Senate Report 107-334 - THE DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2002

[Senate Report 107-334]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 107-334

======================================================================

THE DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2002

_______

November 4, 2002.--Ordered to be printed

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of October 17, 2002

_______

Mr. Leahy, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany S. 2513]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the
bill (S. 2513) to assess the extent of the backlog in DNA
analysis of rape kit samples, and to improve investigation and
prosecution of sexual assault cases with DNA evidence, having
considered the same and amendments thereto, reports favorably
thereon, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and
recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

CONTENTS

Page
I. Purpose..........................................................9
II. Legislative History.............................................10
III. Vote of the Committee...........................................10
IV. Discussion......................................................10
V. Section-by-Section Analysis.....................................16
VI. Cost Estimate...................................................19
VII. Regulatory Impact Statement.....................................20
VIII.Changes in Existing Law.........................................24

The bill, as amended, is as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act
of 2002''.

SEC. 2. ASSESSMENT OF BACKLOG IN DNA ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES.

(a) Assessment.--The Attorney General, acting through the
Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall survey
Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement jurisdictions
to assess the amount of DNA evidence contained in rape kits and
in other evidence from sexual assault crimes that has not been
subjected to testing and analysis.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
submit to Congress a report on the assessment carried
out under subsection (a).
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph
(1) shall include--
(A) the results of the assessment carried out
under subsection (a);
(B) the number of rape kit samples and other
evidence from sexual assault crimes that have
not been subjected to DNA testing and analysis;
and
(C) a plan for carrying out additional
assessments and reports on the backlog in crime
scene DNA testing and analysis.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Justice to carry out this
section $500,000 for fiscal year 2003.

SEC. 3. THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.

Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000
(42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
(1) by striking the heading and inserting
``AUTHORIZATION OF DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANTS.'';
and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by inserting
``including samples from rape kits and samples
from other sexual assault evidence, including
samples taken in cases with no identified
suspect'' after ``crime scenes''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) To ensure that DNA testing and analysis of
samples from rape kits and nonsuspect cases are carried
out in a timely manner.''.

SEC. 4. INCREASED GRANTS FOR ANALYSIS OF DNA SAMPLES FROM CONVICTED
OFFENDERS AND CRIME SCENES.

Section 2(j) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of
2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135(j)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and''
at the end; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (C) and
inserting the following:
``(C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(D) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(E) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(F) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
``(G) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
Amounts made available to carry out the purposes
specified in subsection (a)(1) shall remain available
until expended.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraphs (C)
and (D) and inserting the following:
``(C) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(D) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(E) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(F) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
``(G) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
Amounts made available to carry out the purposes
specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a)
shall remain available until expended.''.

SEC. 5. AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE DNA
BACKLOG ELIMINATION GRANTS.

Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000
(42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceeding paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``, units of local
government, or Indian tribes'' after
``eligible States''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe'' after
``State''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or by
units of local government'' and inserting ``,
units of local government, or Indian tribes'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by
inserting ``or unit of local government, or the
head of the Indian tribe'' after ``State'' each
place that term appears;
(B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, unit
of local government, or Indian tribe'' after
``State'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, unit
of local government, or Indian tribe'' after
``State'' the first time that term appears;
(D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, unit
of local government, or Indian tribe'' after
``State''; and
(E) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``, unit
of local government, or Indian tribe'' after
``State'';
(3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'';
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking
``or a unit of local government'' and
inserting ``, a unit of local
government, or an Indian tribe''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking
``or a unit of local government'' and
inserting ``, a unit of local
government, or an Indian tribe''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``,
units of local government, and Indian tribes,''
after ``States'';
(5) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or local
government'' after ``State'' each place that
term appears; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, unit
of local government, or Indian tribe'' after
``State'';
(6) in subsection (f), in the matter preceeding
paragraph (1), by inserting ``, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'';
(7) in subsection (g)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, unit
of local government, or Indian tribe'' after
``State''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, units
of local government, or Indian tribes'' after
``States''; and
(8) in subsection (h), by inserting ``, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe'' after ``State'' each
place that term appears.

SEC. 6. IMPROVING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR BACKLOG GRANTS.

Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000
(42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and''
after the semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period
at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) if the applicant is a unit of local government,
certify that the applicant participates in a State
laboratory system;
``(7) provide assurances that, not later than 3 years
after the date on which the application is submitted,
the State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe
will implement a plan for forwarding, not later than
180 days after a DNA evidence sample is obtained, all
samples collected in cases of sexual assault to a
laboratory that meets the quality assurance standards
for testing under subsection (d); and
``(8) upon issuance of the regulations specified in
section 10(d), certify that the State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe is in compliance with those
regulations.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give priority to a State or unit of
local government that has a significant rape kit or nonsuspect
case backlog per capita as compared with other applicants.''.

SEC. 7. QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS FOR COLLECTION AND HANDLING OF DNA
EVIDENCE.

(a) National Protocol.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall review
national, State, local, and tribal government
protocols, that exist on or before the date of
enactment of this Act, on the collection and processing
of DNA evidence at crime scenes.
(2) Recommended protocol.--Based upon the review
described in paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall
develop a recommended national protocol for the
collection of DNA evidence at crime scenes, including
crimes of rape and other sexual assault.
(b) Standards, Practice, and Training for Sexual Assault
Forensic Examinations.--Section 1405(a) of the Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
3796gg note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and emergency
response personnel'' after ``health care students'';
and
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and DNA evidence
collection'' after ``sexual assault forensic
examinations''.

SEC. 8. SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAM PROGRAM GRANTS.

(a) Authorization of Grants.--The Attorney General shall make
grants to eligible entities to--
(1) establish and maintain sexual assault examiner
programs;
(2) carry out sexual assault examiner training and
certification; and
(3) acquire or improve forensic equipment.
(b) Eligible Entity.--For purposes of this section, the term
``eligible entity'' means--
(1) a State;
(2) a unit of local government;
(3) a college, university, or other institute of
higher learning;
(4) an Indian tribe;
(5) sexual assault examination programs, including
sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs, sexual
assault forensic examiner (SAFE) programs, and sexual
assault response team (SART) programs; and
(6) a State sexual assault coalition.
(c) Application.--To receive a grant under this section--
(1) an eligible entity shall submit to the Attorney
General an application in such form and containing such
information as the Attorney General may require; and
(2) an existing or proposed sexual assault
examination program shall also--
(A) certify that the program complies with
the standards and recommended protocol
developed by the Attorney General pursuant to
section 1405 of the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
3796gg note); and
(B) certify that the applicant is aware of,
and utilizing, uniform protocols and standards
issued by the Department of Justice on the
collection and processing of DNA evidence at
crime scenes.
(d) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give priority to proposed or existing
sexual assault examination programs that are serving, or will
serve, populations currently underserved by existing sexual
assault examination programs.
(e) Restrictions on Use of Funds.--
(1) Supplemental funds.--Funds made available under
this section shall not be used to supplant State funds,
but shall be used to increase the amount of funds that
would, in the absence of Federal funds, be made
available from State sources for the purposes of this
section.
(2) Administrative costs.--An eligible entity may not
use more than 5 percent of the funds it receives under
this section for administrative expenses.
(3) Nonexclusivity.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit or restrict the ability of proposed
or existing sexual assault examination programs to
apply for and obtain Federal funding from any other
agency or department or any other Federal grant
program.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Justice, to remain
available until expended, $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2007 to carry out this section.

SEC. 9. DNA EVIDENCE TRAINING GRANTS.

(a) Authorization of Grants.--The Attorney General shall make
grants to eligible entities to--
(1) train law enforcement personnel and all other
first responders at crime scenes, including
investigators, in the handling of sexual assault cases
and the collection and use of DNA samples for use as
forensic evidence;
(2) train State and local prosecutors on the use of
DNA samples for use as forensic evidence; and
(3) train law enforcement personnel to recognize,
detect, report, and respond to drug-facilitated sexual
assaults.
(b) Eligible Entity.--For purposes of this section, the term
``eligible entity'' means--
(1) a State;
(2) a unit of local government;
(3) a college, university, or other institute of
higher learning; and
(4) an Indian tribe.
(c) Application.--To receive a grant under this section, the
chief executive officer of a State, unit of local government,
or university, or the head of a tribal government that desires
a grant under this section shall submit to the Attorney
General--
(1) an application in such form and containing such
information as the Attorney General may require;
(2) certification that the applicant is aware of, and
utilizing, uniform protocols and standards issued by
the Department of Justice on the collection and
processing of DNA evidence at crime scenes;
(3) certification that the applicant is aware of, and
utilizing, the national sexual assault forensic
examination training protocols developed under section
1405(a) of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg note); and
(4) if the applicant is a unit of local government,
certification that the applicant participates in a
State laboratory system.
(d) Restrictions on Use of Funds.--
(1) Supplemental funds.--Funds made available under
this section shall not be used to supplant State funds,
but shall be used to increase the amount of funds that
would, in the absence of Federal funds, be made
available from State sources for the purposes of this
section.
(2) Administrative costs.--An eligible entity may not
use more than 5 percent of the funds it receives under
this section for administrative expenses.
(3) Nonexclusivity.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit or restrict the ability of an
eligible entity to apply for and obtain Federal funding
from any other agency or department or any other
Federal grant program.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Justice $10,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to carry out this
section.

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZING JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENTS.

(a) Limitations.--Section 3282 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``Except'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Limitation.--Except''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) DNA Profile Indictment.--
``(1) In general.--In any indictment found for an
offense under chapter 109A, if the identity of the
accused is unknown, it shall be sufficient to describe
the accused as an individual whose name is unknown, but
who has a particular DNA profile.
``(2) Exception.--Any indictment described in
paragraph (1), which is found within 5 years after the
offense under chapter 109A shall have been committed,
shall not be subject to--
``(A) the limitations period described in
subsection (a); and
``(B) the provisions of chapter 208 until the
individual is arrested or served with a summons
in connection with the charges contained in the
indictment.
``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `DNA profile' means a set of DNA
identification characteristics.''.
(b) Rules of Criminal Procedure.--Rule 7 of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure is amended in subdivision (c)(1) by
adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of an
indictment referred to in section 3282 of title 18, United
States Code, if the identity of the defendant is unknown, it
shall be sufficient to describe the defendant, in the
indictment, as an individual whose name is unknown, but who has
a particular DNA profile, as defined in that section 3282.''.

SEC. 11. INCREASED GRANTS FOR COMBINED DNA INDEX (CODIS) SYSTEM.

Section 210306 of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 14134) is amended--
(1) by striking ``There'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--There''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Increased Grants for CODIS.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to carry
out upgrades to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)
$9,700,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.

SEC. 12. INCREASED GRANTS FOR FEDERAL CONVICTED OFFENDER PROGRAM
(FCOP).

Section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000
(42 U.S.C. 14135a) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
carry out this section $500,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.

SEC. 13. PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING DNA EVIDENCE AND DNA
ANALYSES.

(a) Privacy Protection Standard.--Section 10(a) of the DNA
Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135e(a))
is amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``or in section 3282(b) of title 18, United States
Code''.
(b) Limitation on Access to DNA Information.--Section 10 of
the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
14135e) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Limitation on Access to DNA Information.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall
establish, by regulation, procedures to limit access
to, or use of, stored DNA samples or DNA analyses.
``(2) Regulations.--The regulations established under
paragraph (1) shall establish conditions for using DNA
information to--
``(A) limit the use and dissemination of such
information, as provided under subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (C) of section 210304(b)(3) of
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(3));
``(B) limit the redissemination of such
information;
``(C) ensure the accuracy, security, and
confidentiality of such information;
``(D) protect any privacy rights of
individuals who are the subject of such
information; and
``(E) provide for the timely removal and
destruction of obsolete or inaccurate
information, or information required to be
expunged.''.
(c) Criminal Penalty.--Section 10(c) of the DNA Analysis
Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135e) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``discloses a
sample or result'' and inserting ``discloses or uses a
DNA sample or DNA analysis''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``per offense''
after ``$100,000''.

I. Purpose

The purpose of S. 2513, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act
of 2002, is to increase Federal resources available to States
and local governments to combat crimes, particularly sexual
assault crimes, with DNA technology. In particular, the bill
addresses the DNA backlog crisis in the Nation's crime labs,
where crime scene evidence (including rape kits) and convicted
offender samples wait for DNA testing while rapists and killers
remain at large. The bill also provides increased Federal
support for sexual assault examiner programs, DNA training of
law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, and updating the
national DNA database. To ensure that these grants are
effective, the bill heightens the standards for DNA collection
and maintenance, and requires the Department of Justice to
promulgate national privacy guidelines. Finally, the bill
authorizes the issuance of ``John Doe'' DNA indictments for
Federal sexual assault crimes, which toll the applicable
statute of limitations and permit prosecution whenever a DNA
match is made.
Congress began to attack the problem of the DNA backlog two
years ago, by passing the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act
of 2000, Public Law 106-546. That legislation authorized $170
million over four years for grants to States to increase the
capacity of their forensic labs and to carry out DNA testing of
backlogged evidence. Despite the new law and some Federal
funding, the persistent backlogs nationwide make it plain that
more must be done to help the States. The DNA Sexual Assault
Justice Act of 2002 takes the next step and provides more
comprehensive assistance to States. Recognizing the enormous
strides in DNA technology and the interconnection of States
through the national DNA database, the DNA Sexual Assault
Justice Act of 2002 enhances the infrastructure so that the
criminal justice system can harness the power of DNA.

II. Legislative History

The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002 was introduced
on May 14, 2002, by Senators Biden and Clinton. That same day,
the Subcommittee on Crimes and Drugs held a hearing entitled
``Justice for Victims of Sexual Assault: Using DNA Evidence to
Combat Crime,'' chaired by Senator Biden. On the first panel,
Sarah J. Hart, Director of the National Institute of Justice,
and Dr. Dwight Adams, Assistant Director of the FBI's
Laboratory Division, provided an update on the Federal
Government's efforts relating to DNA. On the second panel,
Debbie Smith of Williamsburg, VA, gave powerful personal
testimony about her experience as a rape victim, and explained
how DNA identified her attacker six years after the crime;
Linda Fairstein, former Chief of the Sex Crimes Unit in the
Manhattan District Attorney's Office, testified about how DNA
evidence has improved sexual assault prosecutions; Debra
Holbrook, a registered nurse and certified sexual assault nurse
examiner with the Nanticoke Memorial Hospital in Seaford, DE,
testified about sexual assault examiner programs; Susan
Narveson, President of the Association of Crime Laboratory
Directors in Phoenix, AR, spoke about the laboratory
communities' need for more resources; and J. Tom Morgan,
District Attorney from Decatur, GA, and Vice President of the
National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), testified on
behalf of the NDAA about recent State law changes to statutes
of limitations for sexual assault crimes.

III. Vote of the Committee

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, with a quorum
present, met on Thursday, July 18, 2002, to consider the DNA
Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002. The Committee considered
and accepted an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by Senators Biden, Clinton, Cantwell, Carper, Schumer, Hatch,
Durbin, Feinstein, Leahy, Jeffords, and Specter. The Committee
then approved the bill, as amended, by voice vote, with no
objection noted, and ordered the bill to be reported favorably
to the Senate, with a recommendation that the bill do pass.

IV. Discussion

The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002, S. 2513, offers
a two-pronged attack on sexual assault crime in America. First,
it builds upon the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000
by adding more Federal resources for States (and for the first
time, makes those resources directly available to local
governments as well) so that they may eliminate the backlog of
untested DNA samples--and in particular, the troubling backlog
of untested rape kits. Second, because tapping the potential of
DNA technology requires more than eliminating existing
backlogs, S. 2513 also provides increased grants to upgrade the
national DNA database, supports specially trained sexual
assault examiner programs, takes steps to ensure that evidence
is routinely and promptly sent for DNA testing in the future,
and authorizes ``John Doe'' DNA indictments. In honor of her
courage and tireless advocacy on behalf of victims, S. 2513
authorizes that the grant programs for DNA testing be named
after Ms. Debbie Smith.

A. THE RAPE KIT BACKLOG CRISIS

Most sexual assault crimes occur between individuals who
know each other; only about 30 percent are stranger rape
cases.\1\ Thus, in many instances, sexual assault cases do not
hinge on DNA evidence. However, in stranger sexual assault
cases, DNA matching by comparing evidence gathered at the crime
scene with convicted offender samples entered into the national
DNA database (typically called a ``cold hit'') has proven to be
the deciding factor in identifying the perpetrator--it has
revolutionized the criminal justice system, and brought closure
and justice for victims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the year 2000, 62 percent of all rapes of women were
committed by persons known to their victims. Bureau of Justice
Statistics, ``Criminal Victimization 2000,'' June 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, through DNA testing, the Baltimore Police
recently solved a twelve-year-old case for the rape and murder
of a teenager. The DNA evidence matched the profile of a man
already serving time for robbery and attempted rape. When
confronted with the DNA evidence, the perpetrator confessed. In
Florida, Kellie Green was brutally attacked and raped in the
laundry room of her apartment complex. Because of lack of
funds, her rape kit sat on the shelf for three years until a
persistent detective had it analyzed. The evidence matched the
profile of a man already incarcerated for beating and raping a
woman six weeks before Ms. Green was attacked. Finally, Debbie
Smith testified that she was abducted from her home in 1989 and
raped in the woods behind her home while her police officer
husband was asleep upstairs. Six years later, DNA evidence
obtained from the assault matched with DNA from an inmate in a
Virginia prison. For the first time since the rape, Debbie knew
that her attacker would not return--it was her first moment of
peace and security.
As these and many other stories illustrate, solving cold
cases through DNA testing is possible, and the technology is at
our fingertips. Any backlog in DNA testing of sexual assault
evidence is profoundly unfair to victims and dedicated law
enforcement alike.
A 1999 study authorized by the National Institute of
Justice's National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence
found that there was an overall backlog of 180,000 rape kits
sitting on the shelves in State crime labs waiting for DNA
analysis. More recent news reports estimate that untested crime
scene evidence number to be much more, upwards of 500,000.
Significantly, there is no accurate nationwide count of the
current rape kit backlog, just piecemeal media reports. New
York City's backlog is particularly dire and, consequently, has
drawn recent attention. At one time there were at least 16,000
untested rape kits stored in a police warehouse in Queens--a
fact widely publicized by former New York City Commissioner
Howard Safir. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2001 that at
least 2,600 rape kits were awaiting testing in the Los Angeles
area, among the 20,000 untested kits in California. Evidence
from nearly 4,000 sexual assault cases in Arizona similarly
remain untested in crime labs throughout the State. In April,
2002, a local newspaper reported that more than 5,000 rape kits
were sitting on shelves at one of the four DNA labs in Indiana.
State officials in Washington estimate that more than 7,000
kits containing rape evidence have been gathering dust in
police evidence rooms, in some cases for decades.
Because there is no current accounting of the backlog, S.
2513 directs the Department of Justice to survey the Nation's
law enforcement agencies to determine the precise scope of the
rape kit backlog. In addition, S. 2513 requires the Department
of Justice to submit a plan for carrying out additional backlog
assessments as may be required so that Congress may measure the
progress made on this issue.
Basic reasons for the rape kit backlog are woefully
inadequate funding and lack of infrastructure. DNA testing for
a rape kit costs between $500 and $1,500. Testing costs vary
depending on the type and number of samples, economies of
scale, the scope and condition of the evidence, and whether the
testing is done by a private or public lab. In addition to lack
of funds, law enforcement efforts are hampered by a lack of lab
infrastructure and forensic analysts to do the actual tests. In
recognition of these obstacles, the costs, and the
pervasiveness of the problem, S. 2513 significantly increases
resources available to States and local enforcement for crime
scene testing, from $50 million for 2003 and 2004 under
existing law, to $75 million each year from 2003 to 2007.

B. THE BACKLOG IN DNA TESTING OF CONVICTED OFFENDER SAMPLES

1. The national DNA database

A provision of the 1994 Crime Bill, the DNA Identification
Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 14131 et seq., created the Combined DNA
Index System (``CODIS'')--an electronic database of DNA
profiles much like the FBI's fingerprint database. CODIS
includes a Convicted Offender Index, which contains DNA
profiles taken from samples drawn from certain convicted
offenders, and a Forensic Index, which contains DNA profiles
developed from crime scene evidence. CODIS software searches
these two indices for matching DNA profiles. As of July 2002,
153 crime labs in 49 States have the CODIS system.
Federal law delineates the specific Federal qualifying
offenses (murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, and
other crimes of violence) for which a convicted individual must
submit DNA samples for inclusion in CODIS. Notably, individuals
on parole, release or probation for these offenses, and
military and District of Columbia offenders, must also provide
samples.
Like Federal authorities, participating States enter the
DNA profiles of individuals convicted of certain crimes (e.g.,
rape, murder, child abuse) into the CODIS system. (See attached
chart listing the qualifying offenses for each State as of
October, 2002.) In 1998, the FBI set up the National DNA
Indexing System (``NDIS''), which links together State and
Federal DNA profiles and evidence on the CODIS system. If a
State laboratory is not part of NDIS, it can use the CODIS
software only to compare DNA samples taken from that particular
laboratory. As described above, 153 labs in 49 States
participate in CODIS. Of that number, as of August 2002,
laboratories in 44 States, the U.S. Army, the FBI, and Puerto
Rico participate in NDIS. Non-participating States (South
Dakota, Iowa, Mississippi, Alabama, Rhode Island, and Hawaii)
are able to access the national database only in limited
``exigent circumstances''-type situations.
The FBI provides CODIS software, installation and user
support free of charge to any State or local law enforcement
lab. As of August 2002, the FBI reported that there were over
1,119,127 convicted offender DNA profiles and 39,096 case
samples in the index. The FBI also concluded that CODIS had
assisted in over 5,400 investigations in 34 States.

2. Convicted offender DNA testing

With each passing legislative session, States are amending
their State laws to expand the number of qualifying offenses
for which convicted offenders must submit DNA samples. Passage
of State laws requiring all offenders convicted of felonies to
submit DNA samples are imposing a significant financial burden
on the States at the outset, as samples must be drawn from all
those currently incarcerated and then analyzed to develop a DNA
profile of each offender. Because the pool of convicted
offender samples is constantly growing, it is very difficult
for States to eliminate the backlog and keep up with new
samples.
In May 2002, the Office of the Inspector General for the
Department of Justice issued an audit report on the Office of
Justice Programs Convicted Offender DNA Sample Backlog
Reduction Grant Program as carried out for fiscal year 2000.
The audit report reiterates the challenge of measuring the
backlog of untested convicted offender samples because it is
constantly fluctuating with the addition of new qualifying
offenses at the State level. Nonetheless, the report quotes an
FBI estimate of 681,470 untested offender samples as of the end
of 2001.
In an earlier report, the Federal Government conducted a
survey of the 110 known public forensic DNA labs in 2000. See
Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, ``Survey of DNA Crime
Laboratories,'' January 2002. Eighty-one percent of the crime
labs reported DNA analysis backlogs totaling 16,081 subject
cases (evidence from a single crime scene, sometimes called
``casework'') and 265,329 convicted offender samples.\2\ To
assist in DNA testing, 45 percent of the crime labs contracted
with private labs. It is expected that pursuant to funds
received under this legislation, State and local governments
will continue to outsource their DNA testing to private labs as
needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The survey defined a case as backlogged when a lab had a
complete set of samples ready for testing for more than 15 days, and an
offender sample as backlogged when it was in the lab for more than 10
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the fight against sexual assault crimes, the backlog in
convicted offender samples is just as debilitating as the rape
kit backlog. The national DNA database system is effective only
with updated and accurate offender samples with which to
compare crime scene evidence. Indeed, the State with the
current highest ``cold hit'' rate using the DNA database--
Virginia--attributes its success to the fact that convicted
offender samples are widely and frequently uploaded into its
system. Accordingly, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002
extends the funding available for offender sample testing
through 2007, at $15 million a year.

C. SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINER PROGRAMS

A critical improvement in law enforcement's response to
sexual assault cases are specially trained sexual assault
forensic examiners. These nurses and doctors are specially
adept at identifying sexual assault injuries and collecting the
evidence. Indeed, studies show evidence collected by specially
trained forensic nurses is much more likely to yield reliable
DNA profiles.\3\ Furthermore, these examiners are particularly
sensitive to the trauma of sexual assault and try to ensure
that the patient is not revictimized after reporting the crime,
allowing victims to avoid waiting for hours in crowded
emergency rooms and repeating their story to multiple staff.
Forensic nurses and examiners occupy a unique niche between the
medical community and law enforcement. Often examiners serve as
expert witnesses and typically provide juries with specific and
strong evidence to convict. Yet, as Debra Holbrook testified,
these services are currently available to only two out of every
ten victims of sexual assault.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In a study comparing 24 sexual assault evidence kits collected
by sexual assault nurse examiners (SANEs) to 73 evidence kits collected
by untrained personnel, the SANE kits were better documented, more
complete and maintained the proper chain of evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the early 1990s, police departments, victim service
providers, advocates, and hospitals have collaborated to create
sexual assault examiner teams, ranging from sexual assault
nurse examiners (SANEs) to sexual assault forensic examiners
(SAFEs) to sexual assault response teams (SARTs). Experts
estimate that about 300 SANE programs currently exist. The DNA
Sexual Assault Justice Act creates a grant program to expand
the availability of sexual assault examiner programs.
Ultimately, these programs should be established in every
emergency room, and it will be routine for law enforcement and
prosecutors to work with sexual assault examiners. Every victim
of sexual assault deserves the expert and tailored care of a
sexual assault examiner and the certainty that a trained
examiner brings to the courtroom. Further, the criminal justice
system as a whole will benefit from programs that adeptly
collect DNA evidence from victims.

D. DNA TRAINING GRANTS

Law enforcement and State prosecutors are clamoring for
information about DNA evidence--how to collect it, how to
maintain it, and how to use it in the courtroom. A well-meaning
police officer may irreparably degrade DNA evidence by placing
crime scene evidence in the hot trunk of a police car for days.
By all accounts, police officers everywhere are eager for
information about collecting and processing DNA evidence before
it gets to the crime laboratory. When the National Institute of
Justice issued a pamphlet called ``What Every Law Enforcement
Officer Should Know About DNA Evidence,'' the first printing of
one million copies was gone after just five months. Training
should be a matter of course for all law enforcement. No rape
kit will lead to the perpetrator if the evidence is collected
improperly.
Training must also be available for all prosecutors. The
subcommittee heard testimony on this topic from the Vice
President of the National Association of District Attorneys,
who stated:

Prosecutors who advise law enforcement agencies and
forensic laboratories, as well as actively try cases
involving DNA, need to be fully versed in the
capabilities, and vulnerabilities of this technology.
This is not something you learn in law school nor is it
something that most of us can ``bone up on'' the night
before trial. DNA technology is complex. Training in
the use of DNA evidence in a criminal investigation or
a trial is crucial.

Hearing of May 14, 2002 (statement of J. Tom Morgan).

E. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND THE ``JOHN DOE'' DNA WARRANT

Rather than discard the statute of limitations entirely for
crimes of sexual assault, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of
2002 authorizes the issuance of ``John Doe'' DNA indictments
for Federal sexual assault crimes. When law enforcement does
not know the name of the perpetrator but does know his DNA
profile, it may seek an indictment that identifies the
defendant by that DNA profile. As long as the indictment is
returned within the five-year statute of limitations, the
prosecution may proceed at any time, without regard to the
limitations period.
``John Doe'' DNA indictments respond effectively to the
profound injustice done to rape victims when delayed DNA
testing leads to a ``cold hit'' after the statute of
limitations has expired. For instance, a women was brutally
raped in her California home, and for years the police were
unable to solve the crime. Seven years later, DNA from the rape
matched a man in jail for an unrelated crime. Yet the rapist
was never charged, convicted, or sentenced because California's
statute of limitations had expired the previous year. In
response, California changed its law and now allows prosecution
of certain sexual offenses within one year of matching the DNA
evidence to the perpetrator. Other States are also changing
their laws--some by extending their statute of limitations for
sexual offenses from five to ten years, and others by
eliminating the limitations period for sexual assault
altogether when prosecution is based on DNA evidence.
``John Doe'' DNA indictments strike the appropriate
balance: they encourage swift and efficient investigations,
while recognizing the durability and credibility of DNA
evidence and preventing an injustice if a ``cold hit'' occurs
outside the limitations period.
DNA indictments were pioneered by Milwaukee County
Assistant District Attorney Norman Gahn in 1999. Since then,
they have been used by prosecutors in at least eight other
States--New York, Kansas, Utah, Pennsylvania, California,
Oklahoma, Texas and North Dakota. For example, in February
2002, the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office charged a parolee
with an unsolved rape from 1995 based on a DNA match. The case
rests on a ``John Doe'' DNA warrant filed in October 2000 to
comply with the five-year statute of limitations. Thus far,
State DNA indictments have been upheld by State courts in
Wisconsin and California. As articulated by the court in
California, ``John Doe'' DNA indictments describe the defendant
with ``reasonable certainty'' and so preserve due process
rights. In addition, S. 2513 complies with the sixth
amendment's speedy trial guarantee by triggering the provisions
of the Speedy Trial Act as soon as the defendant is arrested or
served with a summons in connection with the charges contained
in the indictment--presumably after a ``cold hit'' occurs.
Nothing in this provision shall be read to limit or
otherwise affect the constitutionality of an indictment that
identifies the defendant only by an alleged alias, the
fictitious name ``John Doe,'' or other particulars concerning
the defendant's race, sex, age, height, weight, hair color, eye
color, and/or unique physical characteristics. See e.g., United
States v. Doe, 401 F. Supp. 63 (E.D. Wis. 1975).

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short title

This section provides a short title: the ``DNA Sexual
Assault Justice Act of 2002.''

Section 2. Assessment of backlog in DNA analysis of samples

This section requires the Attorney General to survey law
enforcement to assess the extent of the backlog of untested
rape kits and other sexual assault evidence. Within one year of
enactment, the Attorney General shall submit his findings in a
report to Congress with a plan for carrying out additional
assessments and reports on the backlog as needed. Five hundred
thousand dollars is authorized in fiscal year 2003 to carry out
this section. The Committee understands that the Attorney
General intends to review the backlog consistent with this
legislative directive and is in the process of convening a DNA
Backlog Working Group that should facilitate compliance with
this section.

Section 3. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program

This provision names a section of the DNA Backlog
Elimination Act after Ms. Debbie Smith, and amends the purpose
section of that Act to ensure the timely testing of rape kits
and evidence from non-suspect cases.

Section 4. Increased grants for analysis of DNA samples from convicted
offenders and crime scenes

This provision extends and increases authorizations in the
DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. 14135. That Act
authorizes $15 million dollars for fiscal year 2003 for DNA
testing of convicted offender samples, and $50 million for
fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for DNA testing of crime scene
evidence (including rape kits) and laboratory improvement. The
DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act increases the convicted offender
authorization to $15 million for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2007--a total increase of $60 million--and increases
the crime scene evidence and laboratory improvement
authorizations to $75 million for fiscal years 2003 through
2006, and $25 million for fiscal year 2007--a total increase of
$275 million.
Increased Federal resources are necessary to (1) eliminate
the extensive State backlog in untested rape kits and other
non-suspect case evidence; (2) strengthen insufficient
laboratory equipment and woefully inadequate staffing; and (3)
keep pace with the ever-expanding amount of offender samples to
be tested.

Section 5. Authority of local governments to apply for and receive DNA
Backlog Elimination Grants

This section authorizes local State governments and Indian
tribes to apply directly for Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants so
that Federal resources can meet local needs more quickly.

Section 6. Improving eligibility criteria for backlog grants

To ensure that Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants are most
productive, this section amends the eligibility requirements to
ensure that applicants adhere to certain protocols.
Specifically, when a local governmental entity such as a city
or county applies for a grant, it must certify that it
participates in a State laboratory system (or intends to do so
within a reasonable time frame), meaning that it submits its
completed DNA analyses for inclusion in the State DNA database
system, making them available to be searched nationally. Each
applicant must also certify that, within three years after
submission of the application, it will implement a plan for
forwarding all DNA evidence collected in sexual assault cases
to a qualified laboratory within 180 days. This requirement
will ensure that States and localities develop the necessary
infrastructure to guarantee that DNA testing in sexual assault
cases occurs within three months. Finally, applicants must also
certify compliance with privacy regulations promulgated by the
Attorney General pursuant to section 13 of this act.
Section 6 further provides that in making Debbie Smith DNA
Backlog Grants, the Department of Justice shall give priority
to applicants with the greatest backlogs per capita. The
Committee intends to bring about the largest possible reduction
in the national backlog, but at the same time to ensure that
small rural jurisdictions that are often the most lacking in
financial resources to pay for DNA testing remain eligible for
funding.

Section 7. Quality assurance standards for collection and handling of
DNA evidence

This section requires the Department of Justice to develop
a recommended national protocol for the collection of DNA
evidence at crime scenes, which will provide guidance to law
enforcement and other first responders on appropriate ways to
collect and maintain DNA evidence. However, nothing in this
provision shall be interpreted as establishing only one
acceptable means of attaining DNA evidence, nor shall it be
interpreted as creating Federal and/or State standards for the
admissibility, reliability or credibility of DNA evidence.
This section also amends the Violence Against Women Act of
2000, 42 U.S.C. 3796gg, to ensure that the recommended national
protocol for training individuals in the collection and use of
DNA evidence through forensic examination in cases of sexual
assault that is mandated by that Act is in fact developed, and
to include standards for training of emergency response
personnel. Several professional organizations and community
advocates have already developed operating procedures, policies
and practices for sexual assault examinations; the Committee
intends for the Department of Justice to refer to these
existing practices when complying with this provision of the
act.

Section 8. Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program Grants

This section creates a new grant program to establish and
maintain sexual assault examiner programs, carry out sexual
assault examiner training and certification, and acquire or
improve forensic equipment. Eligible entities are States, local
governments, Indian tribal governments, universities, and
existing sexual assault examiner programs that comply with
standards developed pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act
of 2000. The grant program is authorized for fiscal years 2003
through 2007, at $30 million per year. In awarding grants under
this section, the Attorney General shall give priority to
programs that are serving or will serve communities that are
currently underserved by existing sexual assault examiner
programs.

Section 9. DNA Evidence Training Grants

This section creates a new grant program to train law
enforcement and prosecutors in the collection, handling, and
courtroom use of DNA evidence, and to train law enforcement in
responding to drug-facilitated sexual assaults. Eligible
applicants are States, local governments, Indian tribal
governments, and universities. Grants are contingent upon
adherence to FBI laboratory protocols, use of the collection
standards established pursuant to section 7 of this act, and
participation in a State laboratory system. The grant program
is authorized for fiscal years 2003 through 2007, at $10
million per year.

Section 10. Authorizing ``John Doe'' DNA Indictments

In Federal sexual assault crimes, this provision authorizes
the issuance of ``John Doe'' DNA indictments that identify the
defendant by his DNA profile. Such indictments must issue
within the applicable statute of limitations; thereafter, the
prosecution may commence at any time once the defendant is
arrested or served with a summons.

Section 11. Increased grants for Combined DNA Index (CODIS) System

This provision appropriates $9.7 million for fiscal year
2003 to upgrade the national DNA database. Improved database
software will handle the expected increase in DNA information
from the States and produce quicker matches.

Section 12. Increased grants for Federal convicted offender program

This provision appropriates $500,000 for fiscal year 2003
to process Federal offender DNA samples and enter that
information into the national DNA database. As Congress
increases the number of qualifying Federal crimes for the
database, this funding will help the Federal Bureau of
Investigations handle the 5,000 to 7,500 Federal offender DNA
samples entering the system each year.

Section 13. Privacy requirements for handling DNA evidence and DNA
analysis

This section requires the Department of Justice to
promulgate privacy regulations that will limit the use and
dissemination of DNA information generated for criminal justice
purposes, and ensure the privacy, security, and confidentiality
of DNA samples and analyses. In addition, this section amends
the DNA Analysis Backlog Reduction Act of 2000 to increase
criminal penalties for disclosing or using a DNA sample or DNA
analysis in violation of that act by a fine not to exceed
$100,000 per offense.

VI. Cost Estimate

In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, S. 2513, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 9, 2002.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2513, the DNA Sexual
Assault Justice Act of 2002.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.

S. 2513--DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002

Summary: S. 2513 would authorize the appropriation of $546
million over the 2003-2007 period, mostly to increase funding
for grants to states to improve forensic analysis of crime
scenes and collect DNA samples from offenders. The bill also
would increase penalties for the unauthorized use of DNA
samples.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 2513 would cost $425 million
over the 2003-2007 period. This legislation would affect direct
spending and receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would apply,
but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be
significant.
S. 2513 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
The bill would benefit state, local, and tribal governments;
any costs incurred to receive or administer grants would be
voluntary.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 2513 is shown in the following table.
For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the
authorized amounts will be appropriated by the start of each
fiscal year and that spending will follow the historical
spending rates for those activities. The cost of this
legislation falls within budget function 750 (administration of
justice).
In addition, enacting S. 2513 could increase collections of
criminal fines for unauthorized use of DNA samples. CBO
estimates that any additional collections would not be
significant. Criminal fines are recorded as receipts and
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, then later spent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law for the Programs Funded by S.
2513:
Authorization Level \1\............................... 45 40 25 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 12 28 38 24 9 0
Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level................................... 0 101 105 130 130 80
Estimated Outlays..................................... 0 28 59 100 119 118
Spending Under S. 2513:
Authorization Level \1\............................... 45 141 130 130 130 80
Estimated Outlays..................................... 12 56 97 124 128 118
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2002 level is the total amount appropriated for that year for the programs authorized by S. 2513. The
2003 and 2004 levels are the total amounts authorized in current law for those programs.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act specifies pay-as-you-go
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending and
receipts. These procedures would apply to S. 2513 because it
would affect both direct spending and receipts, but CBO
estimates that the annual amount of such changes would not be
significant.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2513
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. The bill would benefit state, local, and
tribal governments by creating new grant programs and by
reauthorizing and expanding existing grants under the DNA
Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. Any costs incurred to
receive or administer grants under these programs would be
voluntary.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Angela Seitz; and
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimated approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

VII. Regulatory Impact Statement

In compliance with paragraph 11(b)(1), rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee, after due
consideration, concludes that S. 2513 will not have significant
regulatory impact.

VIII. Changes in Existing Law

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
S. 2513, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman).

UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Part Section
I. CRIMES................................................. 1
* * * * * * *

PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Chapter Section
201. General provisions................................... 3001
* * * * * * *
213. Limitations.......................................... 3281
* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 213--LIMITATIONS

Sec.
3281. Capital offenses.
3282. Offenses not capital.
* * * * * * *

Sec. 3282. Offenses not capital

[Except] (a) Limitation._Except as otherwise expressly
provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or
punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is
found or the information is instituted within five years next
after such offense shall have been committed.
(b) DNA Profile Indictment.--
(1) In general.--In any indictment found for an
offense under chapter 109A, if the identity of the
accused is unknown, it shall be sufficient to describe
the accused as an individual whose name is unknown, but
who has a particular DNA profile.
(2) Exception.--Any indictment described in paragraph
(1), which is found within 5 years after the offense
under chapter 109A shall have been committed, shall not
be subject to--
(A) the limitations period described in
subsection (a); and
(B) the provisions of chapter 208 until the
individual is arrested or served with a summons
in connection with the charges contained in the
indictment.
(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subection, the
term ``DNA profile'' means a set of DNA identification
characteristics.

* * * * * * *

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

I. SCOPE, PURPOSE AND CONSTRUCTION

Rule
1. Scope.
* * * * * * *

III. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION

* * * * * * *
7. The Indictment and the Information.
(a) Use of Indictment or Information.
(b) Waiver of Indictment.
(c) Nature and Consents.
(1) In General.
* * * * * * *
Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information.
(a) Use of Indictment or Information. An offense * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Nature and Contents.--
(1) In general.--The indictment or the information
shall be a plain, concise and definite written
statement of the essential facts constituting the
offense charged. It shall be signed by the attorney for
the government. It need not contain a formal
commencement, a formal conclusion or any other matter
not necessary to such statement. Allegations made in
one count may be incorporated by reference in another
count. It may be alleged in a single count that the
means by which the defendant committed the offense are
unknown or that the defendant committed it by one or
more specified means. The indictment or information
shall state for each count the official or customary
citation of the statute, rule, regulation or other
provision of law which the defendant is alleged therein
to have violated. For purposes of an indictment
referred to in section 3282 of title 18, United States
Code, if the identity of the defendant is unknown, it
shall be sufficient to describe the defendant, in the
indictment, as an individual whose name is unknown, but
who has a particular DNA profile, as defined in that
section 3282.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

Chapter Section
1. The Public Health Service [See Chapter 6A]............. 1
* * * * * * *
46. Justice System Improvement.................................... 3701
* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 46--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

Sec.
3701. Repealed.

Subchapter I--Office of Justice Programs

* * * * * * *

Subchapter XII-H--Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women

3796gg. Purpose of the program and grants.
(a) General program purpose.
(b) Purposes for which grants may be used.
* * * * * * *

Subchapter XII-H--Grants to Combat Violent Crime Against Women

Sec. 3796gg. Purpose of the program and grants

(a) General Program Purpose.--The purpose of this
subchapter is to assist States, State and local courts
(including juvenile courts), Indian tribal governments, tribal
courts, and units of local government to develop and strengthen
effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat
violent crimes against women, and to develop and strengthen
victim services in cases involving violent crimes against
women.

* * * * * * *

(c) State Coalition Grants.--
(1) Purpose.--The Attorney General shall award grants
to each State domestic violence coalition and sexual
assault coalition for the purposes of coordinating
State victim services activities, and collaborating and
coordinating with Federal, State, and local entities
engaged in violence against women activities.

* * * * * * *

(3) Eligibility for other grants.--Receipt of an
award under this subsection by each State domestic
violence and sexual assault coalition shall not
preclude the coalition from receiving additional grants
under this subchapter to carry out the purposes
described in subsection (b).

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Revision Notes and legislative Reports. 2000 Acts. House
Report No. 106-939, see 2000 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p.
1380.

* * * * * * *

Standards, Practice, and Training for Sexual Assault
Forensic Examinations. Pub.L. 106-386, Div. B, Title IV,
Sec. 1405, Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1515, provided that:
``(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall--
``(1) evaluate existing standards of training and
practice for licensed health care professionals
performing sexual assault forensic examinations and
develop a national recommended standard for training;
``(2) recommend sexual assault forensic examination
training for all health care students and emergency
response personnel to improve the recognition of
injuries suggestive of rape and sexual assault and
baseline knowledge of appropriate referrals in victim
treatment and evidence collection; and
``(3) review existing national, State, tribal, and
local protocols on sexual assault forensic examinations
and DNA evidence collection and based on this review,
develop a recommended national protocol and establish a
mechanism for its nationwide dissemination.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 136--VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

SUBCHAPTER I--PRISONS

Part A--Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Incentive
Grants

Sec.
13701. Grants for correctional facilities.
* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IX--STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Part A--DNA Identification

Sec.
14131. Quality assurance and proficiency testing standards.
* * * * * * *
14134. Authorization of appropriations.
* * * * * * *

Sec. 14134. Authorization of appropriations

[There] (a) In General._There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to carry
out sections 14131, 14132, and 14133 of this title--
(1) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 1996;
(2) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
(3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
(4) $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
(5) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
(b) Increased Grants for CODIS.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to carry
out upgrades to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)
$9,700,000 for fiscal year 2003.

Sec. 14135. [Authorization of grants] Authorization of Debbie Smith DNA
Backlog Grants

(a) Authorization of grants.--The Attorney General may make
grants to eligible States, units of local government, or Indian
tribes for use by the State, unit of local government, or
Indian tribe for the following purposes:
(1) To carry out, for inclusion in the Combined DNA
Index System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
DNA analyses of samples taken from individuals
convicted of a qualifying State offense (as determined
under subsection (b)(3)).
(2) To carry out, for inclusion in such Combined DNA
Index System, DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes
including samples from rape kits and samples from other
sexual assault evidence, including samples taken in
cases with no identified suspect.
(3) To increase the capacity of laboratories owned by
the State [or by units of local government], units of
local government, or Indian tribes within the State to
carry out DNA analyses of samples specified in
paragraph (2).
(4) To ensure that DNA testing and analysis of
samples from rape kits and nonsuspect cases are carried
out in a timely manner.
(b) Eligibility.--For a State or unit of local government,
or the head of the Indian tribe to be eligible to receive a
grant under this section, the chief executive officer of the
State or unit of local government, or the head of the Indian
tribe shall submit to the Attorney General an application in
such form and containing such information as the Attorney
General may require. The application shall--
(1) provide assurances that the State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe has implemented, or will
implement not later than 120 days after the date of
such application, a comprehensive plan for the
expeditious DNA analysis of samples in accordance with
this section;
(2) include a certification that each DNA analysis
carried out under the plan shall be maintained pursuant
to the privacy requirements described in section
14132(b)(3) of this title;
(3) include a certification that the State, unit of
local government, or Indian tribe has determined, by
statute, rule, or regulation, those offenses under
State law that shall be treated for purposes of this
section as qualifying State offenses;
(4) specify the allocation that the State, unit of
local government, or Indian tribe shall make, in using
grant amounts to carry out DNA analyses of samples, as
between samples specified in subsection (a)(1) and
samples specified in subsection (a)(2); [and]
(5) specify that portion of grant amounts that the
State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe shall
use for the purpose specified in subsection (a)(3)[.];
(6) if the applicant is a unit of local government,
certify that the applicant participates in a State
laboratory system;
(7) provide assurances that, not later than 3 years
after the date on which the application is submitted,
the State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe
will implement a plan for forwarding, not later than
180 days after a DNA evidence sample is obtained, all
samples collected in cases of sexual assault to a
laboratory that meets the quality assurance standards
for testing under subsection (d); and
(8) upon issuance of the regulations specified in
section 10(d), certify that the State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe is in compliance with those
regulations.
(c) Crimes Without Suspects.--A State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe that proposes to allocate grant
amounts under paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) for the
purposes specified in paragraph (2 or (3) of subsection (a)
shall use such allocated amounts to conduct or facilitate DNA
analyses of those samples that relate to crimes in connection
with which there are no suspects.
(d) Analysis of Samples.--
(1) In general.--The plan shall require that, except
as provided in paragraph (3), each DNA analysis be
carried out in a laboratory that satisfies quality
assurance standards and is--
(A) operated by the State [or a unit of local
government], a unit of local government, or an
Indian tribe within the State; or
(B) operated by a private entity pursuant to
a contract with the State [or a unit of local
government], a unit of local government, or an
Indian tribe within the State.
(2) Quality assurance standards.--
(A) The Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation shall maintain and make available
to States, units of local government, and
Indian tribes, a description of quality
assurance protocols and practices that the
Director considers adequate to assure the
quality of a forensic laboratory.

* * * * * * *

(e) Restrictions on Use of Funds.--
(1) Nonsupplanting.--Funds made available pursuant to
this section shall not be used to supplant State or
local government funds, but shall be used to increase
the amount of funds that would, in the absence of
Federal fund, be made available from State or local
government sources for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Administrative costs.--A State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe may not use more than 3
percent of the funds it receives from this section for
administrative expenses.
(f) Report to the Attorney General.--Each State, unit of
local government, or Indian tribe which receives a grant under
this section shall submit to the Attorney General, for each
year in which funds from a grant received under this section is
expended, a report at such time and in such manner as the
Attorney General may reasonably require, which contains--

* * * * * * *

(g) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the
end of each fiscal year for which grants are made under this
section, the Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a
report that includes--
(1) the aggregate amount of grants made under this
section to each State, unit of local government, or
Indian tribe for such fiscal year; and
(2) a summary of the information provided by States,
units of local government, or Indian tribes receiving
grants under this section.
(h) Expenditure Records.--
(1) In general.--Each State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe which receives a grant
under this section shall keep records as the Attorney
General may require to facilitate an effective audit of
the receipt and use of grant funds received under this
section.
(2) Access.--Each State, unit of local government, or
Indian tribe which receives a grant under this section
shall make available, for the purpose of audit and
examination, such records as are related to the receipt
or use of any such grant.

* * * * * * *

(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--Amounts are
authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General for
grants under subsection (a) as follows:
(1) For grants for the purposes specified in
paragraph (1) of such subsection--
(A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(B) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; [and]
[(C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;]
(C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(D) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(E) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(F) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(G) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
Amounts made available to carry out the purposes
specified in subsection (a)(1) shall remain available
until expended.
(2) For grants for the purposes specified in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of such subsection--
(A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(B) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
[(C) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
[(D) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.]
(C) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(D) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(E) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(F) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(G) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
Amounts made available to carry out the purposes
specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a)
shall remain available until expended.
(k) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give priority to a State or unit of
local government that has a significant rape kit or nonsuspect
case backlog per capita as compared with other applicants.

Sec. 14135a. Collection and use of DNA identification information from
certain Federal offenders

(a) Collection of DNA Samples.--
(1) From individuals in custody.--The Director of the
Bureau of Prisons shall collect a DNA sample from each
individual in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons who
is, or has been, convicted of a qualifying Federal
offense (as determined under subsection (d)) or a
qualifying military offense, as determined under
section 1565 of Title 10.

* * * * * * *

(f) Commencement of Collection.--Collection of DNA samples
under subsection (a) shall, subject to the availability of
appropriations, commence not later than the date that is 180
days after December 18, 2000.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
carry out this section $500,000 for fiscal year 2003.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 14135e. Privacy protection standards

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), any
sample collected under, or any result of any analysis carried
out under, section 14135, 14135a, or 14135b of this title may
be used only for purpose specified in such section or in
section 3282(b) of title 18, United States Code.

* * * * * * *

(c) Criminal Penalty.--A person who knowingly--
(1) [discloses a sample or result] discloses or uses
a DNA sample or DNA analysis described in subsection
(a) in any manner to any person not authorized to
receive it; or
(2) obtains, without authorization, a sample or
result described in subsection (a), shall be fined not
more than $100,000 per offense.
(d) Limitation on Access to DNA Information.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall
establish, by regulation, procedures to limit access
to, or use of, stored DNA samples or DNA analyses.
(2) Regulations.--The regulations established under
paragraph (1) shall establish conditions for using DNA
information to--
(A) limit the use and dissemination of such
information, as provided under subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (C) of section 210304(b)(3) of
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(3));
(B) limit the redissemination of such
information;
(C) ensure the accuracy, security, and
confidentiality of such information;
(D) protect any privacy rights of individuals
who are the subject of such information; and
(E) provide for the timely removal and
destruction of obsolete or inaccurate
information, or information required to be
expunged.