[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 26407-26410]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   PAUL COVERDELL NATIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the Senate 
bill (S. 3045) to improve the quality, timeliness, and credibility of 
forensic science services for criminal justice purposes, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, was the request just to have the bill 
considered?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
asked unanimous consent to discharge the Committee from further 
consideration of S. 3045 and to pass the bill in the House.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) to explain the purpose of his 
motion.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill, S. 3045, is the Paul Coverdell National 
Forensic Science Improvement Act of 2000. It was introduced by Senator 
Jeff Sessions in the other body as a tribute to the late Senator Paul 
Coverdell. Senator Coverdell had introduced similar legislation earlier 
this Congress but did not live to see it acted upon. S. 3045 passed the 
other body by unanimous consent last Thursday.
  S. 3045 is similar to a bill, H.R. 2340, introduced in the House by 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). It addresses the most pressing 
problems facing law enforcement today, the critical backlog of work in 
our State crime labs.
  The crisis in our forensic labs is acute. According to a report 
issued in February by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of December 
1997, 69 percent of State crime labs reported backlogs in the analysis 
of DNA samples alone. And of course, these backlogs also affect all 
types of evidence being prepared for trial.
  The delays in conducting autopsies and crime scene evidence often 
delay the trial of a case, which means that victims have to suffer 
longer waits for justice to be done. And it also means that a defendant 
who is innocent has to wait longer to prove their innocence. In cases 
where DNA evidence from a

[[Page 26408]]

crime where there is no suspect can be matched to an offender in the 
national database of DNA samples from convicted offenders, any delay in 
conducting this analysis may allow the perpetrator to remain at large 
and free to commit more crimes.
  We need to help our State labs increase their capacity to conduct 
forensic testing and to hire and train more people to do this work. The 
Coverdell Act authorizes $512 million over 6 years to fund facilities, 
equipment, training, and accreditation for State and local crime labs 
across America. Seventy-five percent of the funds will be distributed 
to the States based on population, and 25 percent will be distributed 
by the Attorney General to high crime areas. To ensure that small 
States get their fair share of the funding, the act requires that each 
State receive a minimum of at least 0.6 percent of the total 
appropriated each year.
  The bill expands the list of permitted uses of the Federal crime-
fighting Byrne grants to allow States to use those funds to improving 
the quality, timeliness, and credibility of forensic science services, 
including DNA, blood, and ballistics tests. The act requires States to 
develop a plan outlining the manner in which the grants will be used to 
improve forensic services provided by State and local crime labs and 
limits administrative expenditures to 10 percent of the grant amount. 
And the act adds a reporting requirement so that the backlog reduction 
can be documented and tracked. We need to know how these grants are 
impacting backlogs in each State.
  The bill also includes two provisions unrelated to forensic science 
grants. One clarifies a provision of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Act 
passed into law earlier this Congress. The other provision expresses a 
sense of the Congress regarding the use of DNA samples in certain 
cases. I support both provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, numerous law enforcement organizations support the bill, 
including the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, the 
American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the National Association of 
Medical Examiners, the International Association of Police Chiefs, the 
Fraternal Order of Police, the National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives, and the National Association of Counties.
  This act will clear the crippling backlogs in the forensic labs. In 
turn, it will help exonerate the innocent, convict the guilty, and 
restore confidence in our criminal justice system. It is an important 
bill, and I certainly urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who has 
worked extremely hard on this particular legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Paul Coverdell National 
Forensic Sciences Improvement Act. This bill covers issues that Senator 
Coverdell and I feel very, very strongly about. In fact, this bill will 
address concerns that almost every major law enforcement agency in the 
United States has a concern with. We hope that, by passage of this, 
that we will take another step forward in crime control and in our 
ability to move cases throughout our court system.
  Today we are responding to law enforcement and criminal justice 
professionals from Georgia and throughout much of the country who have 
called on Congress to help them overcome the alarming shortages in 
forensic science resource that confront our States and communities.
  These shortages in personnel, in modern equipment and lab space, in 
technology and computerization, in education and training have created 
what has been accurately described as a ``choke point'' in the 
country's system of justice.

                              {time}  1515

  Due to the lack of adequate resources, nearly 70 percent of the 600 
State and community forensic laboratories, medical examiner's offices, 
and coroner's offices are experiencing major backlogs in their forensic 
caseloads. In 8 out of every 10 labs, the forensic caseloads are 
increasing much faster than their budgets.
  These conditions have caused major delays, preventing the timely 
conviction of the guilty and exoneration of the innocent. These delays 
can be devastating to individuals and families, and dangerous for 
society at large. There are instances where suspects of violent 
offenses had to be freed because DNA testing could not get done.
  Several years ago, the States' Coalition was formed among State law 
enforcement agency directors that took the lead in addressing the 
crisis. The director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Buddy Nix, 
has been in the forefront of this effort which has the support of the 
entire criminal justice community. While calling on States to do as 
much as possible to alleviate the shortages, the coalition has also 
pointed out that this is a problem of national concern. And it is 
appropriate for the Federal Government to contribute to the solution.
  The result is the National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act which I, 
a Democrat, and the late Paul Coverdell, a Republican, introduced in 
our respective Chambers, backed by strong bipartisan cosponsorship. 
Following the tragic loss of Senator Coverdell, the sponsors dedicated 
this measure in memory of our esteemed friend and colleague from 
Georgia.
  This proposal simply provides block grants to States. To my 
knowledge, there is no real opposition to the bill's merits. The only 
question is whether it will be given the priority treatment many of us 
believe it deserves. Will a new program such as this be among those 
that prevail in the competition for limited Federal dollars?
  The Senate has answered that question, and today the House gives its 
answer, which I anticipate will be a resounding ``yes.''
  Some people say the need to put more resources into the fight against 
crime is not as great as it was a few years ago. It is certainly true 
that FBI surveys show that the overall crime rate has steadily declined 
as a result of many factors, including a growing economy, tougher 
sentences, greater public awareness and involvement, and the high 
professionalism of today's criminal justice professionals. But it would 
be premature to declare victory.
  Although the crime rate is falling, it is true that one out of every 
four American families is still victimized every year by one or more 
serious crimes. One out of every four. The monetary losses are still 
huge, $19 billion or more a year. The suffering that many people 
experience continues to be incalculable.
  Again, I commend Senator Sessions and everyone involved in this 
initiative to finish the task that meant so much to Senator Coverdell. 
I thank the Democratic members of the committee in the House and 
especially thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott), who really deserve the lion's share of the credit. I would 
also like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked 
diligently to keep this legislation alive for over a year. I support 
the bill and ask my colleagues to support it, also.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time and under my reservation, 
I just want to thank the Commonwealth of Virginia for its excellent 
crime labs under the leadership of Paul Ferrara. Virginia has done an 
excellent job in forensic technology.
  Mr. Speaker, based on the comments made by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), I withdraw 
my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

                                S. 3045

       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 ``Paul Coverdell National 
     Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 2000''.

[[Page 26409]]



     SEC. 2. IMPROVING THE QUALITY, TIMELINESS, AND CREDIBILITY OF 
                   FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICES FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 
                   PURPOSES.

       (a) Description of Drug Control and System Improvement 
     Grant Program.--Section 501(b) of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 375(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (25), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (26), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(27) improving the quality, timeliness, and credibility 
     of forensic science services for criminal justice 
     purposes.''.
       (b) State Applications.--Section 503(a) of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3753(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) If any part of the amount received from a grant 
     under this part is to be used to improve the quality, 
     timeliness, and credibility of forensic science services for 
     criminal justice purposes, a certification that, as of the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph, the State, or unit of 
     local government within the State, has an established--
       ``(A) forensic science laboratory or forensic science 
     laboratory system, that--
       ``(i) employs 1 or more full-time scientists--
       ``(I) whose principal duties are the examination of 
     physical evidence for law enforcement agencies in criminal 
     matters; and
       ``(II) who provide testimony with respect to such physical 
     evidence to the criminal justice system;
       ``(ii) employs generally accepted practices and procedures, 
     as established by appropriate accrediting organizations; and
       ``(iii) is accredited by the Laboratory Accreditation Board 
     of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors or the 
     National Association of Medical Examiners, or will use a 
     portion of the grant amount to prepare and apply for such 
     accreditation by not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which a grant is initially awarded under this paragraph; or
       ``(B) medical examiner's office (as defined by the National 
     Association of Medical Examiners) that--
       ``(i) employs generally accepted practices and procedures, 
     as established by appropriate accrediting organizations; and
       ``(ii) is accredited by the Laboratory Accreditation Board 
     of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors or the 
     National Association of Medical Examiners, or will use a 
     portion of the grant amount to prepare and apply for such 
     accreditation by not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which a grant is initially awarded under this paragraph.''.
       (c) Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grants.--
       (1) In general.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``PART BB--PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT GRANTS

     ``SEC. 2801. GRANT AUTHORIZATION.

       ``The Attorney General shall award grants to States in 
     accordance with this part.

     ``SEC. 2802. APPLICATIONS.

       ``To request a grant under this part, a State shall submit 
     to the Attorney General--
       ``(1) a certification that the State has developed a 
     consolidated State plan for forensic science laboratories 
     operated by the State or by other units of local government 
     within the State under a program described in section 
     2804(a), and a specific description of the manner in which 
     the grant will be used to carry out that plan;
       ``(2) a certification that any forensic science laboratory 
     system, medical examiner's office, or coroner's office in the 
     State, including any laboratory operated by a unit of local 
     government within the State, that will receive any portion of 
     the grant amount uses generally accepted laboratory practices 
     and procedures, established by accrediting organizations; and
       ``(3) a specific description of any new facility to be 
     constructed as part of the program described in paragraph 
     (1), and the estimated costs of that facility, and a 
     certification that the amount of the grant used for the costs 
     of the facility will not exceed the limitations set forth in 
     section 2804(c).

     ``SEC. 2803. ALLOCATION.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Population allocation.--Seventy-five percent of the 
     amount made available to carry out this part in each fiscal 
     year shall be allocated to each State that meets the 
     requirements of section 2802 so that each State shall receive 
     an amount that bears the same ratio to the 75 percent of the 
     total amount made available to carry out this part for that 
     fiscal year as the population of the State bears to the 
     population of all States.
       ``(2) Discretionary allocation.--Twenty-five percent of the 
     amount made available to carry out this part in each fiscal 
     year shall be allocated pursuant to the Attorney General's 
     discretion to States with above average rates of part 1 
     violent crimes based on the average annual number of part 1 
     violent crimes reported by such State to the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation for the 3 most recent calendar years for 
     which such data is available.
       ``(3) Minimum requirement.--Each State shall receive not 
     less than 0.6 percent of the amount made available to carry 
     out this part in each fiscal year.
       ``(4) Proportional reduction.--If the amounts available to 
     carry out this part in each fiscal year are insufficient to 
     pay in full the total payment that any State is otherwise 
     eligible to receive under paragraph (3), then the Attorney 
     General shall reduce payments under paragraph (1) for such 
     payment period to the extent of such insufficiency. 
     Reductions under the preceding sentence shall be allocated 
     among the States (other than States whose payment is 
     determined under paragraph (3)) in the same proportions as 
     amounts would be allocated under paragraph (1) without regard 
     to paragraph (3).
       ``(b) State Defined.--In this section, the term `State' 
     means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American 
     Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, except that--
       ``(1) for purposes of the allocation under this section, 
     American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands shall be considered as 1 State; and
       ``(2) for purposes of paragraph (1), 67 percent of the 
     amount allocated shall be allocated to American Samoa, and 33 
     percent shall be allocated to the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands.

     ``SEC. 2804. USE OF GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--A State that receives a grant under this 
     part shall use the grant to carry out all or a substantial 
     part of a program intended to improve the quality and 
     timeliness of forensic science or medical examiner services 
     in the State, including such services provided by the 
     laboratories operated by the State and those operated by 
     units of local government within the State.
       ``(b) Permitted Categories of Funding.--Subject to 
     subsections (c) and (d), a grant awarded under this part--
       ``(1) may only be used for program expenses relating to 
     facilities, personnel, computerization, equipment, supplies, 
     accreditation and certification, education, and training; and
       ``(2) may not be used for any general law enforcement or 
     nonforensic investigatory function.
       ``(c) Facilities Costs.--
       ``(1) States receiving minimum grant amount.--With respect 
     to a State that receives a grant under this part in an amount 
     that does not exceed 0.6 percent of the total amount made 
     available to carry out this part for a fiscal year, not more 
     than 80 percent of the total amount of the grant may be used 
     for the costs of any new facility constructed as part of a 
     program described in subsection (a).
       ``(2) Other states.--With respect to a State that receives 
     a grant under this part in an amount that exceeds 0.6 percent 
     of the total amount made available to carry out this part for 
     a fiscal year--
       ``(A) not more than 80 percent of the amount of the grant 
     up to that 0.6 percent may be used for the costs of any new 
     facility constructed as part of a program described in 
     subsection (a); and
       ``(B) not more than 40 percent of the amount of the grant 
     in excess of that 0.6 percent may be used for the costs of 
     any new facility constructed as part of a program described 
     in subsection (a).
       ``(d) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 10 percent of 
     the total amount of a grant awarded under this part may be 
     used for administrative expenses.

     ``SEC. 2805. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Regulations.--The Attorney General may promulgate 
     such guidelines, regulations, and procedures as may be 
     necessary to carry out this part, including guidelines, 
     regulations, and procedures relating to the submission and 
     review of applications for grants under section 2802.
       ``(b) Expenditure Records.--
       ``(1) Records.--Each State, or unit of local government 
     within the State, that receives a grant under this part shall 
     maintain such records as the Attorney General may require to 
     facilitate an effective audit relating to the receipt of the 
     grant, or the use of the grant amount.
       ``(2) Access.--The Attorney General and the Comptroller 
     General of the United States, or a designee thereof, shall 
     have access, for the purpose of audit and examination, to any 
     book, document, or record of a State, or unit of local 
     government within the State, that receives a grant under this 
     part, if, in the determination of the Attorney General, 
     Comptroller General, or designee thereof, the book, document, 
     or record is related to the receipt of the grant, or the use 
     of the grant amount.

     ``SEC. 2806. REPORTS.

       ``(a) Reports to Attorney General.--For each fiscal year 
     for which a grant is awarded under this part, each State that 
     receives such a grant shall submit to the Attorney General a 
     report, at such time and in such manner as the Attorney 
     General may reasonably require, which report shall include--
       ``(1) a summary and assessment of the program carried out 
     with the grant;
       ``(2) the average number of days between submission of a 
     sample to a forensic science laboratory or forensic science 
     laboratory system in that State operated by the State

[[Page 26410]]

     or by a unit of local government and the delivery of test 
     results to the requesting office or agency; and
       ``(3) such other information as the Attorney General may 
     require.
       ``(b) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the last day of each fiscal year for which 1 or more grants 
     are awarded under this part, the Attorney General shall 
     submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
     President pro tempore of the Senate, a report, which shall 
     include--
       ``(1) the aggregate amount of grants awarded under this 
     part for that fiscal year; and
       ``(2) a summary of the information provided under 
     subsection (a).''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1001(a) of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3753(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     part BB, to remain available until expended--
       ``(A) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(B) $85,400,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(C) $134,733,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(D) $128,067,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(E) $56,733,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       ``(F) $42,067,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.
       (B) Backlog elimination.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 for the 
     elimination of DNA convicted offender database sample 
     backlogs and for other related purposes, as provided in the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001.
       (3) Table of contents.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) 
     is amended by striking the table of contents.
       (4) Repeal of 20 percent floor for cita crime lab grants.--
     Section 102(e)(2) of the Crime Identification Technology Act 
     of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601(e)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating 
     subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).

     SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION REGARDING CERTAIN CLAIMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 983(a)(2)(C)(ii) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``(and provide 
     customary documentary evidence of such interest if available) 
     and state that the claim is not frivolous''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the amendment made by 
     section 2(a) of Public Law 106-185.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE OBLIGATION OF GRANTEE 
                   STATES TO ENSURE ACCESS TO POST-CONVICTION DNA 
                   TESTING AND COMPETENT COUNSEL IN CAPITAL CASES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) over the past decade, deoxyribonucleic acid testing 
     (referred to in this section as ``DNA testing'') has emerged 
     as the most reliable forensic technique for identifying 
     criminals when biological material is left at a crime scene;
       (2) because of its scientific precision, DNA testing can, 
     in some cases, conclusively establish the guilt or innocence 
     of a criminal defendant;
       (3) in other cases, DNA testing may not conclusively 
     establish guilt or innocence, but may have significant 
     probative value to a finder of fact;
       (4) DNA testing was not widely available in cases tried 
     prior to 1994;
       (5) new forensic DNA testing procedures have made it 
     possible to get results from minute samples that could not 
     previously be tested, and to obtain more informative and 
     accurate results than earlier forms of forensic DNA testing 
     could produce, resulting in some cases of convicted inmates 
     being exonerated by new DNA tests after earlier tests had 
     failed to produce definitive results;
       (6) DNA testing can and has resulted in the post-conviction 
     exoneration of more than 75 innocent men and women, including 
     some under sentence of death;
       (7) in more than a dozen cases, post-conviction DNA testing 
     that has exonerated an innocent person has also enhanced 
     public safety by providing evidence that led to the 
     apprehension of the actual perpetrator;
       (8) experience has shown that it is not unduly burdensome 
     to make DNA testing available to inmates in appropriate 
     cases;
       (9) under current Federal and State law, it is difficult to 
     obtain post-conviction DNA testing because of time limits on 
     introducing newly discovered evidence;
       (10) the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, 
     a Federal panel established by the Department of Justice and 
     comprised of law enforcement, judicial, and scientific 
     experts, has urged that post-conviction DNA testing be 
     permitted in the relatively small number of cases in which it 
     is appropriate, notwithstanding procedural rules that could 
     be invoked to preclude such testing, and notwithstanding the 
     inability of an inmate to pay for the testing;
       (11) only a few States have adopted post-conviction DNA 
     testing procedures;
       (12) States have received millions of dollars in DNA-
     related grants, and more funding is needed to improve State 
     forensic facilities and to reduce the nationwide backlog of 
     DNA samples from convicted offenders and crime scenes that 
     need to be tested or retested using upgraded methods;
       (13) States that accept such financial assistance should 
     not deny the promise of truth and justice for both sides of 
     our adversarial system that DNA testing offers;
       (14) post-conviction DNA testing and other post-conviction 
     investigative techniques have shown that innocent people have 
     been sentenced to death in this country;
       (15) a constitutional error in capital cases is incompetent 
     defense lawyers who fail to present important evidence that 
     the defendant may have been innocent or does not deserve to 
     be sentenced to death; and
       (16) providing quality representation to defendants facing 
     loss of liberty or life is essential to fundamental due 
     process and the speedy final resolution of judicial 
     proceedings.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Congress should condition forensic science-related 
     grants to a State or State forensic facility on the State's 
     agreement to ensure post-conviction DNA testing in 
     appropriate cases; and
       (2) Congress should work with the States to improve the 
     quality of legal representation in capital cases through the 
     establishment of standards that will assure the timely 
     appointment of competent counsel with adequate resources to 
     represent defendants in capital cases at each stage of the 
     proceedings.

  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________