[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 163 (Tuesday, December 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6844-H6848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KATIE SEPICH ENHANCED DNA COLLECTION ACT OF 2012
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 6014) to authorize the Attorney General to award grants
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. 6014
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 2012''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
[[Page H6845]]
(1) DNA arrestee collection process.--The term ``DNA
arrestee collection process'' means, with respect to a State,
a process under which the State provides for the collection,
for purposes of inclusion in the index described in section
210304(a) of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
14132(a)) (in this Act referred to as the ``National DNA
Index System''), of DNA profiles or DNA data from the
following individuals who are at least 18 years of age:
(A) Individuals who are arrested for or charged with a
criminal offense under State law that consists of a homicide.
(B) 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.
(C) Individuals who are arrested for or charged with a
criminal offense under State law that has an element of
kidnaping or abduction and that is punishable by imprisonment
for more than 1 year.
(D) Individuals who are arrested for or charged with a
criminal offense under State law that consists of burglary
punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year.
(E) Individuals who are arrested for or charged with a
criminal offense under State law that consists of aggravated
assault punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
SEC. 3. GRANTS TO STATES TO IMPLEMENT DNA ARRESTEE COLLECTION
PROCESSES.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall, subject to
amounts made available pursuant to section 5, carry out a
grant program for the purpose of assisting States with the
costs associated with the implementation of DNA arrestee
collection processes.
(b) Applications.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, in addition to any other requirements specified
by the Attorney General, a State shall submit to the Attorney
General an application that demonstrates that it has
statutory authorization for the implementation of a DNA
arrestee collection process.
(2) Non-supplanting funds.--An application submitted under
paragraph (1) by a State shall include assurances that the
amounts received under the grant under this section shall be
used to supplement, not supplant, State funds that would
otherwise be available for the purpose described in
subsection (a).
(3) Other requirements.--The Attorney General shall require
a State seeking a grant under this section to document how
such State will use the grant to meet expenses associated
with a State's implementation or planned implementation of a
DNA arrestee collection process.
(c) Grant Allocation.--
(1) In general.--The amount available to a State under this
section shall be based on the projected costs that will be
incurred by the State to implement a DNA arrestee collection
process. Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall
retain discretion to determine the amount of each such grant
awarded to an eligible State.
(2) Maximum grant allocation.--In the case of a State
seeking a grant under this section with respect to the
implementation of a DNA arrestee collection process, such
State shall be eligible for a grant under this section that
is equal to no more than 100 percent of the first year costs
to the State of implementing such process.
(d) Grant Conditions.--As a condition of receiving a grant
under this section, a State shall have a procedure in place
to--
(1) provide written notification of expungement provisions
and instructions for requesting expungement to all persons
who submit a DNA profile or DNA data for inclusion in the
index;
(2) provide the eligibility criteria for expungement and
instructions for requesting expungement on an appropriate
public Web site; and
(3) make a determination on all expungement requests not
later than 90 days after receipt and provide a written
response of the determination to the requesting party.
SEC. 4. 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 DNA profile or DNA data collected pursuant to
this Act for purposes of inclusion in the National DNA Index
System.
SEC. 5. OFFSET OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED.
Any funds appropriated to carry out this Act, not to exceed
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2015, shall
be derived from amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection
(j) of section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act
of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) in each such fiscal year for grants
under such section.
SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG
GRANT PROGRAM.
Section 2(a) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of
2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(6) To implement a DNA arrestee collection process
consistent with the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act
of 2012.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6014, as
amended, currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for
sponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan legislation. H.R. 6014, 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 perpetrators of open and unsolved cases. DNA arrestee programs
can also prevent crimes by linking career criminals to crimes and
locking them up before they have the chance to strike again.
By collecting DNA samples from arrestees and uploading them into the
national DNA database, States can empower police and prosecutors to not
only solve cold cases but also to apprehend violent criminals before
more innocent people are victimized or precious lives are lost. Similar
legislation passed the House last Congress by an overwhelming
bipartisan vote of 357-32.
H.R. 6014 adds a new purpose area to the DNA Analysis Backlog
Elimination Act to fund State DNA arrestee programs. This is limited,
cost-effective legislation that will help States make use of DNA
evidence to catch serious criminals at the earliest stage possible.
In the 20th century, law enforcement used fingerprints to link
criminals to unsolved crimes. In the 21st century, law enforcement can
now use DNA fingerprint technology to apprehend dangerous offenders.
I want to thank my colleague from California, again, Mr. Schiff, for
his hard work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012, or
Katie's Law, has laudable goals of helping to prevent violent crime,
exonerating the innocent, giving our police access to cutting-edge
forensic techniques, reducing the cost of criminal investigations, and
giving victims of violent crime and their families the answers and
closure they deserve. All of this can result from the enhanced DNA
collection provided for in this bill.
I voted for Katie's Law last Congress, and the goals of Katie's Law
are goals that I wholeheartedly support, but unfortunately, right now
is not the time to pass the law. This bill would enable the Attorney
General to provide grant money to States if they implement a process
for DNA testing upon arrest and preservation of the DNA profile.
{time} 1320
The last time I voted for the bill, or one similar to it, I viewed
the collection of arrestee DNA as essentially the same from a
constitutional point of view as the collection of fingerprints, which
are collected and preserved in a database for arrestees, whether there
is a conviction or not. Since then, however, serious questions have
been raised about the constitutionality of arrestee DNA collection and
the preservation of that information in a database where there has been
no subsequent conviction.
These constitutional questions are currently before the Supreme Court
in Maryland v. King. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in that case
in November, and we're taking this bill up now before the Supreme Court
has had a chance to hear the case and issue its decision. In just a
couple of months, the Supreme Court will have decided the King case,
and we'll know whether
[[Page H6846]]
or not it's constitutional to preserve this data and how the States can
collect it from people upon arrest and what to do with that
information. With the decision at hand, we can then craft a program
that encourages States to implement DNA collecting and testing systems
that fully comply with whatever the Supreme Court rules in the King
case.
Whereas I believe that the Supreme Court will find this proposed bill
constitutional, it just makes sense that we wait until the decision is
rendered before we pass the bill. For that reason, I will oppose the
bill.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who happens to have passed legislation very
similar to this when he was in the legislature in Colorado.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Texas for this time.
I think it's important for us to understand the importance of this
legislation and the opportunity that this literally presents for the
protection of our wives and our daughters across this Nation.
I visited with Jayann Sepich. Her daughter Katie literally had to
fight for her life. And the only evidence after her body was
discovered, raped and burned in a garbage dump, was the DNA collected
under those fingernails. While we now have the empirical evidence, had
Katie's law been in place at that time, we could have saved an
additional 13 lives: 12 women who were raped and murdered and another
who was pregnant with child. That is the importance, and the
timeliness, as well, of moving forward with this legislation.
In the State of Colorado, we've taken perpetrators off the streets.
In fact, one of the challenges that we often don't discuss is not just
future events that could potentially happen, but bringing resolution to
families who have lost a loved one: solving cold cases. In the State of
Colorado, we've now had 398 people identified for past crimes, those
unsolved murders that haunt families.
This is a piece of legislation that's revenue neutral for Americans,
a piece of legislation that's going to provide that opportunity for
other States to do what Colorado has been able to accomplish, to be
able to pass legislation that is going to stand up and protect our
daughters and our wives from violent predators who are impacting
families across this country.
The time is now. It is of essence. We are approaching the 10th
anniversary of the death of Katie Sepich. I would see no greater
tribute to her, her mother and father, and all families across this
country, than to put forward this legislation, allow it to pass, to
move forward, and to be able to do the right thing.
This legislation is designed so well that when we look at those
identifiers, it is the 21st century fingerprint. We cannot tell the
color of skin, and we cannot tell the color of hair. It is just an
identifier for who the person is. It's well thought out, and it's
important. I believe our daughters, our wives, and our mothers count on
this type of practical legislation. I urge its adoption.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the author of the bill, a former prosecutor and valued
member of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support
of the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act.
Katie's Law is named for Katie Sepich, a bright, vivacious 22-year-
old from New Mexico who was brutally assaulted, raped, and murdered in
2003. Police were able to extract the DNA profile of her killer from
underneath Katie's fingernails, but they got no match in the offender
database. When they finally did get a hit on the attacker's DNA 3 years
later, they discovered that the murderer had been arrested repeatedly
after 2003, but because he was never convicted, he was not required to
submit a DNA sample for the database. Had New Mexico required arrestees
to submit a DNA sample, Katie's killer would have been apprehended and
taken off the street years earlier.
Katie's Law applies the lesson that New Mexico and now 24 States
across the country have learned: arrestee testing works. This bill
would create a new category of grants for States that collect DNA from
arrestees for certain felonies. By joining the 25 States, plus the
Federal Government, that already collect DNA from arrestees, additional
State participation will make the national DNA index system more
effective in helping to solve violent crimes. It does so without
authorizing any new spending and while protecting civil liberties by
putting in place strong expungement requirements.
We passed very similar legislation in 2010 with an overwhelming
bipartisan majority. In the few short days we have left before the end
of this year, we have a window to potentially send this bill to the
Senate, where we'll also attract bipartisan support. I believe we
should take that opportunity.
It has been argued by my colleague that we should wait to consider
this bill until the Supreme Court rules on Maryland v. King, the case
in which the Maryland State Supreme Court overturned the State's
arrestee testing statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. I would simply
note that three Federal courts of appeals and the State Supreme Court
of California have looked at arrestee testing, and all have found it
constitutional. The Supreme Court also took the unusual step of staying
the order of the Maryland court. In his order staying the Maryland
decision, Chief Justice Roberts writes:
Collecting DNA from individuals arrested for violent
felonies provides a valuable tool for investigating unsolved
crimes and thereby helping to remove violent offenders from
the general population. Crimes for which DNA evidence is
implicated tend to be serious, and serious crimes cause
serious injuries. That Maryland may not employ a duly enacted
statute to help prevent these injuries constitutes
irreparable harm.
This is a practice that is used in 25 States and by the Federal
Government. It is not new. I'm confident the practice will be upheld by
the Court. And even if we are wrong, the Court will decide this case
long before any grant funding would be dedicated to help States build
arrestee collection laws, so no funding would be wasted.
I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague, Chairman Smith, who
has been so supportive of this effort and has done such a marvelous job
chairing the Judiciary Committee. I also want to acknowledge Ranking
Member Conyers and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Bobby Scott,
for their great work on the committee and subcommittee. I also want to
thank my colleague from Washington (Mr. Reichert), who knows firsthand
the power of DNA evidence from his years as a sheriff. And finally and
most importantly, I thank Katie's family and her mother, Jayann Sepich.
Jayann has endured every parent's worst nightmare. Her determination
and dedication are inspiring. And when Katie's Law is signed into law--
and it will be--it will be a testament to her work and her love for her
daughter.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass Katie's Law.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
{time} 1330
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I thank
the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for his leadership on this.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 6014. Today, Katie Sepich, pictured
here, tells us a lot. She is fun, loving, vibrant, outgoing. She was
leader in her age group. She made things happen. Katie, beginning in
January of 2002, was in her last year of grad school. During that year,
in one of the last conversations with her daughter, Jayann Sepich--her
mom--asked her the same question that many of us receive from our
parents: What are you going to do when you graduate with your master's
degree in business? The reply was the same one that many of us have
given: I'm not sure, but I want to change the world.
That's what each one of us as parents aspires to develop in our
children--it's what each one of us tries to train them for--and Katie
was at the point of decision. She was on her way until her journey of
life was brutally interrupted by someone who raped her and strangled
her. Then he burned her body and left her body abandoned at a dumpsite.
[[Page H6847]]
Now, there was a full DNA sample under Katie's fingernails, attesting
to Katie's character, but the uploaded DNA did not match anything in
the government database. Meanwhile, Gabriel Avila was arrested 6 weeks
after the murder; but because New Mexico and the Federal Government had
no laws, no DNA sample was taken, and so no match was made. For 3
years, Mr. Avila walked free on the streets of America and on the
streets of New Mexico after having committed this horrendous crime, but
there was nothing to link them until New Mexico passed a statute very
similar to this one that we are passing today.
It simply said that we are going to collect DNA samples when we have
people who are under the suspicion of violent crimes. It is no
different than my fingerprints, which are available to anyone who wants
to look. They were taken by the U.S. Government when I entered into the
United States Air Force. I understand the constitutional concerns, but
I also understand the pain of families who have no answers. After New
Mexico passed this law, Mr. Avila committed another violent crime. This
time, by New Mexico law, they had to take his DNA sample, and
immediately they matched that now-3-year-old crime that took Katie's
life.
All this bill does is simply help provide funds to States to take
these DNA samples. The U.S. Government will put them in the database
and compare them. They're the 21st-century version of fingerprints.
One in six American women is a victim of rape or attempted rape, and
90 percent of the people who commit the crimes are repeat offenders
like Mr. Avila; yet they walk free because we care more for the rights
of perpetrators than of victims. This bill will not prevent violent
crimes, but it will help stem the tide of the repeat offenders.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. PEARCE. Dave and Jayann Sepich, Katie's parents, have worked
tirelessly, first to get the bill through New Mexico and then to get it
to the attention of the Federal Government. The bill stands poised here
on the floor of the House of Representatives today, asking that we as
Americans and we as legislators take a stand on behalf of the families
who have young daughters and young sons who want to change the world;
and maybe, just maybe, we will do something right here.
Katie's legacy will live on no matter what we do here today, because
of her parents and because of her sacrifice. I humbly suggest that we
would want to pass this bill.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Ranking Member Scott.
This is an unusual circumstance in which the Fourth Amendment, which
protects individual privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures by
the government, has hardly been mentioned. Another thing that is
curious about this measure is that there hasn't been a hearing on the
bill, not a single hearing. Now, I suppose we should just skip over
that. Oh, by the way, the Supreme Court of the United States has a case
which is testing the issue of the appropriateness of collecting the DNA
of arrestees, which will soon reasonably be decided.
As one who supports the goals of this legislation--its objectives to
apprehend offenders and provide relief to victims--it seems like, in
our haste, we've tossed procedure into the waste basket. I just can't
understand why we can't examine the constitutionality of the practice
of DNA in an appropriate manner, and that's what Maryland v. King would
do. I know it's being used in other places, but I have never
participated in legislation that attempts to become law while the
matter is still in the Supreme Court, about to be decided. Maybe if I
looked hard enough, we could find some cases in which that may have
happened.
When you combine all of these unusual circumstances, as a former
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I would urge that we follow
the recommendations of our ranking member and have this matter brought
before the committee in a more proper and orderly way. I hope that we
can ensure the constitutionality of H.R. 6014 since that test is about
to be submitted before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6014, the ``Katie
Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012,'' or ``Katie's Law.''
I want to begin by noting that I support the important goals of this
legislation, which are to apprehend offenders and provide relief to
victims.
But we must not allow our criminal justice system to circumvent the
protections of the Constitution so that criminal offenders are caught
at all costs.
It is critical that we adhere to the Constitution and consider any
measure that possibly conflicts with it through a deliberate process.
Unfortunately, there has not been nearly enough process to ensure
that H.R. 6014 is constitutional.
For example, there has neither been a single hearing on this bill,
nor has the Judiciary Committee marked up this measure.
As many of you know, the constitutionality of collecting DNA from
arrestees is an unresolved question under the Fourth Amendment, which
protects individuals' privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures
by the government.
In fact, the constitutionality of the practice of DNA testing upon
arrest is currently before the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King. We
should at least wait until the Court decides this issue before we rush
to pass this legislation.
I voted for Katie's law in the last Congress, and I support the goals
of Katie's law, but right now is not the time to pass this measure.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to, once
again, thank my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Schiff) for
introducing this bill and for getting us to the point at which we are
now--hopefully, on the cusp of passage.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
6014, the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012.
I strongly support measures to increase our public safety, and the
rationale behind the bill is laudable. I care about using DNA evidence
in criminal prosecutions in order to solve crimes and to convict
wrongdoers. I also appreciate the fact that DNA can many times clear
persons, even persons who have been wrongfully convicted; but there is
much doubt, Mr. Speaker, surrounding whether or not the DNA collection
of arrested persons is good policy, let alone constitutional.
By providing more incentives to extract DNA at arrests, this bill
promotes restrictions on civil liberties, which are restrictions we do
not and should not tolerate as a society, and it undermines the very
criminal justice system it seeks to strengthen. Unlike collecting the
DNA from a convicted felon, collecting DNA samples during arrests
violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
I sincerely doubt that the Framers intended the Fourth Amendment to
allow the State to hold a person's genetic blueprint without first
finding that person guilty of a crime. Although the bill provides for
the expungement of DNA profiles, it only does so after lengthy
procedures undertaken by an innocent person.
{time} 1340
Moreover, it does not address the physical DNA samples that would
remain in storage. We should not permit our government, Mr. Speaker, to
hold DNA samples of arrested persons forever, despite the fact that the
arrestee was never convicted of a crime. To keep these DNA samples
under these circumstances is the essence of violating the arrested
person's right to privacy. There can be no more fundamental right to
privacy than that which exists in the DNA profile of a person. One
should not give up that right to privacy in one's DNA profile simply
because one has been arrested.
Not only is this inconsistent with our fundamental beliefs, but DNA
profiling of arrestees diverts resources away from DNA profiles with
far greater impact on aiding investigations.
I'm also concerned that this practice would perpetuate the current
racial disparities in our criminal justice system. As more minority DNA
profiles
[[Page H6848]]
are included in databases, more minorities are potential suspects,
regardless of their actual guilt. We cannot allow this injustice to
blossom in a free country where people are presumed innocent until
proven guilty.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think the chairman has the
right to close, and I would yield him time if he has any concluding
comments. He apparently doesn't have any further comments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Katie's Law. I
rise as a Congressman, but also as a cop and a sheriff with 33 years of
experience investigating crimes.
This bill, simply put, assists states with the implementation of DNA
arrestee collection programs so that the DNA collected can be entered
into the national DNA database. DNA is an invaluable piece of evidence
when solving crimes.
As the lead investigator on the Green River Killer Task Force my
colleagues and I started collecting evidence in the early 80's . . .
hoping only for, in those days, a saliva or a blood-type match that
would tie a suspect to the crimes.
We worked that case for nearly two decades, continuing to collect
evidence, interrogate suspects, and discover horrific murder scenes. In
2001, the technology finally caught up and through DNA we made a match
and were finally able to arrest a single suspect on four counts of
murder. That arrest eventually led to 49 murder convictions.
This bill is named for Katie Sepich. Katie was a young woman from
Carlsbad, New Mexico who was 22 years old when she was brutally raped
and murdered--because of the lack of DNA collection procedures in New
Mexico at the time, it was three years before Katie's parents, Jayann
and David, had the closure of knowing Katie's attacker.
Katie's Law provides a critical resource to aid our law enforcement
officials in investigating crimes and protecting the innocent. It does
so without the appropriation of new funds and with privacy protections.
What happened to Katie Sepich is a shocking, horrible tragedy. It is
our duty to assist law enforcement in preventing these tragedies from
ever re-occurring, and to continue the tireless work of keeping our
communities safe.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 6014, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to authorize the
Attorney General to award grants for States to implement DNA arrestee
collection processes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________