[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27267-27281]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          ADVANCING JUSTICE THROUGH DNA TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2003

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 3214) 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, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3214

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Advancing 
     Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                   TITLE I--DEBBIE SMITH ACT OF 2003

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.
Sec. 103. Expansion of Combined DNA Index System.
Sec. 104. Tolling of statute of limitations.
Sec. 105. Legal assistance for victims of violence.
Sec. 106. Ensuring private laboratory assistance in eliminating DNA 
              backlog.

            TITLE II--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2003

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Ensuring public crime laboratory compliance with Federal 
              standards.
Sec. 203. DNA training and education for law enforcement, correctional 
              personnel, and court officers.
Sec. 204. Sexual assault forensic exam program grants.
Sec. 205. DNA research and development.
Sec. 206. National Forensic Science Commission.
Sec. 207. FBI DNA programs.
Sec. 208. DNA identification of missing persons.
Sec. 209. Enhanced criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure or 
              use of DNA information.
Sec. 210. Tribal coalition grants.
Sec. 211. Expansion of Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement 
              Grant Program.
Sec. 212. Report to Congress.

              TITLE III--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

Sec. 301. Short title.

        Subtitle A--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing

Sec. 311. Federal post-conviction DNA testing.
Sec. 312. Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program.
Sec. 313. Incentive grants to States to ensure consideration of claims 
              of actual innocence.

 Subtitle B--Improving the Quality of Representation in State Capital 
                                 Cases

Sec. 321. Capital representation improvement grants.
Sec. 322. Capital prosecution improvement grants.
Sec. 323. Applications.
Sec. 324. State reports.
Sec. 325. Evaluations by Inspector General and administrative remedies.
Sec. 326. Authorization of appropriations.

         Subtitle C--Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted

Sec. 331. Increased compensation in Federal cases for the wrongfully 
              convicted.
Sec. 332. Sense of Congress regarding compensation in State death 
              penalty cases.

                   TITLE I--DEBBIE SMITH ACT OF 2003

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Debbie Smith Act of 
     2003''.

[[Page 27268]]



     SEC. 102. DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Designation of Program; Eligibility of Local 
     Governments as Grantees.--Section 2 of the DNA Analysis 
     Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending the heading to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 2. THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.'';

       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting ``or units of local government'' after 
     ``eligible States''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``or unit of local government'' after 
     ``State'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, including samples from rape kits, 
     samples from other sexual assault evidence, and samples taken 
     in cases without an identified suspect''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``within the State'';
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting ``or unit of local government'' after 
     ``State'' both places that term appears; and
       (ii) by inserting ``, as required by the Attorney General'' 
     after ``application shall'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or unit of local 
     government'' after ``State'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or unit of local 
     government'' after ``State'' the first place that term 
     appears;
       (D) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by inserting ``or unit of local government'' after 
     ``State''; and
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (E) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) by inserting ``or unit of local government'' after 
     ``State''; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (F) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) if submitted by a unit of local government, certify 
     that the unit of local government has taken, or is taking, 
     all necessary steps to ensure that it is eligible to include, 
     directly or through a State law enforcement agency, all 
     analyses of samples for which it has requested funding in the 
     Combined DNA Index System; and'';
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``The plan'' and inserting ``A plan pursuant to subsection 
     (b)(1)'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``within the State''; 
     and
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``within the 
     State''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``and units of local 
     government'' after ``States'';
       (5) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or local government'' 
     after ``State'' both places that term appears; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or unit of local 
     government'' after ``State'';
       (6) in subsection (f), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``or unit of local government'' after 
     ``State'';
       (7) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or unit of local 
     government'' after ``State''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or units of local 
     government'' after ``States''; and
       (8) in subsection (h), by inserting ``or unit of local 
     government'' after ``State'' both places that term appears.
       (b) Reauthorization and Expansion of Program.--Section 2 of 
     the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 
     14135) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``(1) or'' before 
     ``(2)''; and
       (B) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(4) To collect DNA samples specified in paragraph (1).
       ``(5) To ensure that DNA testing and analysis of samples 
     from crimes, including sexual assault and other serious 
     violent crimes, are carried out in a timely manner.'';
       (2) in subsection (b), as amended by this section, by 
     inserting at the end the following:
       ``(7) specify that portion of grant amounts that the State 
     or unit of local government shall use for the purpose 
     specified in subsection (a)(4).'';
       (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Formula for Distribution of Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall distribute 
     grant amounts, and establish appropriate grant conditions 
     under this section, in conformity with a formula or formulas 
     that are designed to effectuate a distribution of funds among 
     eligible States and units of local government that--
       ``(A) maximizes the effective utilization of DNA technology 
     to solve crimes and protect public safety; and
       ``(B) allocates grants among eligible entities fairly and 
     efficiently to address jurisdictions in which significant 
     backlogs exist, by considering--
       ``(i) the number of offender and casework samples awaiting 
     DNA analysis in a jurisdiction;
       ``(ii) the population in the jurisdiction; and
       ``(iii) the number of part 1 violent crimes in the 
     jurisdiction.
       ``(2) Minimum amount.--The Attorney General shall allocate 
     to each State not less than 0.50 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated in a fiscal year for grants under this section, 
     except that the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, 
     Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall each be 
     allocated 0.125 percent of the total appropriation.
       ``(3) Limitation.--Grant amounts distributed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be awarded to conduct DNA analyses of 
     samples from casework or from victims of crime under 
     subsection (a)(2) in accordance with the following 
     limitations:
       ``(A) For fiscal year 2005, not less than 50 percent of the 
     grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection 
     (a)(2).
       ``(B) For fiscal year 2006, not less than 50 percent of the 
     grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection 
     (a)(2).
       ``(C) For fiscal year 2007, not less than 45 percent of the 
     grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection 
     (a)(2).
       ``(D) For fiscal year 2008, not less than 40 percent of the 
     grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection 
     (a)(2).
       ``(E) For fiscal year 2009, not less than 40 percent of the 
     grant amounts shall be awarded for purposes under subsection 
     (a)(2).'';
       (4) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) a description of the priorities and plan for awarding 
     grants among eligible States and units of local government, 
     and how such plan will ensure the effective use of DNA 
     technology to solve crimes and protect public safety.'';
       (5) in subsection (j), by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(1) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(2) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(3) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(4) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(5) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Use of Funds for Accreditation and Audits.--The 
     Attorney General may distribute not more than 1 percent of 
     the grant amounts under subsection (j)--
       ``(1) to States or units of local government to defray the 
     costs incurred by laboratories operated by each such State or 
     unit of local government in preparing for accreditation or 
     reaccreditation;
       ``(2) in the form of additional grants to States, units of 
     local government, or nonprofit professional organizations of 
     persons actively involved in forensic science and nationally 
     recognized within the forensic science community--
       ``(A) to defray the costs of external audits of 
     laboratories operated by such State or unit of local 
     government, which participates in the National DNA Index 
     System, to determine whether the laboratory is in compliance 
     with quality assurance standards;
       ``(B) to assess compliance with any plans submitted to the 
     National Institute of Justice, which detail the use of funds 
     received by States or units of local government under this 
     Act; and
       ``(C) to support future capacity building efforts; and
       ``(3) in the form of additional grants to nonprofit 
     professional associations actively involved in forensic 
     science and nationally recognized within the forensic science 
     community to defray the costs of training persons who conduct 
     external audits of laboratories operated by States and units 
     of local government and which participate in the National DNA 
     Index System.
       ``(l) External Audits and Remedial Efforts.--In the event 
     that a laboratory operated by a State or unit of local 
     government which has received funds under this Act has 
     undergone an external audit conducted to determine whether 
     the laboratory is in compliance with standards established by 
     the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, as 
     a result of such audit, identifies measures to remedy 
     deficiencies with respect to the compliance by the laboratory 
     with such standards, the State or unit of local government 
     shall implement any such remediation as soon as 
     practicable.''.

     SEC. 103. EXPANSION OF COMBINED DNA INDEX SYSTEM.

       (a) Inclusion of All DNA Samples From States.--Section 
     210304 of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
     14132) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``of persons 
     convicted of crimes;'' and inserting the following: ``of--
       ``(A) persons convicted of crimes;
       ``(B) persons who have been indicted or who have waived 
     indictment for a crime; and
       ``(C) other persons whose DNA samples are collected under 
     applicable legal authorities, provided that DNA profiles from 
     arrestees who have not been indicted and DNA samples that are 
     voluntarily submitted solely for elimination purposes shall 
     not be included in the Combined DNA Index System;''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``if the responsible agency'' and 
     inserting``if--
       ``(i) the responsible agency'';
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and

[[Page 27269]]

       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) the person has not been convicted of an offense on 
     the basis of which that analysis was or could have been 
     included in the index, and all charges for which the analysis 
     was or could have been included in the index have been 
     dismissed or resulted in acquittal.''.
       (b) Felons Convicted of Federal Crimes.--Section 3(d) of 
     the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 
     14135a(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Qualifying Federal Offenses.--The offenses that shall 
     be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying Federal 
     offenses are the following offenses, as determined by the 
     Attorney General:
       ``(1) Any felony.
       ``(2) Any offense under chapter 109A of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       ``(3) Any crime of violence (as that term is defined in 
     section 16 of title 18, United States Code).
       ``(4) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the 
     offenses in paragraphs (1) through (3).''.
       (c) Military Offenses.--Section 1565(d) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Qualifying Military Offenses.--The offenses that 
     shall be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying 
     military offenses are the following offenses, as determined 
     by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General:
       ``(1) Any offense under the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice for which a sentence of confinement for more than one 
     year may be imposed.
       ``(2) Any other offense under the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice that is comparable to a qualifying Federal offense 
     (as determined under section 3(d) of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
     Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a(d))).''.
       (d) Keyboard Searches.--Section 210304 of the DNA 
     Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132), as amended by 
     subsection (a), is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Authority for Keyboard Searches.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall ensure that any 
     person who is authorized to access the index described in 
     subsection (a) for purposes of including information on DNA 
     identification records or DNA analyses in that index may also 
     access that index for purposes of carrying out a one-time 
     keyboard search on information obtained from any DNA sample 
     lawfully collected for a criminal justice purpose except for 
     a DNA sample voluntarily submitted solely for elimination 
     purposes.
       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term 
     `keyboard search' means a search under which information 
     obtained from a DNA sample is compared with information in 
     the index without resulting in the information obtained from 
     a DNA sample being included in the index.
       ``(3) No preemption.--This subsection shall not be 
     construed to preempt State law.''.

     SEC. 104. TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 3297. Cases involving DNA evidence

       ``In a case in which DNA testing implicates an identified 
     person in the commission of a felony, no statute of 
     limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution of the 
     offense shall preclude such prosecution until a period of 
     time following the implication of the person by DNA testing 
     has elapsed that is equal to the otherwise applicable 
     limitation period.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``3297. Cases involving DNA evidence.''.
       (c) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on, 
     or after the date of the enactment of this section if the 
     applicable limitation period has not yet expired.

     SEC. 105. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE.

       Section 1201 of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796gg-6) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence,'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively;
       (B) by inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated by 
     subparagraph (A), the following:
       ``(1) Dating violence.--The term `dating violence' means 
     violence committed by a person who is or has been in a social 
     relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the 
     victim. The existence of such a relationship shall be 
     determined based on a consideration of--
       ``(A) the length of the relationship;
       ``(B) the type of relationship; and
       ``(C) the frequency of interaction between the persons 
     involved in the relationship.''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by subparagraph (A), 
     by inserting ``dating violence,'' after ``domestic 
     violence,'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting ``, dating violence,'' after ``between 
     domestic violence''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``dating violence,'' after ``victims of 
     domestic violence,'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence,''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence,'';
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence''; and
       (D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence,'';
       (5) in subsection (e), by inserting ``dating violence,'' 
     after ``domestic violence,''; and
       (6) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by inserting ``dating 
     violence,'' after ``domestic violence,''.

     SEC. 106. ENSURING PRIVATE LABORATORY ASSISTANCE IN 
                   ELIMINATING DNA BACKLOG.

       Section 2(d)(3) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 
     of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135(d)(3)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) Use of vouchers or contracts for certain purposes.--
       ``(A) In general.--A grant for the purposes specified in 
     paragraph (1), (2), or (5) of subsection (a) may be made in 
     the form of a voucher or contract for laboratory services.
       ``(B) Redemption.--A voucher or contract under subparagraph 
     (A) may be redeemed at a laboratory operated by a private 
     entity that satisfies quality assurance standards and has 
     been approved by the Attorney General.
       ``(C) Payments.--The Attorney General may use amounts 
     authorized under subsection (j) to make payments to a 
     laboratory described under subparagraph (B).''.

            TITLE II--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2003

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``DNA Sexual Assault Justice 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 202. ENSURING PUBLIC CRIME LABORATORY COMPLIANCE WITH 
                   FEDERAL STANDARDS.

       Section 210304(b)(2) of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 
     (42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) prepared by laboratories that--
       ``(A) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003, have been 
     accredited by a nonprofit professional association of persons 
     actively involved in forensic science that is nationally 
     recognized within the forensic science community; and
       ``(B) undergo external audits, not less than once every 2 
     years, that demonstrate compliance with standards established 
     by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
     and''.

     SEC. 203. DNA TRAINING AND EDUCATION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, 
                   CORRECTIONAL PERSONNEL, AND COURT OFFICERS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to 
     eligible entities to provide training, technical assistance, 
     education, and information relating to the identification, 
     collection, preservation, analysis, and use of DNA samples 
     and DNA evidence.
       (b) Eligible Entity.--For purposes of subsection (a), an 
     eligible entity is an organization consisting of, comprised 
     of, or representing--
       (1) law enforcement personnel, including police officers 
     and other first responders, evidence technicians, 
     investigators, and others who collect or examine evidence of 
     crime;
       (2) court officers, including State and local prosecutors, 
     defense lawyers, and judges;
       (3) forensic science professionals; and
       (4) corrections personnel, including prison and jail 
     personnel, and probation, parole, and other officers involved 
     in supervision.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $12,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 204. SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAM PROGRAM GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to 
     eligible entities to provide training, technical assistance, 
     education, equipment, and information relating to the 
     identification, collection, preservation, analysis, and use 
     of DNA samples and DNA evidence by medical personnel and 
     other personnel, including doctors, medical examiners, 
     coroners, nurses, victim service providers, and other 
     professionals involved in treating victims of sexual assault 
     and sexual assault examination programs, including SANE 
     (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner), SAFE (Sexual Assault 
     Forensic Examiner), and SART (Sexual Assault Response Team).
       (b) Eligible Entity.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``eligible entity'' includes--
       (1) States;
       (2) units of local government; and
       (3) sexual assault examination programs, including--
       (A) sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs;
       (B) sexual assault forensic examiner (SAFE) programs;

[[Page 27270]]

       (C) sexual assault response team (SART) programs;
       (D) State sexual assault coalitions;
       (E) medical personnel, including doctors, medical 
     examiners, coroners, and nurses, involved in treating victims 
     of sexual assault; and
       (F) victim service providers involved in treating victims 
     of sexual assault.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 205. DNA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Improving DNA Technology.--The Attorney General shall 
     make grants for research and development to improve forensic 
     DNA technology, including increasing the identification 
     accuracy and efficiency of DNA analysis, decreasing time and 
     expense, and increasing portability.
       (b) Demonstration Projects.--The Attorney General shall 
     make grants to appropriate entities under which research is 
     carried out through demonstration projects involving 
     coordinated training and commitment of resources to law 
     enforcement agencies and key criminal justice participants to 
     demonstrate and evaluate the use of forensic DNA technology 
     in conjunction with other forensic tools. The demonstration 
     projects shall include scientific evaluation of the public 
     safety benefits, improvements to law enforcement operations, 
     and cost-effectiveness of increased collection and use of DNA 
     evidence.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 206. NATIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMISSION.

       (a) Appointment.--The Attorney General shall appoint a 
     National Forensic Science Commission (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Commission''), composed of persons 
     experienced in criminal justice issues, including persons 
     from the forensic science and criminal justice communities, 
     to carry out the responsibilities under subsection (b).
       (b) Responsibilities.--The Commission shall--
       (1) assess the present and future resource needs of the 
     forensic science community;
       (2) make recommendations to the Attorney General for 
     maximizing the use of forensic technologies and techniques to 
     solve crimes and protect the public;
       (3) identify potential scientific advances that may assist 
     law enforcement in using forensic technologies and techniques 
     to protect the public;
       (4) make recommendations to the Attorney General for 
     programs that will increase the number of qualified forensic 
     scientists available to work in public crime laboratories;
       (5) disseminate, through the National Institute of Justice, 
     best practices concerning the collection and analyses of 
     forensic evidence to help ensure quality and consistency in 
     the use of forensic technologies and techniques to solve 
     crimes and protect the public;
       (6) examine additional issues pertaining to forensic 
     science as requested by the Attorney General;
       (7) examine Federal, State, and local privacy protection 
     statutes, regulations, and practices relating to access to, 
     or use of, stored DNA samples or DNA analyses, to determine 
     whether such protections are sufficient;
       (8) make specific recommendations to the Attorney General, 
     as necessary, to enhance the protections described in 
     paragraph (7) to ensure--
       (A) the appropriate use and dissemination of DNA 
     information;
       (B) the accuracy, security, and confidentiality of DNA 
     information;
       (C) the timely removal and destruction of obsolete, 
     expunged, or inaccurate DNA information; and
       (D) that any other necessary measures are taken to protect 
     privacy; and
       (9) provide a forum for the exchange and dissemination of 
     ideas and information in furtherance of the objectives 
     described in paragraphs (1) through (8).
       (c) Personnel; Procedures.--The Attorney General shall--
       (1) designate the Chair of the Commission from among its 
     members;
       (2) designate any necessary staff to assist in carrying out 
     the functions of the Commission; and
       (3) establish procedures and guidelines for the operations 
     of the Commission.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 207. FBI DNA PROGRAMS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     $42,100,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to 
     carry out the DNA programs and activities described under 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Programs and Activities.--The Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation may use any amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     subsection (a) for--
       (1) nuclear DNA analysis;
       (2) mitochondrial DNA analysis;
       (3) regional mitochondrial DNA laboratories;
       (4) the Combined DNA Index System;
       (5) the Federal Convicted Offender DNA Program; and
       (6) DNA research and development.

     SEC. 208. DNA IDENTIFICATION OF MISSING PERSONS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to 
     States and units of local government to promote the use of 
     forensic DNA technology to identify missing persons and 
     unidentified human remains.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 209. ENHANCED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED 
                   DISCLOSURE OR USE OF DNA INFORMATION.

       Section 10(c) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 
     of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135e(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Criminal Penalty.--A person who knowingly discloses a 
     sample or result described in subsection (a) in any manner to 
     any person not authorized to receive it, or obtains or uses, 
     without authorization, such sample or result, shall be fined 
     not more than $100,000. Each instance of disclosure, 
     obtaining, or use shall constitute a separate offense under 
     this subsection.''.

     SEC. 210. TRIBAL COALITION GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2001 of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Tribal Coalition Grants.--
       ``(1) Purpose.--The Attorney General shall award grants to 
     tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions for 
     purposes of--
       ``(A) increasing awareness of domestic violence and sexual 
     assault against Indian women;
       ``(B) enhancing the response to violence against Indian 
     women at the tribal, Federal, and State levels; and
       ``(C) identifying and providing technical assistance to 
     coalition membership and tribal communities to enhance access 
     to essential services to Indian women victimized by domestic 
     and sexual violence.
       ``(2) Grants to tribal coalitions.--The Attorney General 
     shall award grants under paragraph (1) to--
       ``(A) established nonprofit, nongovernmental tribal 
     coalitions addressing domestic violence and sexual assault 
     against Indian women; and
       ``(B) individuals or organizations that propose to 
     incorporate as nonprofit, nongovernmental tribal coalitions 
     to address domestic violence and sexual assault against 
     Indian women.
       ``(3) Eligibility for other grants.--Receipt of an award 
     under this subsection by tribal domestic violence and sexual 
     assault coalitions shall not preclude the coalition from 
     receiving additional grants under this title to carry out the 
     purposes described in subsection (b).''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Effective as of November 2, 2002, 
     and as if included therein as enacted, Public Law 107-273 
     (116 Stat. 1789) is amended in section 402(2) by striking 
     ``sections 2006 through 2011'' and inserting ``sections 2007 
     through 2011''.
       (c) Amounts.--Section 2007 of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (as redesignated by section 402(2) 
     of Public Law 107-273, as amended by subsection (b)) is 
     amended by amending subsection (b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-
     1(b)(4)) to read as follows:
       ``(4) \1/54\ shall be available for grants under section 
     2001(d);''.

     SEC. 211. EXPANSION OF PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC SCIENCES 
                   IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Forensic Backlog Elimination Grants.--Section 2804 of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3797m) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``shall use the grant to carry out'' and 
     inserting ``shall use the grant to do any one or more of the 
     following:
       ``(1) To carry out''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) To eliminate a backlog in the analysis of forensic 
     science evidence, including firearms examination, latent 
     prints, toxicology, controlled substances, forensic 
     pathology, questionable documents, and trace evidence.
       ``(3) To train, assist, and employ forensic laboratory 
     personnel, as needed, to eliminate such a backlog.'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``under this part'' and 
     inserting ``for the purpose set forth in subsection (a)(1)''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Backlog Defined.--For purposes of this section, a 
     backlog in the analysis of forensic science evidence exists 
     if such evidence--
       ``(1) has been stored in a laboratory, medical examiner's 
     office, coroner's office, law enforcement storage facility, 
     or medical facility; and
       ``(2) has not been subjected to all appropriate forensic 
     testing because of a lack of resources or personnel.''.
       (b) External Audits.--Section 2802 of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797k) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and

[[Page 27271]]

       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) a certification that a government entity exists and 
     an appropriate process is in place to conduct independent 
     external investigations into allegations of serious 
     negligence or misconduct substantially affecting the 
     integrity of the forensic results committed by employees or 
     contractors of any forensic laboratory system, medical 
     examiner's office, coroner's office, law enforcement storage 
     facility, or medical facility in the State that will receive 
     a portion of the grant amount.''.
       (c) Three-Year Extension of Authorization of 
     Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(24) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(24)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(H) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(I) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.''.
       (d) Technical Amendment.--Section 1001(a) of such Act, as 
     amended by subsection (c), is further amended by realigning 
     paragraphs (24) and (25) so as to be flush with the left 
     margin.

     SEC. 212. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the implementation of this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act.
       (b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall include a description of--
       (1) the progress made by Federal, State, and local entities 
     in--
       (A) collecting and entering DNA samples from offenders 
     convicted of qualifying offenses for inclusion in the 
     Combined DNA Index System (referred to in this subsection as 
     ``CODIS'');
       (B) analyzing samples from crime scenes, including evidence 
     collected from sexual assaults and other serious violent 
     crimes, and entering such DNA analyses in CODIS; and
       (C) increasing the capacity of forensic laboratories to 
     conduct DNA analyses;
       (2) the priorities and plan for awarding grants among 
     eligible States and units of local government to ensure that 
     the purposes of this Act are carried out;
       (3) the distribution of grant amounts under this Act among 
     eligible States and local governments, and whether the 
     distribution of such funds has served the purposes of the 
     Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program;
       (4) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible 
     entities for DNA training and education programs for law 
     enforcement, correctional personnel, court officers, medical 
     personnel, victim service providers, and other personnel 
     authorized under sections 203 and 204;
       (5) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible 
     entities to conduct DNA research and development programs to 
     improve forensic DNA technology, and implement demonstration 
     projects under section 205;
       (6) the steps taken to establish the National Forensic 
     Science Commission, and the activities of the Commission 
     under section 206;
       (7) the use of funds by the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     under section 207;
       (8) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible 
     entities to promote the use of forensic DNA technology to 
     identify missing persons and unidentified human remains under 
     section 208;
       (9) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible 
     entities to eliminate forensic science backlogs under the 
     amendments made by section 211;
       (10) State compliance with the requirements set forth in 
     section 313; and
       (11) any other matters considered relevant by the Attorney 
     General.

              TITLE III--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Innocence Protection Act 
     of 2003''.

        Subtitle A--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing

     SEC. 311. FEDERAL POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING.

       (a) Federal Criminal Procedure.--
       (1) In general.--Part II of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after chapter 228 the following:

              ``CHAPTER 228A--POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING

``Sec.
``3600. DNA testing.
``3600A. Preservation of biological evidence.

     ``Sec. 3600. DNA testing

       ``(a) In General.--Upon a written motion by an individual 
     under a sentence of imprisonment or death pursuant to a 
     conviction for a Federal offense (referred to in this section 
     as the `applicant'), the court that entered the judgment of 
     conviction shall order DNA testing of specific evidence if--
       ``(1) the applicant asserts, under penalty of perjury, that 
     the applicant is actually innocent of--
       ``(A) the Federal offense for which the applicant is under 
     a sentence of imprisonment or death; or
       ``(B) another Federal or State offense, if--
       ``(i)(I) such offense was legally necessary to make the 
     applicant eligible for a sentence as a career offender under 
     section 3559(e) or an armed career offender under section 
     924(e), and exoneration of such offense would entitle the 
     applicant to a reduced sentence; or
       ``(II) evidence of such offense was admitted during a 
     Federal death sentencing hearing and exoneration of such 
     offense would entitle the applicant to a reduced sentence or 
     new sentencing hearing; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a State offense--

       ``(I) the applicant demonstrates that there is no adequate 
     remedy under State law to permit DNA testing of the specified 
     evidence relating to the State offense; and
       ``(II) to the extent available, the applicant has exhausted 
     all remedies available under State law for requesting DNA 
     testing of specified evidence relating to the State offense;

       ``(2) the specific evidence to be tested was secured in 
     relation to the investigation or prosecution of the Federal 
     or State offense referenced in the applicant's assertion 
     under paragraph (1);
       ``(3) the specific evidence to be tested--
       ``(A) was not previously subjected to DNA testing and the 
     applicant did not knowingly and voluntarily waive the right 
     to request DNA testing of that evidence in a court proceeding 
     after the date of enactment of the Innocence Protection Act 
     of 2003; or
       ``(B) was previously subjected to DNA testing and the 
     applicant is requesting DNA testing using a new method or 
     technology that is substantially more probative than the 
     prior DNA testing;
       ``(4) the specific evidence to be tested is in the 
     possession of the Government and has been subject to a chain 
     of custody and retained under conditions sufficient to ensure 
     that such evidence has not been substituted, contaminated, 
     tampered with, replaced, or altered in any respect material 
     to the proposed DNA testing;
       ``(5) the proposed DNA testing is reasonable in scope, uses 
     scientifically sound methods, and is consistent with accepted 
     forensic practices;
       ``(6) the applicant identifies a theory of defense that--
       ``(A) is not inconsistent with an affirmative defense 
     presented at trial; and
       ``(B) would establish the actual innocence of the applicant 
     of the Federal or State offense referenced in the applicant's 
     assertion under paragraph (1);
       ``(7) if the applicant was convicted following a trial, the 
     identity of the perpetrator was at issue in the trial;
       ``(8) the proposed DNA testing of the specific evidence--
       ``(A) would produce new material evidence to support the 
     theory of defense referenced in paragraph (6); and
       ``(B) assuming the DNA test result excludes the applicant, 
     would raise a reasonable probability that the applicant did 
     not commit the offense;
       ``(9) the applicant certifies that the applicant will 
     provide a DNA sample for purposes of comparison; and
       ``(10) the applicant's motion is filed for the purpose of 
     demonstrating the applicant's actual innocence of the Federal 
     or State offense, and not to delay the execution of the 
     sentence or the administration of justice.
       ``(b) Notice to the Government; Preservation Order; 
     Appointment of Counsel.--
       ``(1) Notice.--Upon the receipt of a motion filed under 
     subsection (a), the court shall--
       ``(A) notify the Government; and
       ``(B) allow the Government a reasonable time period to 
     respond to the motion.
       ``(2) Preservation order.--To the extent necessary to carry 
     out proceedings under this section, the court shall direct 
     the Government to preserve the specific evidence relating to 
     a motion under subsection (a).
       ``(3) Appointment of counsel.--The court may appoint 
     counsel for an indigent applicant under this section in the 
     same manner as in a proceeding under section 3006A(a)(2)(B).
       ``(c) Testing Procedures.--
       ``(1) In general.--The court shall direct that any DNA 
     testing ordered under this section be carried out by the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the court 
     may order DNA testing by another qualified laboratory if the 
     court makes all necessary orders to ensure the integrity of 
     the specific evidence and the reliability of the testing 
     process and test results.
       ``(3) Costs.--The costs of any DNA testing ordered under 
     this section shall be paid--
       ``(A) by the applicant; or
       ``(B) in the case of an applicant who is indigent, by the 
     Government.
       ``(d) Time Limitation in Capital Cases.--In any case in 
     which the applicant is sentenced to death--
       ``(1) any DNA testing ordered under this section shall be 
     completed not later than 60 days after the date on which the 
     Government responds to the motion filed under subsection (a); 
     and
       ``(2) not later than 120 days after the date on which the 
     DNA testing ordered under this section is completed, the 
     court shall order any post-testing procedures under 
     subsection (f) or (g), as appropriate.

[[Page 27272]]

       ``(e) Reporting of Test Results.--
       ``(1) In general.--The results of any DNA testing ordered 
     under this section shall be simultaneously disclosed to the 
     court, the applicant, and the Government.
       ``(2) NDIS.--The Government shall submit any test results 
     relating to the DNA of the applicant to the National DNA 
     Index System (referred to in this subsection as `NDIS').
       ``(3) Retention of dna sample.--
       ``(A) Entry into ndis.--If the DNA test results obtained 
     under this section are inconclusive or show that the 
     applicant was the source of the DNA evidence, the DNA sample 
     of the applicant may be retained in NDIS.
       ``(B) Match with other offense.--If the DNA test results 
     obtained under this section exclude the applicant as the 
     source of the DNA evidence, and a comparison of the DNA 
     sample of the applicant results in a match between the DNA 
     sample of the applicant and another offense, the Attorney 
     General shall notify the appropriate agency and preserve the 
     DNA sample of the applicant.
       ``(C) No match.--If the DNA test results obtained under 
     this section exclude the applicant as the source of the DNA 
     evidence, and a comparison of the DNA sample of the applicant 
     does not result in a match between the DNA sample of the 
     applicant and another offense, the Attorney General shall 
     destroy the DNA sample of the applicant and ensure that such 
     information is not retained in NDIS if there is no other 
     legal authority to retain the DNA sample of the applicant in 
     NDIS.
       ``(f) Post-Testing Procedures; Inconclusive and Inculpatory 
     Results.--
       ``(1) Inconclusive results.--If DNA test results obtained 
     under this section are inconclusive, the court may order 
     further testing, if appropriate, or may deny the applicant 
     relief.
       ``(2) Inculpatory results.--If DNA test results obtained 
     under this section show that the applicant was the source of 
     the DNA evidence, the court shall--
       ``(A) deny the applicant relief; and
       ``(B) on motion of the Government--
       ``(i) make a determination whether the applicant's 
     assertion of actual innocence was false, and, if the court 
     makes such a finding, the court may hold the applicant in 
     contempt;
       ``(ii) assess against the applicant the cost of any DNA 
     testing carried out under this section;
       ``(iii) forward the finding to the Director of the Bureau 
     of Prisons, who, upon receipt of such a finding, may deny, 
     wholly or in part, the good conduct credit authorized under 
     section 3632 on the basis of that finding;
       ``(iv) if the applicant is subject to the jurisdiction of 
     the United States Parole Commission, forward the finding to 
     the Commission so that the Commission may deny parole on the 
     basis of that finding; and
       ``(v) if the DNA test results relate to a State offense, 
     forward the finding to any appropriate State official.
       ``(3) Sentence.--In any prosecution of an applicant under 
     chapter 79 for false assertions or other conduct in 
     proceedings under this section, the court, upon conviction of 
     the applicant, shall sentence the applicant to a term of 
     imprisonment of not less than 3 years, which shall run 
     consecutively to any other term of imprisonment the applicant 
     is serving.
       ``(g) Post-Testing Procedures; Motion for New Trial or 
     Resentencing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any law that would bar a 
     motion under this paragraph as untimely, if DNA test results 
     obtained under this section exclude the applicant as the 
     source of the DNA evidence, the applicant may file a motion 
     for a new trial or resentencing, as appropriate. The court 
     shall establish a reasonable schedule for the applicant to 
     file such a motion and for the Government to respond to the 
     motion.
       ``(2) Standard for granting motion for new trial or 
     resentencing.--The court shall grant the motion of the 
     applicant for a new trial or resentencing, as appropriate, if 
     the DNA test results, when considered with all other evidence 
     in the case (regardless of whether such evidence was 
     introduced at trial), establish by a preponderance of the 
     evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal of--
       ``(A) in the case of a motion for a new trial, the Federal 
     offense for which the applicant is under a sentence of 
     imprisonment or death; and
       ``(B) in the case of a motion for resentencing, another 
     Federal or State offense, if--
       ``(i) such offense was legally necessary to make the 
     applicant eligible for a sentence as a career offender under 
     section 3559(e) or an armed career offender under section 
     924(e), and exoneration of such offense would entitle the 
     applicant to a reduced sentence; or
       ``(ii) evidence of such offense was admitted during a 
     Federal death sentencing hearing and exoneration of such 
     offense would entitle the applicant to a reduced sentence or 
     a new sentencing proceeding.
       ``(h) Other Laws Unaffected.--
       ``(1) Post-conviction relief.--Nothing in this section 
     shall affect the circumstances under which a person may 
     obtain DNA testing or post-conviction relief under any other 
     law.
       ``(2) Habeas corpus.--Nothing in this section shall provide 
     a basis for relief in any Federal habeas corpus proceeding.
       ``(3) Application not a motion.--An application under this 
     section shall not be considered to be a motion under section 
     2255 for purposes of determining whether the application or 
     any other motion is a second or successive motion under 
     section 2255.

     ``Sec. 3600A. Preservation of biological evidence

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Government shall preserve biological evidence that 
     was secured in the investigation or prosecution of a Federal 
     offense, if a defendant is under a sentence of imprisonment 
     for such offense.
       ``(b) Defined Term.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `biological evidence' means--
       ``(1) a sexual assault forensic examination kit; or
       ``(2) semen, blood, saliva, hair, skin tissue, or other 
     identified biological material.
       ``(c) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if--
       ``(1) a court has denied a request or motion for DNA 
     testing of the biological evidence by the defendant under 
     section 3600, and no appeal is pending;
       ``(2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the 
     right to request DNA testing of such evidence in a court 
     proceeding conducted after the date of enactment of the 
     Innocence Protection Act of 2003;
       ``(3) the defendant is notified after conviction that the 
     biological evidence may be destroyed and the defendant does 
     not file a motion under section 3600 within 180 days of 
     receipt of the notice; or
       ``(4)(A) the evidence must be returned to its rightful 
     owner, or is of such a size, bulk, or physical character as 
     to render retention impracticable; and
       ``(B) the Government takes reasonable measures to remove 
     and preserve portions of the material evidence sufficient to 
     permit future DNA testing.
       ``(d) Other Preservation Requirement.--Nothing in this 
     section shall preempt or supersede any statute, regulation, 
     court order, or other provision of law that may require 
     evidence, including biological evidence, to be preserved.
       ``(e) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Innocence Protection Act of 2003, the 
     Attorney General shall promulgate regulations to implement 
     and enforce this section, including appropriate disciplinary 
     sanctions to ensure that employees comply with such 
     regulations.
       ``(f) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever knowingly and 
     intentionally destroys, alters, or tampers with biological 
     evidence that is required to be preserved under this section 
     with the intent to prevent that evidence from being subjected 
     to DNA testing or prevent the production or use of that 
     evidence in an official proceeding, shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(g) Habeas Corpus.--Nothing in this section shall provide 
     a basis for relief in any Federal habeas corpus 
     proceeding.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The chapter analysis for part II 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 228 the following:

``228A. Post-conviction DNA testing.........................3600''.....

       (b) System for Reporting Motions.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Attorney General shall establish a 
     system for reporting and tracking motions filed in accordance 
     with section 3600 of title 18, United States Code.
       (2) Operation.--In operating the system established under 
     paragraph (1), the Federal courts shall provide to the 
     Attorney General any requested assistance in operating such a 
     system and in ensuring the accuracy and completeness of 
     information included in that system.
       (3) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a 
     report to Congress that contains--
       (A) a list of motions filed under section 3600 of title 18, 
     United States Code, as added by this Act;
       (B) whether DNA testing was ordered pursuant to such a 
     motion;
       (C) whether the applicant obtained relief on the basis of 
     DNA test results; and
       (D) whether further proceedings occurred following a 
     granting of relief and the outcome of such proceedings.
       (4) Additional information.--The report required to be 
     submitted under paragraph (3) may include any other 
     information the Attorney General determines to be relevant in 
     assessing the operation, utility, or costs of section 3600 of 
     title 18, United States Code, as added by this Act, and any 
     recommendations the Attorney General may have relating to 
     future legislative action concerning that section.
       (c) Effective Date; Applicability.--This section and the 
     amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date 
     of enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to any 
     offense committed, and to any judgment of conviction entered, 
     before, on, or after that date of enactment.

     SEC. 312. KIRK BLOODSWORTH POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish the 
     Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program to

[[Page 27273]]

     award grants to States to help defray the costs of post-
     conviction DNA testing.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 to carry out this section.
       (c) State Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``State'' means a State of the United States, the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States 
     Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern 
     Mariana Islands.

     SEC. 313. INCENTIVE GRANTS TO STATES TO ENSURE CONSIDERATION 
                   OF CLAIMS OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE.

       For each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, all funds 
     appropriated to carry out sections 203, 205, 207, and 312 
     shall be reserved for grants to eligible entities that--
       (1) meet the requirements under section 203, 205, 207, or 
     312, as appropriate; and
       (2) demonstrate that the State in which the eligible entity 
     operates--
       (A) provides post-conviction DNA testing of specified 
     evidence--
       (i) under a State statute enacted before the date of 
     enactment of this Act (or extended or renewed after such 
     date), to any person convicted after trial and under a 
     sentence of imprisonment or death for a State offense, in a 
     manner that ensures a meaningful process for resolving a 
     claim of actual innocence; or
       (ii) under a State statute enacted after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, or under a State rule, regulation, or 
     practice, to any person under a sentence of imprisonment or 
     death for a State offense, in a manner comparable to section 
     3600(a) of title 18, United States Code (provided that the 
     State statute, rule, regulation, or practice may make post-
     conviction DNA testing available in cases in which such 
     testing is not required by such section), and if the results 
     of such testing exclude the applicant, permits the applicant 
     to apply for post-conviction relief, notwithstanding any 
     provision of law that would otherwise bar such application as 
     untimely; and
       (B) preserves biological evidence secured in relation to 
     the investigation or prosecution of a State offense--
       (i) under a State statute or a State or local rule, 
     regulation, or practice, enacted or adopted before the date 
     of enactment of this Act (or extended or renewed after such 
     date), in a manner that ensures that reasonable measures are 
     taken by all jurisdictions within the State to preserve such 
     evidence; or
       (ii) under a State statute or a State or local rule, 
     regulation, or practice, enacted or adopted after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, in a manner comparable to section 
     3600A of title 18, United States Code, if--

       (I) all jurisdictions within the State comply with this 
     requirement; and
       (II) such jurisdictions may preserve such evidence for 
     longer than the period of time that such evidence would be 
     required to be preserved under such section 3600A.

 Subtitle B--Improving the Quality of Representation in State Capital 
                                 Cases

     SEC. 321. CAPITAL REPRESENTATION IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall award grants to 
     States for the purpose of improving the quality of legal 
     representation provided to indigent defendants in State 
     capital cases.
       (b) Defined Term.--In this section, the term ``legal 
     representation'' means legal counsel and investigative, 
     expert, and other services necessary for competent 
     representation.
       (c) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under subsection (a)--
       (1) shall be used to establish, implement, or improve an 
     effective system for providing competent legal representation 
     to--
       (A) indigents charged with an offense subject to capital 
     punishment;
       (B) indigents who have been sentenced to death and who seek 
     appellate or collateral relief in State court; and
       (C) indigents who have been sentenced to death and who seek 
     review in the Supreme Court of the United States; and
       (2) shall not be used to fund, directly or indirectly, 
     representation in specific capital cases.
       (d) Effective System.--As used in subsection (c)(1), an 
     effective system for providing competent legal representation 
     is a system that--
       (1) invests the responsibility for appointing qualified 
     attorneys to represent indigents in capital cases--
       (A) in a public defender program that relies on staff 
     attorneys, members of the private bar, or both, to provide 
     representation in capital cases;
       (B) in an entity established by statute or by the highest 
     State court with jurisdiction in criminal cases, which is 
     composed of individuals with demonstrated knowledge and 
     expertise in capital representation; or
       (C) pursuant to a statutory procedure enacted before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act under which the trial judge 
     is required to appoint qualified attorneys from a roster 
     maintained by a State or regional selection committee or 
     similar entity; and
       (2) requires the program described in paragraph (1)(A), the 
     entity described in paragraph (1)(B), or an appropriate 
     entity designated pursuant to the statutory procedure 
     described in paragraph (1)(C), as applicable, to--
       (A) establish qualifications for attorneys who may be 
     appointed to represent indigents in capital cases;
       (B) establish and maintain a roster of qualified attorneys;
       (C) except in the case of a selection committee or similar 
     entity described in paragraph (1)(C), assign 2 attorneys from 
     the roster to represent an indigent in a capital case, or 
     provide the trial judge a list of not more than 2 pairs of 
     attorneys from the roster, from which 1 pair shall be 
     assigned, provided that, in any case in which the State 
     elects not to seek the death penalty, a court may find, 
     subject to any requirement of State law, that a second 
     attorney need not remain assigned to represent the indigent 
     to ensure competent representation;
       (D) conduct, sponsor, or approve specialized training 
     programs for attorneys representing defendants in capital 
     cases;
       (E) monitor the performance of attorneys who are appointed 
     and their attendance at training programs, and remove from 
     the roster attorneys who fail to deliver effective 
     representation or who fail to comply with such requirements 
     as such program, entity, or selection committee or similar 
     entity may establish regarding participation in training 
     programs; and
       (F) ensure funding for the full cost of competent legal 
     representation by the defense team and outside experts 
     selected by counsel, who shall be compensated--
       (i) in the case of a State that employs a statutory 
     procedure described in paragraph (1)(C), in accordance with 
     the requirements of that statutory procedure; and
       (ii) in all other cases, as follows:

       (I) Attorneys employed by a public defender program shall 
     be compensated according to a salary scale that is 
     commensurate with the salary scale of the prosecutor's office 
     in the jurisdiction.
       (II) Appointed attorneys shall be compensated for actual 
     time and service, computed on an hourly basis and at a 
     reasonable hourly rate in light of the qualifications and 
     experience of the attorney and the local market for legal 
     representation in cases reflecting the complexity and 
     responsibility of capital cases.
       (III) Non-attorney members of the defense team, including 
     investigators, mitigation specialists, and experts, shall be 
     compensated at a rate that reflects the specialized skills 
     needed by those who assist counsel with the litigation of 
     death penalty cases.
       (IV) Attorney and non-attorney members of the defense team 
     shall be reimbursed for reasonable incidental expenses.

     SEC. 322. CAPITAL PROSECUTION IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall award grants to 
     States for the purpose of enhancing the ability of 
     prosecutors to effectively represent the public in State 
     capital cases.
       (b) Use of Funds.--
       (1) Permitted uses.--Grants awarded under subsection (a) 
     shall be used for one or more of the following:
       (A) To design and implement training programs for State and 
     local prosecutors to ensure effective representation in State 
     capital cases.
       (B) To develop and implement appropriate standards and 
     qualifications for State and local prosecutors who litigate 
     State capital cases.
       (C) To assess the performance of State and local 
     prosecutors who litigate State capital cases, provided that 
     such assessment shall not include participation by the 
     assessor in the trial of any specific capital case.
       (D) To identify and implement any potential legal reforms 
     that may be appropriate to minimize the potential for error 
     in the trial of capital cases.
       (E) To establish a program under which State and local 
     prosecutors conduct a systematic review of cases in which a 
     death sentence was imposed in order to identify cases in 
     which post-conviction DNA testing may be appropriate.
       (F) To provide support and assistance to the families of 
     murder victims.
       (2) Prohibited use.--Grants awarded under subsection (a) 
     shall not be used to fund, directly or indirectly, the 
     prosecution of specific capital cases.

     SEC. 323. APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a 
     process through which a State may apply for a grant under 
     this subtitle.
       (b) Application.--
       (1) In general.--A State desiring a grant under this 
     subtitle shall submit an application to the Attorney General 
     at such time, in such manner, and containing such information 
     as the Attorney General may reasonably require.
       (2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall contain--
       (A) a certification by an appropriate officer of the State 
     that the State authorizes capital punishment under its laws 
     and conducts, or will conduct, prosecutions in which capital 
     punishment is sought;
       (B) a description of the communities to be served by the 
     grant, including the nature of existing capital defender 
     services and capital prosecution programs within such 
     communities;

[[Page 27274]]

       (C) a long-term statewide strategy and detailed 
     implementation plan that--
       (i) reflects consultation with the judiciary, the organized 
     bar, and State and local prosecutor and defender 
     organizations; and
       (ii) establishes as a priority improvement in the quality 
     of trial-level representation of indigents charged with 
     capital crimes and trial-level prosecution of capital crimes;
       (D) in the case of a State that employs a statutory 
     procedure described in section 321(d)(1)(C), a certification 
     by an appropriate officer of the State that the State is in 
     substantial compliance with the requirements of the 
     applicable State statute; and
       (E) assurances that Federal funds received under this 
     subtitle shall be--
       (i) used to supplement and not supplant non-Federal funds 
     that would otherwise be available for activities funded under 
     this subtitle; and
       (ii) allocated in accordance with section 326(b).

     SEC. 324. STATE REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Each State receiving funds under this 
     subtitle shall submit an annual report to the Attorney 
     General that--
       (1) identifies the activities carried out with such funds; 
     and
       (2) explains how each activity complies with the terms and 
     conditions of the grant.
       (b) Capital Representation Improvement Grants.--With 
     respect to the funds provided under section 321, a report 
     under subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) an accounting of all amounts expended;
       (2) an explanation of the means by which the State--
       (A) invests the responsibility for identifying and 
     appointing qualified attorneys to represent indigents in 
     capital cases in a program described in section 321(d)(1)(A), 
     an entity described in section 321(d)(1)(B), or selection 
     committee or similar entity described in section 
     321(d)(1)(C); and
       (B) requires such program, entity, or selection committee 
     or similar entity, or other appropriate entity designated 
     pursuant to the statutory procedure described in section 
     321(d)(1)(C), to--
       (i) establish qualifications for attorneys who may be 
     appointed to represent indigents in capital cases in 
     accordance with section 321(d)(2)(A);
       (ii) establish and maintain a roster of qualified attorneys 
     in accordance with section 321(d)(2)(B);
       (iii) assign attorneys from the roster in accordance with 
     section 321(d)(2)(C);
       (iv) conduct, sponsor, or approve specialized training 
     programs for attorneys representing defendants in capital 
     cases in accordance with section 321(d)(2)(D);
       (v) monitor the performance and training program attendance 
     of appointed attorneys, and remove from the roster attorneys 
     who fail to deliver effective representation or fail to 
     comply with such requirements as such program, entity, or 
     selection committee or similar entity may establish regarding 
     participation in training programs, in accordance with 
     section 321(d)(2)(E); and
       (vi) ensure funding for the full cost of competent legal 
     representation by the defense team and outside experts 
     selected by counsel, in accordance with section 321(d)(2)(F), 
     including a statement setting forth--

       (I) if the State employs a public defender program under 
     section 321(d)(1)(A), the salaries received by the attorneys 
     employed by such program and the salaries received by 
     attorneys in the prosecutor's office in the jurisdiction;
       (II) if the State employs appointed attorneys under section 
     321(d)(1)(B), the hourly fees received by such attorneys for 
     actual time and service and the basis on which the hourly 
     rate was calculated;
       (III) the amounts paid to non-attorney members of the 
     defense team, and the basis on which such amounts were 
     determined; and
       (IV) the amounts for which attorney and non-attorney 
     members of the defense team were reimbursed for reasonable 
     incidental expenses;

       (3) in the case of a State that employs a statutory 
     procedure described in section 321(d)(1)(C), an assessment of 
     the extent to which the State is in compliance with the 
     requirements of the applicable State statute; and
       (4) a statement confirming that the funds have not been 
     used to fund representation in specific capital cases or to 
     supplant non-Federal funds.
       (c) Capital Prosecution Improvement Grants.--With respect 
     to the funds provided under section 322, a report under 
     subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) an accounting of all amounts expended;
       (2) a description of the means by which the State has--
       (A) designed and established training programs for State 
     and local prosecutors to ensure effective representation in 
     State capital cases in accordance with section 322(b)(1)(A);
       (B) developed and implemented appropriate standards and 
     qualifications for State and local prosecutors who litigate 
     State capital cases in accordance with section 322(b)(1)(B);
       (C) assessed the performance of State and local prosecutors 
     who litigate State capital cases in accordance with section 
     322(b)(1)(C);
       (D) identified and implemented any potential legal reforms 
     that may be appropriate to minimize the potential for error 
     in the trial of capital cases in accordance with section 
     322(b)(1)(D);
       (E) established a program under which State and local 
     prosecutors conduct a systematic review of cases in which a 
     death sentence was imposed in order to identify cases in 
     which post-conviction DNA testing may be appropriate in 
     accordance with section 322(b)(1)(E); and
       (F) provided support and assistance to the families of 
     murder victims; and
       (3) a statement confirming that the funds have not been 
     used to fund the prosecution of specific capital cases or to 
     supplant non-Federal funds.
       (d) Public Disclosure of Annual State Reports.--The annual 
     reports to the Attorney General submitted by any State under 
     this section shall be made available to the public.

     SEC. 325. EVALUATIONS BY INSPECTOR GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE 
                   REMEDIES.

       (a) Evaluation by Inspector General.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the end of 
     the first fiscal year for which a State receives funds under 
     a grant made under this title, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Justice (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Inspector General'') shall--
       (A) after affording an opportunity for any person to 
     provide comments on a report submitted under section 324, 
     submit to Congress and to the Attorney General a report 
     evaluating the compliance by the State with the terms and 
     conditions of the grant; and
       (B) if the Inspector General concludes that the State is 
     not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant, 
     specify any deficiencies and make recommendations for 
     corrective action.
       (2) Priority.--In conducting evaluations under this 
     subsection, the Inspector General shall give priority to 
     States that the Inspector General determines, based on 
     information submitted by the State and other comments 
     provided by any other person, to be at the highest risk of 
     noncompliance.
       (3) Determination for statutory procedure states.--For each 
     State that employs a statutory procedure described in section 
     321(d)(1)(C), the Inspector General shall submit to Congress 
     and to the Attorney General, not later than the end of the 
     first fiscal year for which such State receives funds, after 
     affording an opportunity for any person to provide comments 
     on a certification submitted under section 323(b)(2)(D), a 
     determination as to whether the State is in substantial 
     compliance with the requirements of the applicable State 
     statute.
       (b) Administrative Review.--
       (1) Comment.--Upon receiving the report under subsection 
     (a)(1) or the determination under subsection (a)(3), the 
     Attorney General shall provide the State with an opportunity 
     to comment regarding the findings and conclusions of the 
     report or the determination.
       (2) Corrective action plan.--If the Attorney General, after 
     reviewing the report under subsection (a)(1) or the 
     determination under subsection (a)(3), determines that a 
     State is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of 
     the grant, the Attorney General shall consult with the 
     appropriate State authorities to enter into a plan for 
     corrective action. If the State does not agree to a plan for 
     corrective action that has been approved by the Attorney 
     General within 90 days after the submission of the report 
     under subsection (a)(1) or the determination under subsection 
     (a)(3), the Attorney General shall, within 30 days, direct 
     the State to take corrective action to bring the State into 
     compliance.
       (3) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     earlier of the implementation of a corrective action plan or 
     a directive to implement such a plan under paragraph (2), the 
     Attorney General shall submit a report to Congress as to 
     whether the State has taken corrective action and is in 
     compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant.
       (c) Penalties for Noncompliance.--If the State fails to 
     take the prescribed corrective action under subsection (b) 
     and is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the 
     grant, the Attorney General shall discontinue all further 
     funding under sections 321 and 322 and require the State to 
     return the funds granted under such sections for that fiscal 
     year. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent a State which 
     has been subject to penalties for noncompliance from 
     reapplying for a grant under this subtitle in another fiscal 
     year.
       (d) Periodic Reports.--During the grant period, the 
     Inspector General shall periodically review the compliance of 
     each State with the terms and conditions of the grant.
       (e) Administrative Costs.--Not less than 2.5 percent of the 
     funds appropriated to carry out this subtitle for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009 shall be made available to the 
     Inspector General for purposes of carrying out this section. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       (f) Special Rule for ``Statutory Procedure'' States Not in 
     Substantial Compliance With Statutory Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of a State that employs a 
     statutory procedure described in section 321(d)(1)(C), if the 
     Inspector General submits a determination under subsection 
     (a)(3) that the State is not in substantial compliance with 
     the requirements of the applicable State statute, then for 
     the period

[[Page 27275]]

     beginning with the date on which that determination was 
     submitted and ending on the date on which the Inspector 
     General determines that the State is in substantial 
     compliance with the requirements of that statute, the funds 
     awarded under this subtitle shall be allocated solely for the 
     uses described in section 321.
       (2) Rule of construction.--The requirements of this 
     subsection apply in addition to, and not instead of, the 
     other requirements of this section.

     SEC. 326. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization for Grants.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 to carry out this subtitle.
       (b) Restriction on Use of Funds To Ensure Equal 
     Allocation.--Each State receiving a grant under this subtitle 
     shall allocate the funds equally between the uses described 
     in section 321 and the uses described in section 322, except 
     as provided in section 325(f).

         Subtitle C--Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted

     SEC. 331. INCREASED COMPENSATION IN FEDERAL CASES FOR THE 
                   WRONGFULLY CONVICTED.

       Section 2513(e) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``exceed the sum of $5,000'' and inserting 
     ``exceed $100,000 for each 12-month period of incarceration 
     for any plaintiff who was unjustly sentenced to death and 
     $50,000 for each 12-month period of incarceration for any 
     other plaintiff''.

     SEC. 332. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COMPENSATION IN STATE 
                   DEATH PENALTY CASES.

       It is the sense of Congress that States should provide 
     reasonable compensation to any person found to have been 
     unjustly convicted of an offense against the State and 
     sentenced to death.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3214, the bill 
currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, news stories extolling the successful use of DNA to 
solve crimes abound. Consider the following: in 1999, New York 
authorities linked a man through DNA evidence to at least 22 sexual 
assaults and robberies that had terrorized the city. In 2002, 
authorities in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Fort Collins, Colorado, 
used DNA evidence to link and solve a series of crimes perpetrated by 
the same individual. In the State of Washington during 2001, DNA 
evidence provided a major breakthrough of the ``Green River'' killings, 
a series of crimes that had remained unsolved for years despite a large 
law enforcement task force and a $15 million investigation.
  DNA is generally used to solve crimes in one of two ways. In cases 
where a suspect is identified, a lawfully obtained sample of that 
person's DNA can be compared to evidence from the crime scene. The 
results of this comparison may help establish whether the suspect 
committed the crime. In cases where a suspect has not yet been 
identified, biological evidence from the crime scene can be analyzed 
and compared to offender profiles in DNA databases to help identify the 
perpetrator.
  DNA evidence has also been used successfully to free individuals who 
have been wrongfully convicted. In my home State of Wisconsin, one such 
individual, Steven Avery, was exonerated by DNA evidence after serving 
more than 17 years in the Stanley Correctional Institution in Chippewa 
County for a sexual assault and attempted murder he did not commit. He 
was released last month, by the same judge who sentenced him in 1986, 
after DNA tests exonerated him. Evidence collected from the victim was 
determined to belong to another inmate, who is serving time for a 
different sexual assault.
  In the late 1980s, the Federal Government laid the groundwork for a 
system of national, State, and local DNA databases for the storage and 
exchange of DNA profiles. This system, called the Combined DNA Index 
System, CODIS for short, maintains DNA profiles obtained under Federal, 
State, and local systems in a series of databases that are available to 
law enforcement agencies across the country for law enforcement 
purposes only. Currently, all 50 States and the Federal Government have 
laws requiring that DNA samples be collected from some categories of 
offenders for inclusion in CODIS. Evidence from a crime scene can be 
linked to other crime scenes through the use of the CODIS database to 
identify repeat offenders or serial criminals. CODIS can be used to 
compare crime scene evidence to a database of DNA profiles obtained 
from convicted offenders.
  We are fortunate to have this tool available to ensure accuracy and 
fairness in our criminal justice system. It has the potential to make 
our great justice system even better. However, if DNA samples are not 
tested, or not entered into the databases, that potential is completely 
wasted. Sadly, the reality is that many samples are not being tested or 
recorded in the database. To have this tool available and not to fully 
use it is tragic. Many crimes could be solved, many guilty people could 
be taken off the streets, and many victims could be spared from further 
crimes.
  Despite DNA's enormous potential, the current Federal and State DNA 
collection and analysis system suffers from a variety of problems. In 
many instances, public crime labs are overwhelmed by backlogs of 
unanalyzed DNA samples, samples that could be used to solve violent 
crimes if the States had the funds to eliminate this backlog. Some 
estimates indicate that DNA evidence from at least 300,000 rape crime 
scenes have been collected but never analyzed in a crime lab. In 
addition, many of the labs are ill equipped to handle the increasing 
flow of DNA samples and evidence.
  The problems of backlogs and the lack of up-to-date technology result 
in significant delays in the administration of justice. The system 
needs more research to develop faster methods to analyze DNA evidence. 
Legal and medical personnel need additional timing and assistance in 
order to ensure the optimal use of DNA evidence to solve crimes and 
assist victims. The criminal justice system needs the means to provide 
DNA testing in appropriate circumstances for individuals who assert 
that they have been wrongly convicted.
  This legislation, cosponsored by 250 Members of the House, will help 
eliminate these problems. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation 
authorizes $755 million over 5 years to eliminate the current backlog 
of rape kits and other crime scene evidence awaiting DNA analysis in 
crime labs.
  It authorizes funding for training for law enforcement, correctional, 
court, and medical personnel on the use of DNA evidence. H.R. 3214 
funds research to improve forensic technology and authorizes $10 
million per year in grants to States, local governments, and tribal 
governments to eliminate forensic backlogs. It also authorizes funding 
for the use of forensic DNA technology to identify missing persons and 
unidentified human remains. Most of these provisions are part of the 
President's DNA initiative.
  H.R. 3214 also seeks to prevent wrongful convictions. The Innocence 
Protection Act provisions of H.R. 3214, which are also the result of 
bipartisan and bicameral negotiations, will ensure that our justice 
system is working. They establish rules for post-DNA testing of Federal 
prison inmates and require the preservation of biological evidence in 
Federal criminal cases where the defendant remains incarcerated. These 
provisions also authorize funding to help States to provide competent 
legal services for both the prosecution and the defense in death 
penalty cases. They provide funds for postconviction DNA testing and 
bonus grants to States that adopt adequate procedures for providing 
postconviction DNA testing and preserving biological evidence.
  This legislation came out of the Committee on the Judiciary by a vote 
on 28 to 1. After that vote, a few Members

[[Page 27276]]

raised concerns about the new grant program in title III which provides 
grants to States which put an effective system in place for appointing 
and compensating attorneys in capital cases. Members from States that 
already have a system established by statute felt that those States 
should be eligible to receive these grants for improving both 
prosecution and defense training. Along with a few other technical 
tweaks, the manager's amendment allows those States to be eligible for 
these grants.
  Additionally, the manager's amendment provides improvements to the 
CODIS and NDIS databases by allowing DNA samples which have been 
lawfully collected, other than from arrestees or voluntary samples, to 
be entered into CODIS. DNA samples from arrestees may be analyzed for a 
match in the database but may not be retained. This distinction 
provides a balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring 
that law enforcement has the tools it needs to solve crimes. I think 
States like Louisiana, which recently had to track down a serial 
killer, can appreciate the importance of this change in the law.
  Finally, I would like to respond to a couple of the complaints that I 
have heard about this legislation. I have heard that this bill funds 
advocacy for those who are opposed to capital punishment. That is not 
the case at all. The legislation specifically prohibits the direct or 
indirect use of grant funds for representation in a particular case, 
and the report language further specifies that grants cannot be used 
for advocacy.
  Finally, I heard some complaints from people who support capital 
punishment that the innocent protection provisions in this bill will 
make it more difficult for the death penalty to be imposed upon those 
who have been convicted and have exhausted their appeals. Let me say 
that I am a supporter of capital punishment; and unless we use the most 
modern technology to make sure that those who are convicted are indeed 
guilty, and those who are not guilty are not put to death, sooner or 
later the Supreme Court will accept the invitation and declare capital 
punishment per se a violation of the Constitution.
  I believe that this bill is something that death penalty supporters 
should be supporting because it will provide for a greater degree of 
accuracy in making sure that those who are convicted of a crime and 
sentenced to death by a jury in those States which do allow for capital 
punishment are truly guilty.
  I believe that we have crafted a bill that will do much to assist law 
enforcement in solving crimes and ensuring that the right people are 
convicted. I urge my colleagues to recognize the benefit of this 
legislation and vote in favor of its passage today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill is the culmination of many months of diligent bipartisan 
and bicameral efforts in the service of a common goal, which is to use 
all of the tools at our disposal to solve crimes and protect the 
innocent. As indicated by the chair of the committee, the bill consists 
of three titles. First, it authorizes $755 million for the Debbie Smith 
DNA Backlog Grant Program to eliminate the current backlog of 
unanalyzed DNA samples in this Nation's crime laboratories which, I 
would submit, is bordering on disgraceful. I wish, at this point in 
time, to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their efforts to raise 
this issue and to see it incorporated in this omnibus bill today. 
Secondly, it authorizes grant programs to expand and improve the 
capacity of Federal, State and local crime labs to conduct DNA 
analyses, reduce other forensic science backlogs, train criminal 
justice and medical personnel in the use of DNA evidence, and promote 
the use of DNA technology to identify missing persons. Finally, the 
bill includes the Innocence Protection Act, a measure which I 
introduced several years ago with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
LaHood), which will help ensure Federal and State inmates access to DNA 
testing to establish their innocence and will authorize grants to the 
States to improve the quality of legal representation for both indigent 
defendants and the public in capital cases.
  I would like to thank Chairman Hatch, Senator Biden and all our 
Senate colleagues for working with us to reach this milestone. I want 
to express my particular appreciation to Senator Leahy with whom the 
gentleman from Illinois and I first introduced the Innocence Protection 
Act some 3\1/2\ years ago and who has worked so hard to advance that 
legislation.
  As with any compromise, the version of the Innocence Protection Act 
that is included in this bill is not all that I had wished for. But it 
is an important step forward, and I know that Senator Leahy shares my 
satisfaction with this achievement. Finally, I want to pay tribute to 
the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), without whose good faith 
and commitment this process would not have achieved this breakthrough, 
which I believe represents a remarkable achievement for the Committee 
on the Judiciary. Our staffs have worked closely together over the 
course of these months and both he and they deserve our gratitude. In 
particular, I want to thank the chief of staff of the committee, Phil 
Kiko, who has made a major personal commitment to this effort and has 
devoted countless hours to keeping the negotiations on track. I would 
be remiss not to acknowledge the contribution of my own legislative 
director, who sits to my right for the last time as this is his last 
day as a member of my staff. For me, it will be painful to see him 
leave. He is a man of considerable talent, incredible integrity, a 
friend and one whose efforts in this particular initiative have truly 
been prodigious.
  The criminal justice system, Mr. Speaker, is about the search for the 
truth. Like all human enterprises, it is fallible. Judges, juries, 
police, eyewitnesses, defense attorneys and prosecutors are all human 
beings and all make mistakes. As a prosecutor for more than 20 years in 
the greater Boston area, I know that I made my share of them, but we 
have the means at our disposal to minimize the possibility of error, 
especially where lives are at stake. We must use them, and especially 
where public safety is at stake, we must use them.
  Debbie Smith, a courageous advocate who has done so much to help her 
fellow survivors of sexual assault and for whom title I of this bill is 
named, has said, ``It gives no comfort to the victims and their 
families to know that the wrong person is behind bars and the real 
perpetrator is free to walk the streets.''
  Surely no person in America understands this better than Kirk 
Bloodsworth, for whom we have named another title of the bill. Mr. 
Bloodsworth was the first death-row inmate to be exonerated by DNA 
testing. Not only did DNA establish that he did not commit the terrible 
crime for which he was convicted, but only a few weeks ago from today, 
it brought about the identification of the true perpetrator.
  Debbie Smith and Kirk Bloodsworth are both among the innocent whom we 
seek to protect. By eliminating the backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples 
in the Nation's crime labs, the bill will help ensure that DNA 
technology is fully deployed to solve past crimes and prevent future 
ones. And by ensuring that eligible Federal and State inmates have 
access to postconviction testing that can establish their innocence, 
the bill will help correct wrongful convictions when they occur and 
will prompt in those cases renewed efforts to identify the real 
perpetrator, as it did in the case involving Kirk Bloodsworth.
  No one knows whether innocent people have been executed since the 
death penalty was reinstated in 1976. We do know there have been some 
very close calls, however. Since 1976, 111 people in 25 States have 
been released after spending years on death row for crimes they did not 
commit. Some of them

[[Page 27277]]

came within days or hours of being put to death. It was cases like 
these that have called respected, conservative judges like Sandra Day 
O'Connor to express concern that the system, and I quote: May be well 
allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.
  I think the closing remarks of the chair relative to the position and 
the posture of those that support the death penalty ought to mark well 
the words of Sandra Day O'Connor when it comes to this particular 
legislation. Many of these miscarriages of justice can be corrected by 
giving eligible inmates access to DNA testing. DNA testing was 
responsible for exonerating 12 of the people freed from death row and 
another 126 who were wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. In at 
least 34 of these cases, the same tests that exonerated an innocent 
person led to the apprehension of the real perpetrator. Yet access to 
testing often is litigated, sometimes for years, allowing the real 
perpetrator to continue to prey upon the neighborhoods and communities 
in this country. Evidence that might have established innocence has 
been misplaced or destroyed. If we are to advance justice, we must 
ensure that biological material is preserved and DNA testing is made 
available in every appropriate case.
  The bill takes a significant step toward achieving this goal by 
ensuring eligible inmates access to DNA testing and establishing the 
Kirk Bloodsworth Postconviction DNA Testing Program, which will help 
States defray those costs. But DNA is not a magic bullet that will 
eliminate the problem of wrongful convictions. Biological evidence, 
which is utilized in DNA testing, is available in less than 20 percent 
of violent crimes. And even where such evidence exists, postconviction 
testing only tells us that the system failed. It does not prevent the 
failures from occurring in the future. The best way to do that is to 
make sure that every indigent defendant who is facing the death penalty 
has access to a competent attorney. I was a prosecutor, as I indicated, 
for over 20 years and I know the adversarial process can find the truth 
only when the prosecution and the defense are up to the job. Our system 
of justice depends on it. We cannot tolerate a system that leaves 
capital defendants at the mercy of lawyers who are poorly trained and 
poorly compensated who fail to conduct a proper investigation and 
examine the evidence, or, worse, who drink or sleep their way through 
the trial. The reality is that that has occurred in the courts of 
justice here in America. We cannot tolerate a system that relies on 
reporters and journalism students to develop new evidence which was 
never presented in court. We cannot tolerate a system in which chance, 
or the luck of the draw, plays such a profound role in determining 
whether a defendant lives or dies and a murderer escapes justice.
  The bill addresses this problem by authorizing grants to the States 
to improve the quality of legal representation for both indigent 
defendants and the prosecution and the people in capital cases. Lawyers 
assigned by the court to these unpopular and unprofitable cases are 
often overworked, inexperienced and sometimes incompetent. It is little 
wonder that over half of all death sentences are overturned on appeal 
or after postconviction review because of the errors at trial.
  Ultimately, however, this bill is not about the death penalty. It is 
not about DNA backups. It is about restoring public confidence in the 
integrity of the American justice system as a whole, without which our 
Constitution and our democracy is put at risk. For the rule of law, due 
process and everything that we stand for incorporated in our justice 
system and in our jurisprudence is what sets America apart among the 
family of nations. That is a goal on which we stand united.
  I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to see that this 
extremely important initiative is signed into law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) for their great work and their contributions to this 
legislation and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for his 
outstanding work on it, but most of all let me personally and publicly 
thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his work, 
because without his work, simply put, we would not be here today. I 
want to thank him so much for his hard work here.
  DNA technology is a truly amazing tool for the modern-day 
investigator and prosecutor. We can identify a perpetrator from one 
single hair. We can now indict a person by their DNA and match that 
code to a name at a later time. This is the great promise of DNA 
technology, the promise of justice. However, sadly, justice is not 
always timely. Too many people have had to wait years for justice. They 
wait in fear as their rape kits sit on a shelf untested. They wait as 
dangerous criminals walk free, free to strike yet again. Debbie Smith, 
who has been a courageous leader on this issue, went through this 
battle. I have worked with Mrs. Smith and heard her story numerous 
times. Each time I hear the passion in her voice on this topic, it 
encourages me and others to fight even harder to help the hundreds of 
thousands of victims that have DNA samples taken but have not yet found 
justice. Today, Debbie, you are victorious. The fact that hundreds of 
thousands of pieces of vital evidence essentially sit unused is 
outrageous. It is unacceptable. We need to get these rape kits off the 
shelves so they can be used to get rapists off the streets.
  The Debbie Smith Act is about justice being done. It is about rapists 
being caught, convicted with irrefutable DNA evidence and put away for 
a long, long time. It is about helping thousands of victims receive 
justice by harnessing an exciting, emerging technology.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a 
critical part of restoring the public's faith in our justice system.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney) who along with the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
done such tremendous work.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill marks the end of a very long 
journey to pass legislation that will put criminals behind bars and 
protect the innocent. I thank the extraordinary work of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) who brought all the pieces together and the long, long 
leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner) and so many others that have brought this successfully to the 
floor.

                              {time}  1100

  In the 107th Congress, I authored a bill to provide funding to 
process the backlog of DNA evidence after holding a hearing with 
Congressman Horn where a courageous rape survivor, Debbie Smith, 
testified. After her testimony, there was not a dry eye in the room, 
where she told how she was dragged from her home and brutally raped 
while her husband slept upstairs. After medical attention and after 
many years of living in fear, Debbie finally learned that DNA 
processing techniques had produced a cold hit identifying her 
assailant.
  But her story in many ways is a story of many women. There is great 
violence against women in America. Every 2 seconds, there is a sexual 
assault against a woman. And we know that DNA techniques can convict 
and prevent rapists from attacking in the future. We know that each 
rapist will attack at least seven or eight times, according to law 
authorities, and each unprocessed DNA kit represents an innocent 
person, like Debbie Smith, or a rapist who could attack again if he is 
not put behind bars.
  This bill will literally protect many women from sexual assault. It 
is an extremely important bill, and it will help

[[Page 27278]]

with this backlog of hundreds of thousands of rape kits that are 
sitting on shelves across America gathering dust, when, if it was 
processed, could convict and place a rapist behind bars.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many various important aspects of this bill. I 
am delighted that it includes the Debbie Smith act. I thank her for her 
courageous work, and many, many others.
  Earlier this year, I reintroduced similar legislation, along with 
Representative Mark Green. The bill would accomplish several critical 
objections including providing funding to process the backlog of DNA 
evidence, setting national standards for DNA evidence collection, 
providing grant money for Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner programs, 
and providing funding to train law enforcement authorities on the 
collection and handling of DNA evidence.
  I am delighted that the legislation that we are about to pass today 
includes ``The Debbie Smith Act.'' H.R. 3214 represents a bipartisan 
and bicameral effort to pass legislation that will put rapists in 
prison.
  Many domestic violence groups and activists, including former 
Congresswoman Liz Holtzman, have helped us to get to this point. I also 
want to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of Lifetime Television in 
fighting against domestic violence and sexual assault. And of course, 
this bill has had no greater champion than Debbie Smith herself.
  Tragically, the dismal reality is that only 6 percent of women who 
have been raped will ever see their attacker spend a day in jail.
  Once again, I sincerely thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his 
leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
legislation so that we can put an end to this travesty of justice.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who has been one of the principal 
motivators behind this legislation.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and our Senate colleagues, 
Mr. Hatch and Mr. Leahy, for their many, many hours of work.
  I rise today as a supporter of the death penalty and an original 
cosponsor of the bill. In the 106th and 107th Congresses, I sponsored 
the Innocent Protection Act with my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), whom I have great admiration for. This 
bill, which is now included as section 3, includes the Innocence 
Protection Act.
  I am a proponent of the death penalty, as a deterrent to violent 
crime, and this bill provides materials necessary to repair a flawed 
system, and we do have a flawed system. I believe those of us that 
support the death penalty have a responsibility to ensure it is applied 
fairly. As a just society, we must condemn the guilty, exonerate the 
innocent, and protect all Americans' fundamental right to truth. It is 
my belief that this legislation allows us to save the death penalty, to 
know that we are utilizing it in instances where we are confident of 
wrongdoing.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford one more innocent life to be lost due 
to inexperienced counsel or unprocessed DNA kits. We must permit 
inmates access to postconviction DNA testing to establish innocence and 
compensate those who have served time for crimes they did not commit.
  In order to continue rightful punishment of the guilty, we must 
establish minimum standards for competency of counsel in capital cases. 
As long as innocent Americans are on death row, the guilty remain on 
our streets. This legislation would increase public confidence in our 
Nation's judicial system as it relates to the death penalty. 
Individuals have spent years on death row for crimes they did not 
commit, some within hours of execution. A death sentence is the 
ultimate punishment, and there must be 100 percent certainty of guilt. 
In protecting the innocent, we also make sure the guilty do not go 
free.
  I applaud the chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Delahunt) and our Senate colleagues, and I ask Members to support 
this legislation.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, and a 
leader on these issues.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  This bill makes DNA technology available to our criminal justice 
system in a way that effectively enhances the efficiency and certainty 
in exonerating the innocent, as well as identifying, prosecuting and 
convicting the guilty.
  In recent years, the advent of DNA evidence has shown us, 
unequivocally, we have been convicting and incarcerating innocent 
people, while allowing many guilty people to go free. As a result of 
DNA identifications, many offenders have been convicted. At the same 
time, 138 convicted and sentenced individuals have been exonerated by 
DNA evidence, including 12 who were on death row.
  The numbers of suspects who have been excluded as offenders at the 
outset of criminal investigations is even greater. The FBI reveals that 
25 percent of suspects who are DNA tested are, in fact, exonerated.
  This bill includes the provisions of the Debbie Smith Act, which 
authorizes significant funding to process DNA analysis for evidence. 
Many evidence kits are not now analyzed simply because of lack of 
funding, which means that many offenders are evading justice just 
because of lack of funds. This bill will mean they will be tracked down 
and prosecuted.
  Virginia is a leader in solving crimes and DNA technology, and all 
States will benefit from the provisions of the Debbie Smith Act. The 
Debbie Smith Act is from Virginia.
  While DNA technology has provided uncontrovertible proof that 
innocent people have been convicted and sentenced, DNA evidence covers 
only a small portion of those who are ultimately found to be innocent. 
One frequent reason for innocent people being convicted and sentenced, 
even to death, is incompetent and ineffective counsel. This is also the 
reason why many convictions are overturned. So we are pleased that 
there are minimum standards assured in the bill for qualifications of 
attorneys who will represent potential death row inmates.
  Mr. Speaker, this will actually also mean that not only innocent 
people will not be convicted, but also many of the convictions will in 
fact be upheld on appeal.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great reluctance today to oppose 
this bill, particularly because of the respect I have for the chairman 
and for the main sponsor on the Democratic side. I certainly support 
the goals of this legislation, but I think it is appropriate to ask, 
why is Congress authorizing $100 million in Federal funds to operate a 
State program?
  There seems to me to be no reason for Congress to finance the State 
public defender system. Basic precepts of federalism dictate that each 
level of government should finance its own operations. Once States 
become accustomed to and budget for Federal funds, they can never 
reject the money, and Federal funding inevitably comes with increased 
Federal strings. We have seen that in every other area, most notably 
public education.
  In the long run, States risk losing control over their own public 
defender programs. I believe there is no reason to start down that 
path.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), 
who has direct experience in the State Attorney General's office.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise reluctantly to oppose the legislation, in 
admiration for the committee chairman and the ranking member, but I 
think it is important for our colleagues to know that this legislation, 
while it does

[[Page 27279]]

many good things and is certainly well-intended, is opposed by the 
National District Attorney's Association. They wrote the Speaker of the 
U.S. House very recently to express their concern. They talked about 
the good aspects of the bill, but they expressed concern on two topics, 
both the funding in the bill, in terms of what it would do to death 
penalty cases, but also and most importantly, the standard of proof 
that the bill sets for a new trial.
  Specifically, the National District Attorney's Association wrote that 
the standard of evidence is set dangerously low. What they mean by that 
is under this legislation, convicted felons will have the ability to 
make a demand for a retrial under circumstances which are far lower 
than any other circumstances similar in other situations, and they 
expressed grave concern about that. Convicted criminals will be allowed 
to make consecutive, multiple requests for DNA testing under this bill. 
They would have an ability to tie up the courts over and over again by 
submitting separate requests.
  I reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and join the 
National District Attorneys' Association in opposing the bill so we can 
improve it and pass it in an improved fashion.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Weiner), another author and a champion of the Debbie 
Smith Act and a member of the committee.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
his great leadership and the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, the way we treat the victims of rape in this country is 
a crime. Evidence that is collected at crime scenes often sits for 
years, sometimes beyond the statute of limitations, completely 
untouched by human hands. When that victim goes into a hospital 
emergency room, frequently they sit in triage with dozens of other 
people for hours at a time waiting to be examined by someone with no 
experience in such cases. With this legislation, we change both of 
those things.
  More than 350,000 rape kits, evidence, sits on warehouse shelves 
throughout the country. We had as many as 16,000 in New York City, 
until the city began its own program of trying to analyze that 
evidence.
  The technology exists, quite frankly, to match victims' DNA collected 
at crime scenes with those of criminals. We can make hits and we can 
often put people away; 154 cold cases have resulted in cases being 
solved, and in 204 more cases, we know who did it. And now it is just a 
matter of finding that perpetrator of a crime.
  Can you imagine being a person who has been victimized in that way, 
having that crime scene created, having the evidence taken in the most 
invasive of ways, only to learn that it is sitting and sitting and 
sitting without any effort to analyze it.
  Why do we have this problem? One word, money. Now the Federal 
Government, for the second time in this House we are passing 
legislation to deal with that backlog, $75 million over the next 5 
years.
  For those of us who have become concerned that in the past money has 
been grabbed by the States, never makes it to the city, this allows 
cities to make direct applications. This is an opportunity for us to 
bring justice to thousands of women. This is an opportunity for us to 
allow women who have been victimized by rape not to be victimized a 
second time by a system that does not pay enough attention to it.
  I would point out to my colleagues that one of the indexed crimes is 
going up while all the others is going down, and that is crimes against 
women, rape. That is because people who perpetrate rape, we know, do it 
again and again and again and again. One crime we solve may stop seven 
women from being victimized in the future. That is why these provisions 
are so important.
  We all see DNA evidence through the lens of our own interests. I see 
it as both what my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt), says and through my lens as someone who cares about civil 
liberties, but also wants these crimes solved.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  I rise in support of this legislation. People across the country, 
including 100,000 women watching Lifetime Television, have signed a 
petition supporting the bill. My constituents, law enforcement, have 
supported this bill. There are a number of reasons.
  Nearly 12 years ago, a high school girl from the Pittsburgh area was 
raped and murdered shortly after she arrived in Fort Lauderdale for a 
vacation. For 12 years, that crime went unsolved. The family of that 
young girl was left not only with the loss of a daughter and sister, 
but also with the void of not knowing who committed the crime. Finally, 
a detective in Florida was able to match the DNA evidence to that of a 
convicted murderer on death row in Arkansas, and the mystery was 
solved.
  That Fort Lauderdale officer said of matching the DNA evidence, ``It 
is basically getting that needle in the haystack and making the 
haystack smaller.''
  This is what H.R. 3214 accomplishes. It makes the haystack smaller. 
DNA evidence is not just effective in murder cases, it is an extremely 
valuable tool in sexual assault cases.
  A year ago, a man kidnapped and raped two women near Pittsburgh, but 
they could not identify him because the crimes occurred in the dark. As 
our district attorney noted, but for the work of the police and the 
coroner's division of laboratories, the man would never have been 
apprehended. Instead, because of DNA evidence, his crimes earned him a 
sentence of over 200 years in prison.
  While these are all positive cases, unfortunately, there is a backlog 
of DNA samples. Experts have determined that DNA evidence from over 
180,000 rape crime scenes have been collected and never analyzed. 
Imagine those families, wondering, waiting and worrying.
  In addition, many labs do not have the technology to analyze these 
samples. The funding in this bill will provide grants to local 
governments to eliminate that backlog, improve technology used to 
collect and analyze that DNA evidence, and catch those criminals. 
Ultimately, this funding will help not only solve crimes, but it will 
make our communities safer.
  In addition, the bill will improve the accuracy of our judicial 
system for those who believe they may have been wrongfully convicted. 
Despite criticisms of opponents of this bill, it will not open the 
floodgates of litigation by prisoners claiming innocence. It will not 
remove the State's responsibility for prosecution. It will help them to 
accomplish their purpose, and that is our job here.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff), a distinguished member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, someone whose input into this effort has been well-
noted, and who has made a very significant contribution.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time and his effort on this legislation.
  As lead cosponsor of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act 
of 2003, I rise in strong support of this landmark piece of legislation 
that will solve countless crimes and potentially exonerate innocent 
individuals wrongly imprisoned.
  For years we have attempted to deal with crime by focusing almost 
exclusively on increasing sentences of those that we catch rather than 
catching those who continue to elude all punishment. We have been tough 
on crime, but not always smart about our tactics.
  As a former Federal prosecutor, I have long recognized what a 
powerful tool the use of DNA profiles has become in solving crime. The 
FBI DNA database contains about 1.5 million DNA profiles and has 
yielded thousands of matches in criminal investigations, and thousands 
of additional matches can and must be made.
  For this reason, I introduced legislation earlier this year to 
increase the effectiveness of DNA databases. This legislation was aimed 
at replicating nationwide the success that many States

[[Page 27280]]

have had, and I am pleased that many of these policy improvements have 
been included in the bill before us today.
  I want to thank the majority and minority members of the House and 
Senate for their willingness to work together to incorporate some of 
the provisions that I authored to provide additional database searching 
capabilities for Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. 
These additional tools will help solve thousands of cold cases, 
including unsolved murders and rapes.
  The legislation before us provides much-needed funding to eliminate 
the backlog of unanalyzed samples and will do much to protect the 
innocent and apprehend the guilty.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers; but I yield 
the balance of the time on this side of the aisle to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), my friend and the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime and a well-known crime fighter.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in hearty support for this legislation. I thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), 
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and many others on the 
subcommittee and the full committee for their hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the two gentlemen from Arizona and their arguments in 
opposition to the bill, I think, are really misdirected. The gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said that the system of federalism in terms of 
State public defenders is abused by this bill, and this really is not 
the case at all.
  One of the reasons capital convictions end up being overturned has 
been that there has not been adequate counsel. This bill provides money 
to make sure that there is adequate counsel, not just on the defense 
side, but on the prosecution side as well, because States that use a 
public defender system to provide a defense in capital cases are 
eligible under this bill for both prosecution and defense frames.
  The other gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) argues that the low 
standard for requiring new trials would allow criminals to go free. The 
bill does set appropriate standards for postconviction testing and new 
trials, but a judge must find that there is reasonable probability that 
the defendant did not actually commit the offense in order to even 
order a DNA test; and the preponderance of evidence standard would kick 
in once the court has ordered the test, and the test is either not 
inculpatory or is inconclusive. The court would then take the DNA test 
into account with all other evidence in deciding whether or not to 
order a new trial.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It will ensure that the guilty have 
a better chance of being convicted and will serve their punishment, and 
those who are innocent will have a better chance of being found not 
guilty and go free. I urge the House to support this bill.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a strong supporter and 
cosponsor of H.R. 3214 the ``Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology 
Act of 2003.'' This bill would provide prosecutors with solid DNA 
evidence, and a stronger defense for the accused. Ultimately, it will 
strengthen and renew faith in our judicial system. Allow me to offer 
just one example of why this bill is so important.
  In 1999, Shawn Armbrust, Tom McCann and other students at the Medill 
School of Journalism at Northwestern University discovered that 
Illinois death row inmate Anthony Porter had been falsely convicted. 
Also through the hard work of other Medill students, the ``Ford City 
Four'' were also found to be wrongfully accused. The public exposure of 
the discoveries led to a review of all death row cases in Illinois and 
ultimately 156 inmates were given a blanket commutation. These 
remarkable events focused the global spotlight on Illinois and caused 
many to question the basic tenets of the judicial system. Disturbingly, 
Illinois, and indeed many other States, may have wrongfully executed 
innocent people. The Medill students combined their investigative 
reporting skills with new technology to free those wrongly accused. 
Similarly, this bill will go a long way towards ensuring that those 
wrongly accused. Similarly, this bill will go a long way towards 
ensuring that those accused of crimes have a better defense. It will 
also help prosecutors ensure that justice is served.
  Mr. Speaker, the students at Medill opened the door by highlighting 
the flaws in Illinois' system. Now it is our job to guarantee a fair 
and impartial judicial system. H.R. 3214, the ``Advancing Justice 
Through DNA Technology Act of 2003'' takes us one step closer to 
righting the system.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation.
  I want particularly to congratulate Mr. Delahunt who first introduced 
the Innocence Protection Act several years ago, and has worked 
tirelessly on this matter ever since. I want to thank the chairman and 
the members of the committee from both sides of the aisle for working 
together to put politics and sound bites aside and to pass meaningful 
legislation to fight crime and advance the cause of justice.
  I am pleased that this bill includes the modified Innocence 
Protection Act that aims to reduce the possibility that innocent people 
will be put to death. I understand this is a delicate compromise, but I 
must say that this bill is only a first step, not a final step, in our 
efforts to reform our Nation's capital punishment laws. These laws are 
broken and major reform and full funding of this legislation is 
necessary to prevent the innocent from being wrongfully convicted and 
executed.
  It is imperative that we eliminate the shameful backlog of untested 
rape kits, and this bill will go a long way toward that goal. On the 
issue of rape kits, again, let me say, ``It's about time.'' Many 
Members have been personally involved in the fight to test rape kits 
for several years now. I have worked with NOW, RAINN, and Liftime 
Television to raise awareness of this issue and to build consensus for 
decisive action. Together we have pushed, prodded, and demanded that 
Federal funding be provided to test these kits right away. Today, we 
are one step closer to our goal.
  But we are not there yet. These programs still need to be funded, and 
I am hopeful that we will not simply authorize funding for these 
programs, but also actually appropriate funding when the time comes to 
pass the Commerce Justice State appropriations bill.
  This issue is too important to ignore. Police Departments must have 
the resources they need to solve crimes and put criminals behind bars.
  I am pleased that this bill includes a provision similar to the 
``Rape Kit DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act'' which I introduced 
back in March 2002, which would have provided $250 million to eliminate 
the rape kit backlog 2 years ago. The bill before us today acknowledges 
that we were right back then when we requested major increases in 
funding, since this bill offers even more funding for this task. In 
addition, I am pleased to see that, like my bill, the phrase ``rape 
kits'' has been specifically added to our current law to further 
underscore the need for this funding to address rape crimes in 
particular. These heinous crimes deserve our full attention and the 
victims of the crimes deserve the certainty that DNA evidence can bring 
to them.
  Once again, I am pleased to support this bill because it represents a 
serious effort to combat crime, locate and apprehend rapists, and use 
powerful evidence to put them in prison.
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3214, 
the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, and urge my 
colleagues to vote in support of final passage of this vital 
legislation.
  Recently, my Honolulu Police Department received a grant from the 
U.S. Justice Department to cover the costs of conducting DNA analysis 
on backlogged cases, many of which are sexual assault crimes. While I 
am sure that we are all grateful for funding such as this, we must 
recognize that much more must be done, on a broader, more coordinated 
basis, to take full advantage of the legitimate uses of DNA evidence in 
criminal justice.
  As an original cosponsor of H.R. 3214, I believe that this bill will 
bring a far better measure of justice to both victims and accuseds. It 
will also provide desperately needed support and resources for our 
local law enforcement efforts.
  H.R. 3214 establishes new procedures for DNA testing for Federal 
inmates, and authorizes $5 million in grants over 6 years to help 
States defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing. In addition, 
$755 million is authorized to help decrease the backlog of more than 
300,000 rape kits, and more than $500 million is provided for grant 
programs to improve the capacity of federal, state and local crime labs 
to conduct DNA analyses, train criminal justice

[[Page 27281]]

personnel in how to use DNA evidence, and promote the use of DNA 
technology to identify missing persons.
  I commend the work of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
especially Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers, who 
worked together in a true bipartisan fashion to develop the legislation 
and bring it to the floor in such a swift manner. Your efforts yielded 
broad support as H.R. 3214 has 249 cosponsors, which includes 69 
Republicans, 179 Democrats, and 1 Independent.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support final passage of H.R. 3214.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers legislation 
that makes important progress in our fight against crime. H.R. 3214 
represents months of bipartisan work by Members who are dedicated to 
improving law enforcement in our country. Through the increased and 
improved use of DNA evidence, law enforcement officials will be able to 
better identify criminals while protecting the innocent. I 
wholeheartedly support this bill.
  Across the country, States are experiencing unprecedented backlogs in 
analyzing DNA evidence in criminal cases. These backlogs create 
interminable delays, robbing our system of the accuracy and efficiency 
necessary to identify the innocent, punish the perpetrators, and 
provide justice to victims. President Bush has recognized the gravity 
of this problem, and H.R. 3214 provides $755 million to help enact his 
initiative to reduce the backlogs of unanalyzed DNA evidence.
  More specifically, H.R. 3214 includes essential provisions that 
provide for the testing of thousands of unexamined rape kits. According 
to the Department of Justice, across the United States there are at 
least 350,000 rape kit DNA samples that need to be analyzed. Many of 
these kits have been sitting on the shelves of laboratories for years. 
As a woman and as a Member of Congress, I find the delay in the 
processing of these kits appalling and unacceptable.
  DNA evidence from rape kits can provide solid evidence of a 
perpetrator's identity. Often, these samples are the key piece of 
evidence, providing ``cold hits'' in cases for which there is no 
suspect. It is a crime in itself that the processing of these kits has 
been delayed so long. It is time for the Federal Government to provide 
the States with the assistance and direction needed to correct this 
injustice.
  The bill we consider today provides $151 million each year for the 
next 4 years for States to eliminate their rape kit backlogs. The bill 
also ensures that private laboratories can assist in processing rape 
kits. These measures will ensure that thousands of women in the United 
States will finally have closure.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, 
Representative Delahunt and Members on both sides of the aisle for 
their hard work in developing this bipartisan, bicameral compromise. 
H.R. 3214 takes the first of hopefully many steps toward improving the 
integrity of our criminal justice system.
  First and foremost, the bill provides Federal inmates with access to 
DNA testing, thereby enabling them to establish their innocence after 
being subjected to a wrongful conviction. As many of you know, over the 
past few years, more than 110 innocent Americans have already been 
exonerated thanks to post-conviction DNA testing. This provision will 
ensure that others wrongfully convicted will also have an equal chance 
at obtaining justice.
  Second, the bill authorizes grants to be awarded to States with the 
express purpose of improving the quality of legal representation 
afforded indigent defendants in capital cases. Experts have indicated 
that many of the most egregious cases in which an innocent person was 
wrongfully convicted involved attorneys who were incompetent, ill-
trained, or simply ineffective. These grants will dramatically alter 
this situation by providing defendants with defense counsel that meet a 
minimum standard of competency.
  Finally, the bill contains a provision--not often mentioned--but of 
extreme importance to those that have been subjected to a wrongful 
conviction. I'm speaking of the provision in the bill that increases 
the maximum amount of damages an individual may be awarded for being 
wrongfully imprisoned from $5,000 to $50,000 per year in noncapital 
cases and up to $100,000 per year in capital cases.
  Having pointed out the many virtues of the bill, I must admit this 
bill remains far from perfect. I would prefer the legislation include 
an outright ban on the use of the Federal death penalty. I also think 
the bill would have been considerably better if it addressed some of 
the many factors that contribute to the unacceptably high rate of 
wrongful convictions, including eyewitness error, perjury, false 
confessions, and police torture.
  Nevertheless, I strongly support the delicate compromise that has 
been reached today. And, I urge my colleagues to support this 
worthwhile initiative.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, very seldom do we find a law enforcement tool 
that benefits everyone involved in the criminal justice system equally. 
DNA is this tool. Prosecutors, defendants and victims all benefit from 
the fact that DNA provides an unquestionable evidence of guilt and 
innocence. Forensic DNA technology is the future of investigations and 
Congress must ensure that the criminal justice system has the necessary 
resources so that this technology can keep pace with the future demands 
an eliminate any backlog that may slow its progress.
  The bill before us would ensure just that. The ``Advancing Justice 
Through DNA Technology Act,'' would provide grants to improve the 
administration of justice by eliminating the DNA backlog, testing rape 
kits, improving forensic science and DNA labs in states, and providing 
training for law enforcement, prosecutors, medical personnel in DNA 
analysis.
  There is no question that the current federal and state DNA 
collection and analysis system needs improvement. In many instances, 
public crime labs are overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA 
samples. In addition, these labs may be ill-equipped to handle the 
increasing influx of DNA samples and evidence. More research is needed 
to develop faster methods for analyzing DNA evidence and professionals 
involved in the criminal justice system need additional training and 
assistance to solve crimes.
  The bill would also provide grants to states to improve the quality 
of legal representation for both indigent defendants and the public in 
capital cases. As my Chairman stated earlier, it is important to note 
that these grants may not be used for representation in a particular 
case or to fund political advocacy. This prohibition will prevent such 
dollars from being used to promote an anti-death penalty agenda.
  The bill would also allow funding to process post conviction DNA test 
if certain criteria are met.
  It is important to clarify that the bill allows DNA testing of 
evidence only when an applicant can show that it is consistent with a 
theory of defense, that testing would produce new material evidence to 
support the theory of defense, and assuming it excluded the defendant, 
would raise a reasonable probability that the applicant did not commit 
the offense.
  Further, a judge would only be authorized to grant a new trial after 
considering potentially exculpatory DNA evidence in conjunction with 
all other evidence in the case.
  Finally, a defendant could only apply for post conviction testing if 
the specific evidence to be tested was not previously subjected to DNA 
testing or new technology in testing has been developed and the 
defendant did not voluntarily waive his right to have the evidence 
tested. Again, it is important to note, a judge would still have to 
have to consider all evidence in the case.
  I believe that the Innocence Protection Act provisions in the bill 
are necessary to both protect the rights of those wrongfully convicted 
and to preserve the integrity of the death penalty. As a proponent of 
capital punishment in appropriate cases, I also believe that 
individuals convicted of a crime and subsequently sentenced to death by 
a jury of their peers should have fair access to competent legal advice 
and due process under the law.
  It is my opinion that as technology improves and new tools are 
available to investigate crimes and prosecute criminals, we must grow 
our justice system to accommodate such tools to preserve equal justice 
for all.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3214, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________