[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.

