[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17299-17302]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            KATIE SEPICH ENHANCED DNA COLLECTION ACT OF 2012

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 6014) to authorize the Attorney General to award grants 
for States to implement minimum and enhanced DNA collection processes, 
as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6014

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA 
     Collection Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) DNA arrestee collection process.--The term ``DNA 
     arrestee collection process'' means, with respect to a State, 
     a process under which the State provides for the collection, 
     for purposes of inclusion in the index described in section 
     210304(a) of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
     14132(a)) (in this Act referred to as the ``National DNA 
     Index System''), of DNA profiles or DNA data from the 
     following individuals who are at least 18 years of age:
       (A) Individuals who are arrested for or charged with a 
     criminal offense under State law that consists of a homicide.
       (B) Individuals who are arrested for or charged with a 
     criminal offense under State law that has an element 
     involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and 
     that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year.
       (C) Individuals who are arrested for or charged with a 
     criminal offense under State law that has an element of 
     kidnaping or abduction and that is punishable by imprisonment 
     for more than 1 year.
       (D) Individuals who are arrested for or charged with a 
     criminal offense under State law that consists of burglary 
     punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year.
       (E) Individuals who are arrested for or charged with a 
     criminal offense under State law that consists of aggravated 
     assault punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS TO STATES TO IMPLEMENT DNA ARRESTEE COLLECTION 
                   PROCESSES.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall, subject to 
     amounts made available pursuant to section 5, carry out a 
     grant program for the purpose of assisting States with the 
     costs associated with the implementation of DNA arrestee 
     collection processes.
       (b) Applications.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, in addition to any other requirements specified 
     by the Attorney General, a State shall submit to the Attorney 
     General an application that demonstrates that it has 
     statutory authorization for the implementation of a DNA 
     arrestee collection process.
       (2) Non-supplanting funds.--An application submitted under 
     paragraph (1) by a State shall include assurances that the 
     amounts received under the grant under this section shall be 
     used to supplement, not supplant, State funds that would 
     otherwise be available for the purpose described in 
     subsection (a).
       (3) Other requirements.--The Attorney General shall require 
     a State seeking a grant under this section to document how 
     such State will use the grant to meet expenses associated 
     with a State's implementation or planned implementation of a 
     DNA arrestee collection process.
       (c) Grant Allocation.--
       (1) In general.--The amount available to a State under this 
     section shall be based on the projected costs that will be 
     incurred by the State to implement a DNA arrestee collection 
     process. Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall 
     retain discretion to determine the amount of each such grant 
     awarded to an eligible State.
       (2) Maximum grant allocation.--In the case of a State 
     seeking a grant under this section with respect to the 
     implementation of a DNA arrestee collection process, such 
     State shall be eligible for a grant under this section that 
     is equal to no more than 100 percent of the first year costs 
     to the State of implementing such process.
       (d) Grant Conditions.--As a condition of receiving a grant 
     under this section, a State shall have a procedure in place 
     to--
       (1) provide written notification of expungement provisions 
     and instructions for requesting expungement to all persons 
     who submit a DNA profile or DNA data for inclusion in the 
     index;
       (2) provide the eligibility criteria for expungement and 
     instructions for requesting expungement on an appropriate 
     public Web site; and
       (3) make a determination on all expungement requests not 
     later than 90 days after receipt and provide a written 
     response of the determination to the requesting party.

     SEC. 4. EXPUNGEMENT OF PROFILES.

       The expungement requirements under section 210304(d) of the 
     DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132(d)) shall 
     apply to any DNA profile or DNA data collected pursuant to 
     this Act for purposes of inclusion in the National DNA Index 
     System.

     SEC. 5. OFFSET OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED.

       Any funds appropriated to carry out this Act, not to exceed 
     $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2015, shall 
     be derived from amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection 
     (j) of section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 
     of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) in each such fiscal year for grants 
     under such section.

     SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG 
                   GRANT PROGRAM.

       Section 2(a) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 
     2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(6) To implement a DNA arrestee collection process 
     consistent with the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act 
     of 2012.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6014, as 
amended, currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for 
sponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan legislation. H.R. 6014, the 
Katie Sepich

[[Page 17300]]

Enhanced DNA Collection Act, authorizes incentive grants to States that 
implement programs to collect DNA samples from felony arrestees.
  DNA arrestee programs provide an important law enforcement tool to 
identify perpetrators of open and unsolved cases. DNA arrestee programs 
can also prevent crimes by linking career criminals to crimes and 
locking them up before they have the chance to strike again.
  By collecting DNA samples from arrestees and uploading them into the 
national DNA database, States can empower police and prosecutors to not 
only solve cold cases but also to apprehend violent criminals before 
more innocent people are victimized or precious lives are lost. Similar 
legislation passed the House last Congress by an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote of 357-32.
  H.R. 6014 adds a new purpose area to the DNA Analysis Backlog 
Elimination Act to fund State DNA arrestee programs. This is limited, 
cost-effective legislation that will help States make use of DNA 
evidence to catch serious criminals at the earliest stage possible.
  In the 20th century, law enforcement used fingerprints to link 
criminals to unsolved crimes. In the 21st century, law enforcement can 
now use DNA fingerprint technology to apprehend dangerous offenders.
  I want to thank my colleague from California, again, Mr. Schiff, for 
his hard work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012, or 
Katie's Law, has laudable goals of helping to prevent violent crime, 
exonerating the innocent, giving our police access to cutting-edge 
forensic techniques, reducing the cost of criminal investigations, and 
giving victims of violent crime and their families the answers and 
closure they deserve. All of this can result from the enhanced DNA 
collection provided for in this bill.
  I voted for Katie's Law last Congress, and the goals of Katie's Law 
are goals that I wholeheartedly support, but unfortunately, right now 
is not the time to pass the law. This bill would enable the Attorney 
General to provide grant money to States if they implement a process 
for DNA testing upon arrest and preservation of the DNA profile.

                              {time}  1320

  The last time I voted for the bill, or one similar to it, I viewed 
the collection of arrestee DNA as essentially the same from a 
constitutional point of view as the collection of fingerprints, which 
are collected and preserved in a database for arrestees, whether there 
is a conviction or not. Since then, however, serious questions have 
been raised about the constitutionality of arrestee DNA collection and 
the preservation of that information in a database where there has been 
no subsequent conviction.
  These constitutional questions are currently before the Supreme Court 
in Maryland v. King. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in that case 
in November, and we're taking this bill up now before the Supreme Court 
has had a chance to hear the case and issue its decision. In just a 
couple of months, the Supreme Court will have decided the King case, 
and we'll know whether or not it's constitutional to preserve this data 
and how the States can collect it from people upon arrest and what to 
do with that information. With the decision at hand, we can then craft 
a program that encourages States to implement DNA collecting and 
testing systems that fully comply with whatever the Supreme Court rules 
in the King case.
  Whereas I believe that the Supreme Court will find this proposed bill 
constitutional, it just makes sense that we wait until the decision is 
rendered before we pass the bill. For that reason, I will oppose the 
bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who happens to have passed legislation very 
similar to this when he was in the legislature in Colorado.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Texas for this time.
  I think it's important for us to understand the importance of this 
legislation and the opportunity that this literally presents for the 
protection of our wives and our daughters across this Nation.
  I visited with Jayann Sepich. Her daughter Katie literally had to 
fight for her life. And the only evidence after her body was 
discovered, raped and burned in a garbage dump, was the DNA collected 
under those fingernails. While we now have the empirical evidence, had 
Katie's law been in place at that time, we could have saved an 
additional 13 lives: 12 women who were raped and murdered and another 
who was pregnant with child. That is the importance, and the 
timeliness, as well, of moving forward with this legislation.
  In the State of Colorado, we've taken perpetrators off the streets. 
In fact, one of the challenges that we often don't discuss is not just 
future events that could potentially happen, but bringing resolution to 
families who have lost a loved one: solving cold cases. In the State of 
Colorado, we've now had 398 people identified for past crimes, those 
unsolved murders that haunt families.
  This is a piece of legislation that's revenue neutral for Americans, 
a piece of legislation that's going to provide that opportunity for 
other States to do what Colorado has been able to accomplish, to be 
able to pass legislation that is going to stand up and protect our 
daughters and our wives from violent predators who are impacting 
families across this country.
  The time is now. It is of essence. We are approaching the 10th 
anniversary of the death of Katie Sepich. I would see no greater 
tribute to her, her mother and father, and all families across this 
country, than to put forward this legislation, allow it to pass, to 
move forward, and to be able to do the right thing.
  This legislation is designed so well that when we look at those 
identifiers, it is the 21st century fingerprint. We cannot tell the 
color of skin, and we cannot tell the color of hair. It is just an 
identifier for who the person is. It's well thought out, and it's 
important. I believe our daughters, our wives, and our mothers count on 
this type of practical legislation. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the author of the bill, a former prosecutor and valued 
member of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support 
of the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act.
  Katie's Law is named for Katie Sepich, a bright, vivacious 22-year-
old from New Mexico who was brutally assaulted, raped, and murdered in 
2003. Police were able to extract the DNA profile of her killer from 
underneath Katie's fingernails, but they got no match in the offender 
database. When they finally did get a hit on the attacker's DNA 3 years 
later, they discovered that the murderer had been arrested repeatedly 
after 2003, but because he was never convicted, he was not required to 
submit a DNA sample for the database. Had New Mexico required arrestees 
to submit a DNA sample, Katie's killer would have been apprehended and 
taken off the street years earlier.
  Katie's Law applies the lesson that New Mexico and now 24 States 
across the country have learned: arrestee testing works. This bill 
would create a new category of grants for States that collect DNA from 
arrestees for certain felonies. By joining the 25 States, plus the 
Federal Government, that already collect DNA from arrestees, additional 
State participation will make the national DNA index system more 
effective in helping to solve violent crimes. It does so without 
authorizing any new spending and while protecting civil liberties by 
putting in place strong expungement requirements.
  We passed very similar legislation in 2010 with an overwhelming 
bipartisan majority. In the few short days we

[[Page 17301]]

have left before the end of this year, we have a window to potentially 
send this bill to the Senate, where we'll also attract bipartisan 
support. I believe we should take that opportunity.
  It has been argued by my colleague that we should wait to consider 
this bill until the Supreme Court rules on Maryland v. King, the case 
in which the Maryland State Supreme Court overturned the State's 
arrestee testing statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. I would simply 
note that three Federal courts of appeals and the State Supreme Court 
of California have looked at arrestee testing, and all have found it 
constitutional. The Supreme Court also took the unusual step of staying 
the order of the Maryland court. In his order staying the Maryland 
decision, Chief Justice Roberts writes:

       Collecting DNA from individuals arrested for violent 
     felonies provides a valuable tool for investigating unsolved 
     crimes and thereby helping to remove violent offenders from 
     the general population. Crimes for which DNA evidence is 
     implicated tend to be serious, and serious crimes cause 
     serious injuries. That Maryland may not employ a duly enacted 
     statute to help prevent these injuries constitutes 
     irreparable harm.

  This is a practice that is used in 25 States and by the Federal 
Government. It is not new. I'm confident the practice will be upheld by 
the Court. And even if we are wrong, the Court will decide this case 
long before any grant funding would be dedicated to help States build 
arrestee collection laws, so no funding would be wasted.
  I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague, Chairman Smith, who 
has been so supportive of this effort and has done such a marvelous job 
chairing the Judiciary Committee. I also want to acknowledge Ranking 
Member Conyers and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Bobby Scott, 
for their great work on the committee and subcommittee. I also want to 
thank my colleague from Washington (Mr. Reichert), who knows firsthand 
the power of DNA evidence from his years as a sheriff. And finally and 
most importantly, I thank Katie's family and her mother, Jayann Sepich. 
Jayann has endured every parent's worst nightmare. Her determination 
and dedication are inspiring. And when Katie's Law is signed into law--
and it will be--it will be a testament to her work and her love for her 
daughter.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass Katie's Law.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I thank 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for his leadership on this.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 6014. Today, Katie Sepich, pictured 
here, tells us a lot. She is fun, loving, vibrant, outgoing. She was 
leader in her age group. She made things happen. Katie, beginning in 
January of 2002, was in her last year of grad school. During that year, 
in one of the last conversations with her daughter, Jayann Sepich--her 
mom--asked her the same question that many of us receive from our 
parents: What are you going to do when you graduate with your master's 
degree in business? The reply was the same one that many of us have 
given: I'm not sure, but I want to change the world.
  That's what each one of us as parents aspires to develop in our 
children--it's what each one of us tries to train them for--and Katie 
was at the point of decision. She was on her way until her journey of 
life was brutally interrupted by someone who raped her and strangled 
her. Then he burned her body and left her body abandoned at a dumpsite.
  Now, there was a full DNA sample under Katie's fingernails, attesting 
to Katie's character, but the uploaded DNA did not match anything in 
the government database. Meanwhile, Gabriel Avila was arrested 6 weeks 
after the murder; but because New Mexico and the Federal Government had 
no laws, no DNA sample was taken, and so no match was made. For 3 
years, Mr. Avila walked free on the streets of America and on the 
streets of New Mexico after having committed this horrendous crime, but 
there was nothing to link them until New Mexico passed a statute very 
similar to this one that we are passing today.
  It simply said that we are going to collect DNA samples when we have 
people who are under the suspicion of violent crimes. It is no 
different than my fingerprints, which are available to anyone who wants 
to look. They were taken by the U.S. Government when I entered into the 
United States Air Force. I understand the constitutional concerns, but 
I also understand the pain of families who have no answers. After New 
Mexico passed this law, Mr. Avila committed another violent crime. This 
time, by New Mexico law, they had to take his DNA sample, and 
immediately they matched that now-3-year-old crime that took Katie's 
life.
  All this bill does is simply help provide funds to States to take 
these DNA samples. The U.S. Government will put them in the database 
and compare them. They're the 21st-century version of fingerprints.
  One in six American women is a victim of rape or attempted rape, and 
90 percent of the people who commit the crimes are repeat offenders 
like Mr. Avila; yet they walk free because we care more for the rights 
of perpetrators than of victims. This bill will not prevent violent 
crimes, but it will help stem the tide of the repeat offenders.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. PEARCE. Dave and Jayann Sepich, Katie's parents, have worked 
tirelessly, first to get the bill through New Mexico and then to get it 
to the attention of the Federal Government. The bill stands poised here 
on the floor of the House of Representatives today, asking that we as 
Americans and we as legislators take a stand on behalf of the families 
who have young daughters and young sons who want to change the world; 
and maybe, just maybe, we will do something right here.
  Katie's legacy will live on no matter what we do here today, because 
of her parents and because of her sacrifice. I humbly suggest that we 
would want to pass this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Ranking Member Scott.
  This is an unusual circumstance in which the Fourth Amendment, which 
protects individual privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures by 
the government, has hardly been mentioned. Another thing that is 
curious about this measure is that there hasn't been a hearing on the 
bill, not a single hearing. Now, I suppose we should just skip over 
that. Oh, by the way, the Supreme Court of the United States has a case 
which is testing the issue of the appropriateness of collecting the DNA 
of arrestees, which will soon reasonably be decided.
  As one who supports the goals of this legislation--its objectives to 
apprehend offenders and provide relief to victims--it seems like, in 
our haste, we've tossed procedure into the waste basket. I just can't 
understand why we can't examine the constitutionality of the practice 
of DNA in an appropriate manner, and that's what Maryland v. King would 
do. I know it's being used in other places, but I have never 
participated in legislation that attempts to become law while the 
matter is still in the Supreme Court, about to be decided. Maybe if I 
looked hard enough, we could find some cases in which that may have 
happened.
  When you combine all of these unusual circumstances, as a former 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I would urge that we follow 
the recommendations of our ranking member and have this matter brought 
before the committee in a more proper and orderly way. I hope that we 
can ensure the constitutionality of H.R. 6014 since that test is about 
to be submitted before the Supreme Court of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6014, the ``Katie 
Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012,'' or ``Katie's Law.''
  I want to begin by noting that I support the important goals of this 
legislation, which are to

[[Page 17302]]

apprehend offenders and provide relief to victims.
  But we must not allow our criminal justice system to circumvent the 
protections of the Constitution so that criminal offenders are caught 
at all costs.
  It is critical that we adhere to the Constitution and consider any 
measure that possibly conflicts with it through a deliberate process.
  Unfortunately, there has not been nearly enough process to ensure 
that H.R. 6014 is constitutional.
  For example, there has neither been a single hearing on this bill, 
nor has the Judiciary Committee marked up this measure.
  As many of you know, the constitutionality of collecting DNA from 
arrestees is an unresolved question under the Fourth Amendment, which 
protects individuals' privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures 
by the government.
  In fact, the constitutionality of the practice of DNA testing upon 
arrest is currently before the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King. We 
should at least wait until the Court decides this issue before we rush 
to pass this legislation.
  I voted for Katie's law in the last Congress, and I support the goals 
of Katie's law, but right now is not the time to pass this measure.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to, once 
again, thank my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Schiff) for 
introducing this bill and for getting us to the point at which we are 
now--hopefully, on the cusp of passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
6014, the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012.
  I strongly support measures to increase our public safety, and the 
rationale behind the bill is laudable. I care about using DNA evidence 
in criminal prosecutions in order to solve crimes and to convict 
wrongdoers. I also appreciate the fact that DNA can many times clear 
persons, even persons who have been wrongfully convicted; but there is 
much doubt, Mr. Speaker, surrounding whether or not the DNA collection 
of arrested persons is good policy, let alone constitutional.
  By providing more incentives to extract DNA at arrests, this bill 
promotes restrictions on civil liberties, which are restrictions we do 
not and should not tolerate as a society, and it undermines the very 
criminal justice system it seeks to strengthen. Unlike collecting the 
DNA from a convicted felon, collecting DNA samples during arrests 
violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable 
searches and seizures.
  I sincerely doubt that the Framers intended the Fourth Amendment to 
allow the State to hold a person's genetic blueprint without first 
finding that person guilty of a crime. Although the bill provides for 
the expungement of DNA profiles, it only does so after lengthy 
procedures undertaken by an innocent person.

                              {time}  1340

  Moreover, it does not address the physical DNA samples that would 
remain in storage. We should not permit our government, Mr. Speaker, to 
hold DNA samples of arrested persons forever, despite the fact that the 
arrestee was never convicted of a crime. To keep these DNA samples 
under these circumstances is the essence of violating the arrested 
person's right to privacy. There can be no more fundamental right to 
privacy than that which exists in the DNA profile of a person. One 
should not give up that right to privacy in one's DNA profile simply 
because one has been arrested.
  Not only is this inconsistent with our fundamental beliefs, but DNA 
profiling of arrestees diverts resources away from DNA profiles with 
far greater impact on aiding investigations.
  I'm also concerned that this practice would perpetuate the current 
racial disparities in our criminal justice system. As more minority DNA 
profiles are included in databases, more minorities are potential 
suspects, regardless of their actual guilt. We cannot allow this 
injustice to blossom in a free country where people are presumed 
innocent until proven guilty.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think the chairman has the 
right to close, and I would yield him time if he has any concluding 
comments. He apparently doesn't have any further comments.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Katie's Law. I 
rise as a Congressman, but also as a cop and a sheriff with 33 years of 
experience investigating crimes.
  This bill, simply put, assists states with the implementation of DNA 
arrestee collection programs so that the DNA collected can be entered 
into the national DNA database. DNA is an invaluable piece of evidence 
when solving crimes.
  As the lead investigator on the Green River Killer Task Force my 
colleagues and I started collecting evidence in the early 80's . . . 
hoping only for, in those days, a saliva or a blood-type match that 
would tie a suspect to the crimes.
  We worked that case for nearly two decades, continuing to collect 
evidence, interrogate suspects, and discover horrific murder scenes. In 
2001, the technology finally caught up and through DNA we made a match 
and were finally able to arrest a single suspect on four counts of 
murder. That arrest eventually led to 49 murder convictions.
  This bill is named for Katie Sepich. Katie was a young woman from 
Carlsbad, New Mexico who was 22 years old when she was brutally raped 
and murdered--because of the lack of DNA collection procedures in New 
Mexico at the time, it was three years before Katie's parents, Jayann 
and David, had the closure of knowing Katie's attacker.
  Katie's Law provides a critical resource to aid our law enforcement 
officials in investigating crimes and protecting the innocent. It does 
so without the appropriation of new funds and with privacy protections.
  What happened to Katie Sepich is a shocking, horrible tragedy. It is 
our duty to assist law enforcement in preventing these tragedies from 
ever re-occurring, and to continue the tireless work of keeping our 
communities safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 6014, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to authorize the 
Attorney General to award grants for States to implement DNA arrestee 
collection processes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________