelty on the basis that it was
unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment.
The Stevens case did not involve crush videos and the Court
specifically stated that it was not deciding whether a statute limited
to crush videos would be constitutional. Instead it left the door open
for Congress to enact a narrowly tailored ban on animal crush videos.
Our legislation would ban animal crush videos that fit squarely
within
[[Page S7510]]
the obscenity doctrine, a well-established exception to the First
Amendment. The Senate Judiciary Committee received testimony earlier
this month on the obscene nature of crush videos. Dr. Kevin Volkan, a
psychology professor with an expertise in atypical psychopathologies,
testified about the sexual nature of crush videos and the specific
paraphilias associated with them. He stated that in his professional
opinion the crush videos contain elements of specific forms of
paraphilia in varying degrees and that people, usually men, watch crush
videos for sexual gratification. The Humane Society's two crush video
investigations also confirm the inherent sexual nature of many crush
videos. Those investigations also found a growing market for custom-
made videos for those with crush paraphilia.
The United States also has a long-history of prohibiting speech that
is essential to criminal conduct. In the case of animal crush videos,
the videos themselves drive the criminal conduct depicted in them.
Every State and the District of Columbia have laws criminalizing the
animal cruelty depicted in the videos, but these laws are hard to
enforce. The acts of extreme animal cruelty are committed secretively
and anonymously. The nature of the videos also makes it difficult to
determine when and where the crimes occurred or that the crime occurred
within the relevant statute of limitations. These prosecutorial
difficulties are confirmed by the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
Given the difficulty in prosecuting the underlying conduct using state
law, the integral connection between the video and the criminal
conduct, and the recent proliferation of animal crush videos on the
Internet since the Stevens decision, it is necessary for Congress to
enact a new Federal law targeting the interstate distribution network
for animal crush videos.
This measure will also take an important step by banning non-
commercial distribution of animal crush videos. We believe this is
necessary given the nature of the Internet and the propagation of file-
sharing and peer-to-peer networks that exist today. Similar to other
Federal criminal statutes that prohibit non-commercial distribution,
there is an exception for law enforcement purposes.
I want to thank Senators Leahy and Sessions and their staffs for
their assistance in addressing this important issue and holding a
hearing on the topic in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I also want to
thank the Humane Society for bringing this issue to Congress' attention
and working tirelessly to address it.
I urge my Senate colleagues to support this legislation and work with
me to swiftly enact it.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Franken, and Ms. Klobuchar):
S. 3842. A bill 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; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice
for All Reauthorization Act of 2010, together with Senator Franken. The
Justice for All Act, passed in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan
piece of criminal justice legislation and the most significant step
Congress had taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in
this country, and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the
American justice system. After several hearings and much work, today we
begin in earnest the process of building on that foundation to go still
further to ensure our criminal justice system works fairly and
effectively for all Americans.
In 2000, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which aimed to
improve the administration of justice by ensuring that defendants in
the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where
appropriate, access to post-conviction DNA testing necessary to prove
their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously
wrong.
The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice
for All Act, along with important provisions to ensure that crime
victims would have the rights and protections they need and deserve,
and that States and communities would take major steps to reduce the
backlog of untested rape kits and give prompt justice for victims of
sexual assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions
made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal
justice reform.
The programs created by the Justice For All Act have had an enormous
impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, the
Committee's hearings and recent headlines have made clear that simply
reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems
remain, and we must work together to address them.
In too many communities around the country, large numbers of untested
rape kids have come to light, many of which have not even made their
way to crime labs. It is unacceptable that rape victims must still live
in fear and wait for justice. We must act to fix this continuing
problem.
We have also seen too many cases of people found to be innocent after
spending years in jail, and we have faced the harrowing possibility
that the unthinkable may have happened: the State of Texas may have
executed an innocent man. We must act to ensure that our criminal
justice system works as it should so that relevant evidence is tested
and considered and all defendants receive quality representation.
I thank Senator Franken for working with me on these important issues
and helping to craft this important bill. I also appreciate the
Republican Senators, including Senators Sessions and Grassley, who have
provided input for this bill and participated in the process. I am
confident that this legislation will be enacted in a bipartisan
fashion, just as the original Justice for All Act was, and I look
forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to reach that goal.
The original Justice for All Act included the Debbie Smith DNA
Backlog Reduction Program, which authorized significant funding to
reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live
in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after
Debbie Smith, who lived in fear for years after being attacked before
her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her
husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others need not
experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for
their continuing help on this extremely important cause.
Since we passed this important law in 2004, the Debbie Smith Act has
resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars going to States for the
testing of DNA samples to reduce backlogs. I have worked with Senators
of both parties to ensure full funding for the Debbie Smith Act each
year.
As I have researched the problem of untested rape kits, there is one
thing that I have heard again and again: the Debbie Smith program has
been working and is making a major difference. I have heard from the
Justice Department, the States, including Vermont, law enforcement, and
victims' advocates, that Debbie Smith grants have led to significant
and meaningful backlog reductions and to justice for victims in
jurisdictions across the country.
Unfortunately, despite the good strides we have made and the
significant Federal funding for these efforts, we have seen alarming
reports of continuing backlogs. A 2008 study found 12,500 untested rape
kits in the Los Angeles area alone. While Los Angeles has since made
progress in addressing the problem, other cities have now reported
backlogs almost as severe. The Justice Department released a report
last year finding that in 18 percent of open, unsolved rape cases,
evidence had not even been submitted to a crime lab.
That Justice Department study gets to a key component of this problem
that has not yet been addressed. No matter how much money we send to
crime labs for testing, if samples that
[[Page S7511]]
could help close cases instead sit on the shelf in police evidence
rooms and never make it to the lab, that money will do no good. Police
officers must understand the importance of testing this vital evidence
and must learn when testing is appropriate and necessary. In too many
jurisdictions, rape kits taken from victims who put themselves through
further hardship to take these samples--rape kits that could help law
enforcement to get criminals off the street--are sitting untested.
The bill we introduce today will finally address this part of the
problem by mandating that the Department of Justice develop practices
and protocols for the processing of DNA evidence and provide technical
assistance to State and local governments to implement those protocols.
The bill authorizes funding to States and communities to reduce their
rape kit backlogs at the law enforcement stage by training officers,
improving practices, developing evidence tracking systems, and taking
other key steps to make sure that this crucial evidence gets to the
labs to be tested.
The bill will also help us get to the bottom of this problem by
calling for the development of a standardized definition of
``backlog,'' covering both the law enforcement and lab stages, and by
implementing public reporting requirements to help us to identify where
the backlogs are. It also takes steps to ensure that labs test DNA
samples in the best order so that those samples which can help secure
justice for rape victims are tested most quickly. It will also put into
place new accountability requirements to make sure that Debbie Smith
Act money is being spent effectively and appropriately.
The bill makes important changes to existing law to ensure that no
rape victims are ever required to pay for testing of their rape kits,
and that these costs are covered with no strings attached. Senator
Franken has been a strong advocate of this important provision, and I
thank him for his help.
We have also taken important new steps to ensure that defendants in
serious cases receive adequate representation and, where appropriate,
testing of relevant DNA samples. As a former prosecutor, I have great
faith in the men and women in law enforcement, and I know that in the
vast majority of cases, our criminal justice system does work fairly
and effectively. I also know, however, that the system only works as it
should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained
counsel, and when all relevant evidence is retained and tested. Sadly,
we learn regularly of defendants released after new evidence exonerates
them. We must do better. It is an outrage when an innocent person is
punished, and it is doubly an outrage that, in those cases, the guilty
person remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes, which makes
all of us less safe.
This legislation takes important new steps to ensure that all
criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer,
receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the
Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an
effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes
a cause of action for the Federal Government to step in when States are
systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the
Constitution.
This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and
time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive
for States to do so. Prosecutors and defense attorneys recognize the
importance of quality defense counsel. Houston District Attorney
Patricia Lykos testified, quite persuasively, before the Judiciary
Committee about how competent defense attorneys help her do her job as
a prosecutor even better. I have also learned through this process that
the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most
expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save
States money.
This legislation will also help ensure that the innocent are not
punished while the guilty remain free by strengthening the Kirk
Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key
programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was
a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted,
and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He
was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death
row crime through the use of DNA evidence.
This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like
Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA
evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing
the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program
put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of States, and the
Committee has heard strong testimony that the program is making an
impact. The legislation we introduce today expands the very modest
authorization of funds to this important program and clarifies the
conditions set for this program so that participating States are
required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are required
to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more States to
participate.
The bill also asks states to produce comprehensive plans for their
criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal
justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of
the system work together and receive the resources they need. The bill
reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas
throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases
authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement
Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories
in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving
crimes and prosecuting perpetrators. I appreciate Senator Sessions'
longstanding support for this important program.
Finally, the legislation strengthens rights for victims of crime. It
gives crime victims an affirmative right to be informed of all of their
rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it
takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert their
legal rights in court. I thank Senators Feinstein and Kyl for their
leadership in this area and their assistance in developing these
provisions.
In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this
bill would make all of these improvements without increasing total
authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these
changes will help States, communities, and the Federal Government save
money in the long term.
Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system
in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all
sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge they need to advance the
cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system
which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the
promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to
bring us closer to that goal. I hope there will be strong bipartisan
support for these efforts moving forward.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3842
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 ``Justice for All
Reauthorization Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS.
Section 3771 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(9) The right to be informed of the rights under this
section and the services described in section 503(c) of the
Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
10607(c)) and provided contact information for the Office of
the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the Department of
Justice.'';
(2) in subsection (d)(3), in the fifth sentence, by
inserting ``, unless the litigants, with the approval of the
court, have stipulated to a different time period for
consideration'' before the period; and
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking ``this chapter, the term'' and inserting
the following: ``this chapter:
``(1) Court of appeals.--The term `court of appeals'
means--
``(A) for a violation of the United States Code, the United
States court of appeals for the judicial district in which a
defendant is being prosecuted; and
[[Page S7512]]
``(B) for a violation of the District of Columbia Code, the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
``(2) Crime victim.--
``(A) In general.--The term'';
(B) by striking ``In the case'' and inserting the
following:
``(B) Minors and certain other victims.--In the case''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) District court; court.--The terms `district court'
and `court' include the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia.''.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GRANTS FOR CRIME
VICTIMS.
(a) Crime Victims Legal Assistance Grants.--Section 103(b)
of the Justice for All Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-405; 118
Stat. 2264) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$2,000,000'' and all
that follows through ``2009'' and inserting ``$5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$2,000,000'' and all
that follows through ``2009,'' and inserting ``$5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``$300,000'' and all that
follows through ``2009,'' and inserting ``$500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015'';
(4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``$7,000,000'' and all
that follows through ``2009,'' and inserting ``$11,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015'';
and
(5) in paragraph (5), by striking ``$5,000,000'' and all
that follows through ``2009,'' and inserting ``$7,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015''.
(b) Crime Victims Notification Grants.--Section 1404E(c) of
the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603e(c)) is
amended by striking ``this section--'' and all that follows
and inserting ``this section $5,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.''.
SEC. 4. DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog
Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 2. THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `backlog for DNA case work' has the meaning
given that term by the Director, in accordance with
subsection (b)(3);
``(2) the term `Combined DNA Index System' means the
Combined DNA Index System of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
``(3) the term `Director' means the Director of the
National Institute of Justice;
``(4) the term `emergency response provider' has the
meaning given that term in section 2 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101); and
``(5) 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.
``(b) Establishment of Protocols, Technical Assistance, and
Definitions of Evidence Backlog for DNA Case Work.--
``(1) Protocols and practices.--Not later than 18 months
after the date of enactment of the Justice for All
Reauthorization Act of 2010, the Director shall develop and
publish a description of protocols and practices the Director
considers appropriate for the accurate, timely, and effective
collection and processing of DNA evidence, including
protocols and practices specific to sexual assault cases,
which shall address appropriate steps in the investigation of
cases that might involve DNA evidence, including--
``(A) how to determine--
``(i) which evidence is to be collected by law enforcement
personnel and forwarded for testing;
``(ii) the preferred order in which evidence from the same
case is to be tested; and
``(iii) the preferred order in which evidence from
different cases is to be tested;
``(B) the establishment of a reasonable period of time in
which evidence is to be forwarded by emergency response
providers, law enforcement personnel, and prosecutors to a
laboratory for testing;
``(C) the establishment of reasonable periods of time in
which each stage of analytical laboratory testing is to be
completed ; and
``(D) systems to encourage communication within a State or
unit of local government among emergency response providers,
law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, courts, defense
counsel, crime laboratory personnel, and crime victims
regarding the status of crime scene evidence to be tested.
``(2) Technical assistance and training.--The Director
shall make available technical assistance and training to
support States and units of local government in adopting and
implementing the protocols and practices developed under
paragraph (1) on and after the date on which the protocols
and practices are published.
``(3) Definition of backlog for dna case work.--The
Director shall develop and publish a definition of the term
`backlog for DNA case work' for purposes of this section--
``(A) taking into consideration the different stages at
which a backlog may develop, including the investigation and
prosecution of a crime by law enforcement personnel,
prosecutors, and others, and the laboratory analysis of crime
scene samples; and
``(B) which may include different criteria or thresholds
for the different stages.
``(c) Authorization of Grants for the Collection and
Processing of DNA Evidence by Law Enforcement.--
``(1) Purpose.--The Attorney General may make grants to
States or units of local government which may be used to--
``(A) ensure that the collection and processing of DNA
evidence from crimes, including sexual assault and other
serious violent crimes, is carried out in an appropriate and
timely manner;
``(B) eliminate existing backlogs for DNA case work,
including backlogs from sexual assault cases; and
``(C) ensure effective communication among emergency
response providers, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors,
courts, defense counsel, crime laboratory personnel, and
crime victims regarding the status of crime scene evidence to
be tested.
``(2) Application.--A State or unit of local government
desiring a grant under this subsection shall submit to the
Attorney General an application in such form and containing
such information as the Attorney General may require, which
shall include--
``(A) providing assurances that the State or unit of local
government has implemented, or will implement not later than
120 days after the date of the application, a comprehensive
plan for the expeditious collection and processing of DNA
evidence in accordance with this section; and
``(B) specifying the percentage of the amounts received
under the grant that the State or unit of local government
shall use for the purpose specified in each of subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1).
``(3) Collection and processing of samples.--A plan
described in paragraph (2)(A)--
``(A) shall require a State or unit of local government
to--
``(i) adopt the appropriate protocols and practices
developed under subsection (b)(1); and
``(ii) ensure that emergency response providers, law
enforcement personnel, prosecutors, and crime laboratory
personnel within the jurisdiction of the State or unit of
local government receive training on the content and
appropriate use of the protocols and practices; and
``(B) may include the development and implementation within
the State or unit of local government of an evidence tracking
system to ensure effective communication among emergency
response providers, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors,
defense counsel, courts, crime laboratory personnel, and
crime victims regarding the status of crime scene evidence
subject to DNA analysis.
``(4) Reporting and publication of dna backlogs.--
``(A) In general.--A plan described in paragraph (2)(A)
shall require a State or unit of local government to submit
to the Attorney General an annual report reflecting the
current backlog for DNA case work within the jurisdiction in
which the funds are used, which shall include--
``(i) a specific breakdown of the number of sexual assault
cases that are in a backlog for DNA case work and the
percentage of the amounts received under the grant allocated
to reducing the backlog of DNA case work in sexual assault
cases;
``(ii) for each case that is in a backlog for DNA case
work, the identity of each agency, office, or contractor of
the State or unit of local government in which work necessary
to complete the DNA analysis is pending; and
``(iii) any other information the Attorney General
determines appropriate.
``(B) Compilation.--The Attorney General shall annually
compile and publish the reports submitted under subparagraph
(A) on the website of the Department of Justice.
``(d) Authorization of Grants for DNA Testing and Analysis
by Laboratories.--
``(1) Purpose.--The Attorney General may make grants to
States or units of local government to--
``(A) carry out, for inclusion in the Combined DNA Index
System, DNA analyses of samples collected under applicable
legal authority;
``(B) carry out, for inclusion in the Combined DNA Index
System, DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes, including
samples from rape kits, samples from other sexual assault
evidence, and samples taken in cases without an identified
suspect;
``(C) increase the capacity of laboratories owned by the
State or unit of local government to carry out DNA analyses
of samples specified in subparagraph (A) or (B);
``(D) collect DNA samples specified in subparagraph (A);
and
``(E) 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) Application.--A State or unit of local government
desiring a grant under this subsection shall submit to the
Attorney General an application in such form and containing
such information as the Attorney General may require, which
shall include--
``(A) providing assurances that the State or unit of local
government has implemented, or will implement not later than
120 days after the date of the application, a comprehensive
plan for the expeditious DNA analysis of samples in
accordance with this section;
``(B) certifying that each DNA analysis carried out under
the plan shall be maintained in accordance with the privacy
requirements described in section 210304(b)(3) of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
14132(b)(3));
[[Page S7513]]
``(C) specifying the percentage of the amounts received
under the grant that the State or unit of local government
shall use to carry out DNA analyses of samples described in
paragraph (1)(A) and the percentage of the amounts the State
or unit of local government shall use to carry out DNA
analyses of samples described in paragraph (1)(B);
``(D) specifying the percentage of the amounts received
under the grant that the State or unit of local government
shall use for a purpose described in paragraph (1)(C);
``(E) if submitted by a unit of local government,
certifying that the unit of local government has taken, or is
taking, all necessary steps to ensure that the unit of local
government is eligible to include in the Combined DNA Index
System, directly or through a State law enforcement agency,
all analyses of samples for which the unit of local
government has requested funding; and
``(F) specifying the percentage of the amounts received
under the grant that the State or unit of local government
shall use for the purpose described in paragraph (1)(D).
``(3) Analysis of samples.--
``(A) In general.--A plan described in paragraph (2)(A)
shall require that, except as provided in subparagraph (C),
each DNA analysis be carried out in a laboratory that--
``(i) satisfies quality assurance standards; and
``(ii) is--
``(I) operated by the State or a unit of local government;
or
``(II) operated by a private entity pursuant to a contract
with the State or a unit of local government.
``(B) Quality assurance standards.--
``(i) In general.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation shall maintain and make available to States and
units of local government a description of quality assurance
protocols and practices that the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation considers adequate to assure the
quality of a forensic laboratory.
``(ii) Existing standards.--For purposes of this paragraph,
a laboratory satisfies quality assurance standards if the
laboratory satisfies the quality control requirements
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 210304(b) of
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 14132(b)).
``(4) Use of vouchers or contracts for certain purposes.--
``(A) In general.--A grant for a purpose specified in
subparagraph (A), (B), (E), or (F) of paragraph (1) 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
appropriated to carry out this section to make payments to a
laboratory described under subparagraph (B).
``(5) Reporting and publication of dna backlogs.--
``(A) In general.--A plan described in paragraph (2)(A)
shall require the State or unit of local government to submit
to the Attorney General an annual report reflecting the
backlog for DNA case work within the jurisdiction in which
the funds will be used, which shall include--
``(i) a specific breakdown of the number of sexual assault
cases that are in a backlog for DNA case work and the
percentage of the amounts received under the grant allocated
to reducing the backlog of DNA case work in sexual assault
cases;
``(ii) for each case that is in a backlog for DNA case
work, the identity of each agency, office, or contractor of
the State or unit of local government in which work necessary
to complete the DNA analysis is pending; and
``(iii) any other information the Attorney General
determines appropriate.
``(B) Compilation.--The Attorney General shall annually
compile and publish the reports submitted under subparagraph
(A) on the website of the Department of Justice.
``(e) Formula for Distribution of Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), 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 States and units of
local government applying for grants under this section
that--
``(A) maximizes the effective use of DNA technology to
solve crimes and protect public safety; and
``(B) allocates grants among States and units of local
government fairly and efficiently, across rural and urban
jurisdictions, to address States and units of local
government in which significant backlogs for DNA case work
exist, by considering--
``(i) the number of offender and casework samples awaiting
DNA analysis in a State or unit of local government;
``(ii) the population in the State or unit of local
government;
``(iii) the number of part 1 violent crimes in the State or
unit of local government; and
``(iv) the availability of resources to train emergency
response providers, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors,
and crime laboratory personnel on the effectiveness of
appropriate and timely DNA collection, processing, and
analysis.
``(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 amount appropriated in a
fiscal year for grants under this section.
``(3) Limitation.--In distributing grant amounts under
paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall ensure that for
each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015, not less than 40
percent of the grant amounts are awarded for purposes
described in subsection (d)(1)(B).
``(f) Restrictions on Use of Fund.--
``(1) Nonsupplanting.--Funds made available under this
section shall not be used to supplant funds of a State or
unit of local government, and shall be used to increase the
amount of funds that would, in the absence of Federal funds,
be made available from the State or unit of local government
for the purposes described in this Act.
``(2) Administrative costs.--A State or unit of local
government may not use more than 3 percent of the amounts
made available under a grant under this section for
administrative expenses relating to the grant.
``(g) Reports to the Attorney General.--Each State or unit
of local government that receives a grant under this section
shall submit to the Attorney General, for each year in which
funds from a grant received under this section are expended,
a report at such time and in such manner as the Attorney
General may reasonably require, that contains--
``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the
grant and an assessment of whether such activities are
meeting the needs identified in the application; and
``(2) such other information as the Attorney General may
require.
``(h) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after
the end of each fiscal year for which grants are made under
this section, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a
report that includes--
``(1) the aggregate amount of grants made under this
section to each State or unit of local government for the
fiscal year;
``(2) a summary of the information provided by States or
units of local government receiving grants under this
section; and
``(3) a description of the priorities and plan for awarding
grants among eligible States and units of local government,
and how the plan will ensure the effective use of DNA
technology to solve crimes and protect public safety.
``(i) Expenditure Records.--
``(1) In general.--Each State or unit of local government
that receives a grant under this section shall keep such
records as the Attorney General may require to facilitate an
effective audit of the receipt and use of grant funds
received under this section.
``(2) Access.--Each State or unit of local government that
receives a grant under this section shall make available, for
the purpose of audit and examination, any records relating to
the receipt or use of the grant.
``(j) Use of Funds for Accreditation and Audits.--The
Attorney General may distribute not more than 1 percent of
the amounts made available for grants under this section for
a fiscal year--
``(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 to--
``(A) defray the costs of external audits of laboratories
operated by the 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) assess compliance with any plans submitted to the
Director that detail the use of funds received by States or
units of local government under this section; and
``(C) support 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.
``(k) Use of Funds for Other Forensic Sciences.--The
Attorney General may make 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 subsections (c) and
(d) have been met;
``(B) there is not a backlog for DNA case work, as defined
by the Director in accordance with subsection (b)(3); and
``(C) there is no need for significant laboratory
equipment, supplies, or additional personnel for timely
processing of DNA case work or offender samples; and
``(2) demonstrates to the Attorney General that the State
or unit of local government requires assistance in
alleviating a backlog
[[Page S7514]]
of cases involving a forensic science other than DNA
analysis.
``(l) External Audits and Remedial Efforts.--If a
laboratory operated by a State or unit of local government
which has received funds under this section 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
the audit, identifies measures to remedy deficiencies with
respect to the compliance by the laboratory with the
standards, the State or unit of local government shall
implement any such remediation as soon as practicable.
``(m) Penalty for Noncompliance.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall annually
compile a list of the States and units of local government
receiving a grant under this section that have failed to
provide the information required under subsection (c)(4)(A),
(d)(5)(A), or (g). The Attorney General shall publish each
list complied under this paragraph on the website of the
Department of Justice.
``(2) Reduction in grant funds.--For any State or local
government that the Attorney General determines has failed to
provide the information required under subsection (c)(4)(A),
(d)(5)(A), or (g), the Attorney General may not award a grant
under this section for the fiscal year after the fiscal year
to which the determination relates in an amount that is more
than 50 percent of the amount the State or local government
would have otherwise received.
``(n) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General for
grants under subsections (c) and (d) $151,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2011 through 2015.''.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation shall evaluate the policies, standards, and
protocols relating to the use of private laboratories in the
analysis of DNA evidence, including the mandatory technical
review of all outsourced DNA evidence by public laboratories
prior to uploading DNA profiles into the Combined DNA Index
System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The evaluation
shall take into consideration the need to reduce DNA evidence
backlogs while guaranteeing the integrity of the Combined DNA
Index System.
(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation completes the evaluation under paragraph (1),
the Director shall submit to Congress a report of the
findings of the evaluation and any proposed policy changes.
(c) Transition Provision.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``transition
date'' means the day after the latter of--
(A) the date on which the Director of the National
Institute of Justice publishes a definition of the term
``backlog for DNA case work'' in accordance with section
2(b)(3) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000,
as amended by subsection (a); and
(B) the date on which the Director of the National
Institute of Justice publishes a description of protocols and
practices in accordance with section 2(b)(1) of the DNA
Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, as amended by
subsection (a).
(2) Grant authority.--Notwithstanding the amendments made
by subsection (a)--
(A) the Attorney General may make grants under section 2 of
the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
14135), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment
of this Act, until the transition date; and
(B) the Attorney General may not make a grant under section
2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, as
amended by subsection (a), until the transition date.
SEC. 5. RAPE EXAM PAYMENTS.
Section 2010 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-4) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``entity incurs the full'' and inserting
the following: ``entity--
``(A) incurs the full'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) coordinates with regional health care providers to
notify victims of sexual assault of the availability of rape
exams at no cost to the victims.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by adding ``or'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a
period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (3); and
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``(d) Rule of
Construction.--'' and all that follows through the end of
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(d) Noncooperation.--
``(1) In general.--To be in compliance with this section, a
State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local government
shall comply with subsection (b) without regard to whether
the victim participates in the criminal justice system or
cooperates with law enforcement.''.
SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) DNA Research and Development.--Section 305(c) of the
Justice for All Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 14136b(c)) is amended
by striking ``fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and inserting
``fiscal years 2011 through 2015''.
(b) FBI DNA Programs.--Section 307(a) of the Justice for
All Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-405; 118 Stat. 2275)) is
amended by striking ``fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and
inserting ``fiscal years 2011 through 2015''.
(c) DNA Identification of Missing Persons.--Section 308(c)
of the Justice for All Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 14136d(c)) is
amended by striking ``fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and
inserting ``fiscal years 2011 through 2015''.
SEC. 7. PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.
Section 1001(a)(24) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(24)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (I), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(K) $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through
2015.''.
SEC. 8. IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF REPRESENTATION IN STATE
CAPITAL CASES.
Section 426 of the Justice for All Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C.
14163e) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``$75,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and inserting
``$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015'';
and
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, or upon a showing of good cause,
and at the discretion of the Attorney General, the State may
determine a fair allocation of funds across the uses
described in sections 421 and 422.''.
SEC. 9. POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING.
(a) In General.--Section 3600 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking ``death''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``and the applicant
did not--'' and all that follows through ``knowingly fail to
request'' and inserting ``and the applicant did not knowingly
fail to request''; and
(2) in subsection (g)(2)(B), by striking ``death''.
(b) Preservation of Biological Evidence.--Section 3600A(c)
of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2); and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively.
SEC. 10. INCENTIVE GRANTS TO STATES TO ENSURE CONSIDERATION
OF CLAIMS OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE.
(a) In General.--Section 413 of the Justice for All Act of
2004 (42 U.S.C. 14136 note) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and inserting ``fiscal
years 2011 through 2015''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) provide a certification by the chief legal officer of
the State in which the eligible entity operates or the chief
legal officer of the jurisdiction in which the funds will be
used for the purposes of the grants, that the State or
jurisdiction--
``(A) provides DNA testing of specified evidence under a
State statute 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 consistent with section 3600(a) of
title 18, United States Code (which may include making post-
conviction DNA testing available in cases in which the
testing would not be required under that section) and, if the
results of the testing exclude the applicant as the
perpetrator of the offense, permits the applicant to apply
for post-conviction relief, notwithstanding any provision of
law that would otherwise bar the application as untimely; and
``(B) preserves biological evidence under a State statute
or a State or local rule, regulation, or practice in a manner
intended to ensure that reasonable measures are taken by the
State or jurisdiction to preserve biological evidence secured
in relation to the investigation or prosecution of a State
felony offense (including, at a minimum murder, non-negligent
manslaughter and sexual offenses) in a manner consistent with
section 3600A of title 18, United States (which may require
preservation of biological evidence for longer than the
period of time that the evidence would be required to be
preserved under that section).''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 412(b) of the
Justice for All Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 14136e(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and
inserting ``fiscal years 2011 through 2015''; and
(2) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting
``$10,000,000''.
SEC. 11. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL STANDARDS PROMULGATED BY
NIJ.
(a) In General.--Subtitle A of title IV of the Justice for
All Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-405; 118 Stat. 2278) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 414. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL STANDARDS PROMULGATED
BY NIJ.
``(a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute
of Justice shall--
``(1) establish best practices for evidence retention; and
``(2) assist State, local, and tribal governments in
adopting and implementing the best practices established
under paragraph (1).
``(b) Deadline.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Director of the National
Institute of Justice
[[Page S7515]]
shall publish the best practices established under subsection
(a)(1).''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
contents in section 1(b) of the Justice for All Act of 2004
(Public Law 108-405; 118 Stat. 2260) is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 413 the following:
``Sec. 414. Establishment of national standards promulgated by NIJ.''.
SEC. 12. EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Effective Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2010''.
(b) Strategic Planning.--Section 502 of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3752) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``To request
a grant''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) A comprehensive State-wide plan detailing how grants
received under this section will be used to improve the
administration of the criminal justice system, which shall--
``(A) be designed in consultation with local governments,
and all segments of the criminal justice system, including
judges, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, corrections
personnel, and providers of indigent defense services, victim
services, juvenile justice delinquency prevention programs,
community corrections, and reentry services;
``(B) include a description of how the State will allocate
funding within and among each of the uses described in
subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 501(a)(1);
``(C) describe the process used by the State for gathering
evidence-based data and developing and using evidence-based
and evidence-gathering approaches in support of funding
decisions; and
``(D) be updated every 5 years, with annual progress
reports that--
``(i) address changing circumstances in the State, if any;
``(ii) describe how the State plans to adjust funding
within and among each of the uses described in subparagraphs
(A) through (G) of section 501(a)(1);
``(iii) provide an ongoing assessment of need;
``(iv) discuss the accomplishment of goals identified in
any plan previously prepared under this paragraph; and
``(v) reflect how the plan influenced funding decisions in
the previous year.
``(b) Technical Assistance.--
``(1) Strategic planning.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General
shall begin to provide technical assistance to States and
local governments requesting support to develop and implement
the strategic plan required under subsection (a)(6).
``(2) Protection of constitutional rights.--Not later than
90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the
Attorney General shall begin to provide technical assistance
to States and local governments, including any agent thereof
with responsibility for administration of justice, requesting
support to meet the obligations established by the Sixth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which
shall include--
``(A) public dissemination of practices, structures, or
models for the administration of justice consistent with the
requirements of the Sixth Amendment; and
``(B) assistance with adopting and implementing a system
for the administration of justice consistent with the
requirements of the Sixth Amendment.
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011
through 2015 to carry out this subsection.''.
(c) Protection of Constitutional Rights.--
(1) Unlawful conduct.--It shall be unlawful for any
governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person
acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a
pattern or practice of conduct by officials or employees of
any governmental agency with responsibility for the
administration of justice, including the administration of
programs or services that provide appointed counsel to
indigent defendants, that deprives persons of their rights to
assistance of counsel as protected under the Sixth Amendment
and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.
(2) Civil action by attorney general.--Whenever the
Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a
violation of paragraph (1) has occurred, the Attorney
General, for or in the name of the United States, may, in a
civil action, obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory
relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
(3) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect 2
years after the date of enactment.
____________________