[House Report 108-711]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-711

======================================================================
 
                      JUSTICE FOR ALL ACT OF 2004

                                _______
                                

 September 30, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 5107]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 5107) to protect crime victims' rights, to eliminate the 
substantial backlog of DNA samples collected from crime scenes 
and convicted offenders, to improve and expand the DNA testing 
capacity of Federal, State, and local crime laboratories, to 
increase research and development of new DNA testing 
technologies, to develop new training programs regarding the 
collection and use of DNA evidence, to provide post-conviction 
testing of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent, to improve 
the performance of counsel in State capital cases, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     5
Committee Consideration..........................................     5
Vote of the Committee............................................     5
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     6
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     9
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    10
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................    10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    16
Markup Transcript................................................    38

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 5107, the ``Justice For All Act of 2004,'' enhances 
the rights and protections for all persons involved in the 
criminal justice system. H.R. 5107 does this through two 
different, but complementary mechanisms: (1) a new set of 
statutory victims' rights that are both enforceable in a court 
of law and supported by fully-funded victims' assistance 
programs; and (2) a comprehensive DNA bill that seeks to ensure 
that the true offender is caught and convicted for the crime.
    Title I enumerates eight rights for crime victims and 
provides an enforcement mechanism for those rights. It also 
authorizes $155 million in funding over the next 5 years for 
victims' assistance programs at the Federal and state level.
    Titles II, III, and IV address three interrelated DNA 
problems. Title II will help to eliminate the large backlog of 
DNA evidence that has not been analyzed. It also provides 
resources to remedy the lack of training, equipment, 
technology, and standards for handling DNA and other forensic 
evidence. Title II addresses the backlog by reauthorizing and 
expanding the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. It 
increases the authorized funding levels for the DNA Analysis 
Backlog Elimination program to $151 million annually for the 
next 5 years.
    Title III authorizes funding for training for law 
enforcement, correctional, court, and medical personnel on the 
use of DNA evidence. Title III also authorizes grant programs 
to reduce other forensic science backlogs, research new DNA 
technology, and promote the use of DNA technology to identify 
missing persons. Lastly, Title III provides funds to the 
Federal Bureau Investigation (``FBI'') for the administration 
of its DNA programs.
    Title IV establishes rules for post-conviction DNA testing 
of Federal prison inmates and requires the preservation of 
biological evidence in Federal criminal cases while the 
defendant remains incarcerated. It provides incentive grants to 
States that adopt adequate procedures for providing post-
conviction DNA testing and preserving biological evidence. 
Additionally, it authorizes funding to help States provide 
competent legal services for both the prosecution and the 
defense in death penalty cases and provides funds for post-
conviction DNA testing.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

                               BACKGROUND

A. Victims' Rights
    In 2002, U.S. residents aged 12 or older experienced 
approximately 23 million crimes, according to findings from the 
National Crime Victimization Survey. Of those, 76% (17.5 
million) were property crimes, 23% (5.3 million) were crimes of 
violence, and 1% were personal thefts. In 2002, for every 1,000 
persons aged 12 or older, one rape or sexual assault, one 
assault with injury and two robberies occurred. Murders are the 
least frequent violent crime--there were about 6 murder victims 
per 100,000 persons in 2001. In surveys of 12 cities in 1998, 
violent crime victimization rates per 1,000 residents aged 12 
or older ranged from 60 in Washington, D.C. to 85 in New York 
City. Nationally, the violent crime victimization rate in urban 
areas was 51 per 1,000 residents.
    Victims of crime often do not feel their voices are heard 
or that their concerns are adequately addressed in the judicial 
process. Many express frustration with a judicial system that 
affords many rights to the accused while giving few to the 
victim. This legislation addresses these concerns by codifying 
the rights of victims and providing the means to enforce those 
rights. Additionally, the victims' rights section of this 
legislation provides grants to state and local governments to 
provide legal assistance to victims of crimes and develop 
state-of-the-art systems for notifying victims of important 
dates and developments relating to criminal proceedings.
B. DNA Technology
    In addition to their frustration with the judicial process, 
victims of violent crime are often frustrated with the length 
of time it takes to track down their attackers. DNA samples can 
help to quickly track down offenders and solve crimes if law 
enforcement agencies have access to the most up-to-date testing 
capabilities. Currently, however, many law enforcement agencies 
do not have the capacity to process DNA samples fast enough.
    News stories extolling the successful use of DNA to solve 
crimes abound. To give just a few examples, consider the 
following. In 1999, New York City authorities linked a man 
through DNA evidence to at least 22 sexual assaults and 
robberies that had terrorized the city. In 2002, authorities in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Fort Collins, Colorado, used 
DNA evidence to link and solve a series of crimes perpetrated 
by the same individual. In the 2001 ``Green River'' killings, 
DNA evidence provided a major breakthrough in a series of 
crimes that had remained unsolved for years despite a large law 
enforcement task force and a $15 million investigation.
    DNA generally solves crimes in one of two ways. First, in 
cases in which a suspect is identified, a sample of that 
person's DNA can be compared to evidence from the crime scene. 
The results of this comparison may help establish whether the 
suspect committed the crime. Second, in cases in which a 
suspect has not yet been identified, biological evidence from 
the crime scene can be analyzed and compared to offender 
profiles in DNA databases to help identify the perpetrator.
    Crime scene evidence can also be linked to other crime 
scenes through the use of DNA databases. In the late 1980's, 
the Federal Government laid the groundwork for a system of 
federal, state, and local DNA databases for the storage and 
exchange of DNA profiles. This system, called the Combined DNA 
Index System (``CODIS''), maintains DNA profiles obtained under 
the federal, state, and local systems in a set of databases 
that are available to law enforcement agencies across the 
country for law enforcement purposes. CODIS can compare crime 
scene evidence to a database of DNA profiles obtained from 
convicted offenders. CODIS can also link DNA evidence obtained 
from different crime scenes, thereby identifying repeat 
offenders.
    To take advantage of the investigative potential of CODIS, 
in the late 1980's and early 1990's, states began passing laws 
requiring offenders convicted of certain offenses to provide 
DNA samples. Currently, all 50 states and the Federal 
Government have laws requiring that DNA samples be collected 
from some categories of offenders for inclusion in CODIS. 
However, only certain types of profiles authorized under 
Federal law may be uploaded to the Federal system. When used to 
its full potential, DNA evidence will help solve and may even 
prevent some of the most serious violent crimes.
    In short, DNA technology is increasingly vital to ensuring 
accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system. It can 
identify criminals with incredible accuracy when biological 
evidence exists, and it can clear suspects and exonerate 
persons mistakenly accused or convicted of crimes.

                          NEED FOR LEGISLATION

A. Victims' Rights
    Crime victims already have a listing of rights in Title 42 
of the United States Code. However, because those rights are 
not enumerated in the criminal code, most practitioners do not 
even know these rights exist. Further, the rights as they are 
currently enumerated do not contain any explicit enforcement 
provision. As such, crime victims often feel that they are 
ignored by a system that gives a great number of rights and 
protections to the person accused of the crime, but few to the 
victim. H.R. 5107 addresses these problems by moving the 
victims' rights to Title 18 of the United States Code, where 
they will be more readily available to practitioners. It also 
amplifies the current rights and sets forth an explicit 
enforcement mechanism for those rights. H.R. 5107 also provides 
funding for legal counsel for victims to assist them in the 
process and to ensure that these rights are enforced.
B. DNA Technology
    Despite DNA's enormous potential, the current Federal and 
state DNA collection and analysis system suffers from a variety 
of problems. In many instances, public crime laboratories are 
overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples--samples that 
could be used to solve violent crimes if the states had the 
funds to eliminate this backlog. Some estimates indicate that 
DNA evidence from at least 300,000 rape crime scenes has been 
collected but never analyzed by a crime lab. In addition, many 
of the laboratories are ill-equipped to handle the increasing 
flow of DNA samples and evidence.
    The problems of backlogs and the lack of up-to-date 
technology result in significant delays in the administration 
of justice. The system needs more research to develop faster 
methods to analyze DNA evidence. Legal and medical personnel 
need additional training and assistance to ensure the optimal 
use of DNA evidence to solve crimes and assist victims. The 
criminal justice system needs the means to provide DNA testing 
in appropriate circumstances for individuals who assert that 
they have been wrongly convicted.
    In addition to the benefits of DNA analysis, there are 
benefits from the use of other forensic technology. Additional 
funds are needed to allow grants to laboratories that perform 
research and analysis in other types of forensic disciplines 
such as firearms examinations, latent prints, toxicology, 
controlled substances, forensic pathology, questionable 
documents, and trace evidence.
    DNA testing has the capacity not only to identify the 
perpetrators of crimes but also to exonerate the innocent. DNA 
testing has revealed various wrongful convictions around the 
country; however, DNA alone will not eliminate wrongful 
convictions. Greater access to DNA testing is essential. 
However, biological evidence that can establish guilt or 
innocence is available in fewer than 20 percent of violent 
crimes.
    In addition to correcting the erroneous convictions that 
DNA testing reveals, there are steps that can be taken to 
prevent wrongful convictions in the first place. The single 
most important of these is to ensure that every indigent 
defendant has a competent attorney, particularly in capital 
cases. Many of the most egregious cases of wrongful convictions 
have involved attorneys who failed to inquire into the facts, 
failed to present or challenge evidence at trial, or worse--
were drunk or asleep during key portions of the proceedings.
    The provision of competent counsel benefits the prosecution 
as well as the defense. As Oklahoma City prosecutor Beth 
Wilkinson testified before the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security last year, providing 
defendants with a competent defense is the best way to ensure 
``that the right person is convicted and justice is served, 
that reversible error is avoided at trial, and that verdicts 
for the government are upheld on appeal.'' However, such a 
system must be funded. The Committee believes the Federal 
Government should offer affirmative assistance and 
encouragement to the States to adopt effective systems for the 
appointment and performance of counsel, rather than imposing 
new unfunded Federal mandates.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held in the Committee on the Judiciary on 
H.R. 5107. However, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security held an oversight hearing on ``Advancing 
Justice Through the Use of Forensic DNA Technology'' on July 
23, 2003. The Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing 
on the issue of victims' rights on September 30, 2003. This 
legislation addresses both of these issues.

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 22, 2004, the Committee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 5107 without 
amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there 
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of 
H.R. 5107.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee notes that this 
legislation provides new budgetary authority as outlined in the 
Congressional Budget Office estimate printed in the next 
section.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 5107, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 29, 2004.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5107, the 
``Justice for All Act of 2004.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 5107--Justice for All Act of 2004.

                                SUMMARY

    CBO estimates that H.R. 5107 would authorize the 
appropriation of about $2 billion over the 2005-2009 period to 
expand the use of DNA analysis in the criminal justice system 
and to assist victims of crimes. (Most of that total is 
specifically authorized in the bill.) The bill would establish 
six new grant programs and extend the authority for two current 
grant programs that provide funding for States to improve 
forensic analysis of crime-scene evidence, collect DNA samples 
from offenders, and train law enforcement personnel. The bill 
would authorize appropriations for the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) to carry out its programs concerning DNA 
evidence, including the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), and 
would establish the National Forensic Science Commission. The 
legislation also would provide funding for several Department 
of Justice (DOJ) programs to assist victims of crimes. Finally, 
H.R. 5107 would require the collection of DNA samples from 
persons convicted of felonies.
    Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 5107 would cost about $1.4 
billion over the 2005-2009 period. Over $1 billion of this 
total would be for the grant programs mentioned above. Enacting 
this legislation could affect direct spending, but CBO 
estimates that any such effects would not be significant.
    H.R. 5107 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates 
however, that State, local, and tribal governments would incur 
no additional costs to comply with that mandate; therefore, the 
threshold established in that act would not be exceeded ($60 
million in 2004, adjusted annually for inflation). Other 
provisions in the bill would benefit those governments.
    H.R. 5107 contains no new private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA.

                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5107 is shown in the 
following table. The cost of this legislation falls within 
budget function 750 (administration of justice).

                 By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION \1\
Spending Under Current Law for
 the Programs
That Would Be Authorized By
 H.R. 5107
  Budget Authority/               271     57     42      0      0      0
 Authorization Level \2\
  Estimated Outlays               165    118     86     60     15      6
 Proposed Changes:

 Grant Programs
    Authorization Level             0    316    316    336    336    336
    Estimated Outlays               0     69    164    232    285    330
   FBI and National Forensic
 Science Commission
    Authorization Level             0     43     43     43     43     43
    Estimated Outlays               0     34     43     43     43     43
   DOJ Programs to Assist Crime
 Victims
    Authorization Level             0     21     34     34     34     34
    Estimated Outlays               0      7     21     30     33     34
   Additional DNA Samples from
 Felons
    Estimated Authorization         0     13      3      3      3      3
 Level
    Estimated Outlays               0     12      4      3      3      3
   Total Changes \3\
    Estimated Authorization         0    392    394    414    415    415
 Level
    Estimated Outlays               0    122    231    307    364    409
   Spending Under H.R. 5107 \3\
    Estimated Authorization       271    449    437    414    415    415
 Level
    Estimated Outlays             165    240    317    367    378    415
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In addition to the discretionary costs, enacting H.R. 5107 could
  affect direct spending, but CBO estimates that any such effects would
  be less than $500,000 annually.
2. The 2004 level is the total amount appropriated for that year for the
  programs that would be authorized by H.R. 5107. The 2005 and 2006
  levels are the total amounts authorized in current law for those
  programs.
3. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

    Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 5107 would cost $1.4 billion 
over the 2005-2009 period. This legislation also could affect 
direct spending, but CBO estimates that any such effects would 
not be significant.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
    For this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized 
for the grant programs, the FBI, the National Forensic Science 
Commission, and the DOJ programs to assist victims of crimes 
will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year and 
that outlays will follow the historical spending rates for 
these or similar activities.
    In addition, implementing H.R. 5107 would require the 
federal government to collect DNA samples from each person who 
has been convicted of a felony and who is in federal custody or 
on federally supervised release. Currently, the government 
collects DNA samples only from persons convicted of certain 
violent crimes. Based on information from the Bureau of 
Prisons, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
and the Department of Defense, CBO estimates that implementing 
H.R. 5107 would require the collection of roughly 200,000 
additional samples in 2005 and over 40,000 samples in each 
subsequent year. We expect that it would cost $60 to take each 
DNA sample, so collection costs would total about $13 million 
in fiscal year 2005 and $3 million a year over the 2006-2009 
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Direct Spending
    Enacting H.R. 5107 could increase direct spending by 
raising the maximum compensation from $5,000 to $50,000 per 
year of imprisonment that could be paid to certain persons 
wrongly convicted of crimes by the federal government. Any such 
payments would be made from the U.S. Treasury's Judgment Fund 
and would be considered direct spending. The number of such 
cases in recent years has been very small, so we do not expect 
any increase in payments for this purpose to be significant.

        ESTIMATED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

    H.R. 5107 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined 
in UMRA because it would codify into federal law certain rights 
for victims of crime in the District of Columbia. According to 
court representatives, such rights are currently provided to 
those victims under local statute; thus, the District of 
Columbia would incur no additional costs to comply with that 
mandate.
    Other provisions in the bill would benefit State, local, 
and tribal governments by authorizing the appropriation of more 
than $1.5 billion in grants to those governments over fiscal 
years 2005 through 2009. The bill would create six new grant 
programs and reauthorize and expand two existing grants for DNA 
analysis. It also would create several new grant programs to 
protect victims' rights. Any costs to grant recipients would be 
incurred voluntarily as conditions of receiving federal aid.

                 ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR

    H.R. 5107 contains no new private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA.

                         PREVIOUS CBO ESTIMATES

    On October 16, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for 
H.R. 3214, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 
2003, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the 
Judiciary on October 8, 2003. That legislation is very similar 
to H.R. 5107, and we estimated that implementing H.R. 3214 
would cost about $1.1 billion over the 2005-2008 period (with 
additional amounts spent after 2008), assuming appropriation of 
the necessary amounts.
    On September 29, 2004, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for 
S. 1700, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 
2004, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary on September 21, 2004. That legislation is very 
similar to H.R. 5107 but would not provide funding for DOJ 
programs to assist victims of crime. We estimate that 
implementing S. 1700 would cost about $1.3 billion over the 
2005-2009 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 
amounts.

                         ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz (226-2860)
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell 
    (225-3220)
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach (226-2960)

                         ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

Peter H. Fontaine
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objectives of H.R. 5107 are to provide 
crime victims with meaningful, enforceable rights in the 
criminal justice system, to authorize grants to Federal and 
state programs that promote victims' rights, and to authorize a 
variety of grants to State and local governments to combat 
crimes with DNA and other forensic technology and to provide 
safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions.
    Title I of the bill provides a list of eight statutory 
rights for crime victims, as well as providing an enforcement 
mechanism for those rights. It also authorizes $155 million 
over 5 years in funding for grants to improve victims' 
assistance and legal support programs at both the Federal and 
state levels.
    Titles II and III of the bill include the Debbie Smith DNA 
Backlog Grant Program, which authorizes $755 million over 5 
years to address the DNA backlog crisis in the nation's crime 
labs. Additional grant programs are authorized to reduce other 
forensic science backlogs, train criminal justice and medical 
personnel in the use of DNA evidence, and promote the use of 
DNA technology to identify missing persons. The Committee 
expects State and local governments to use these grants to the 
maximum extent possible to reduce DNA backlogs and to improve 
their DNA and other forensic capabilities.
    Title IV of the bill, the Innocence Protection Act, 
provides access to post-conviction DNA testing in Federal cases 
and provides $100 million over 5 years for a grant program for 
States to improve the quality of legal representation in 
capital cases, and increases compensation in Federal cases of 
wrongful conviction. In addition, the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-
Conviction DNA Testing Program authorizes $25 million for the 
States over 5 years to defray the costs of post-conviction DNA 
testing. The Committee expects federal, state, and local 
authorities to use this money to the maximum extent possible to 
reduce wrongful convictions and increase the quality of 
representation in capital cases.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    The following discussion describes the bill as it was 
introduced. The Committee reported the bill without amendment.

               SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    Section 1 of the bill sets forth the short title of the 
bill as the ``Justice for All Act of 2004'' and sets out the 
table of contents.

TITLE I. THE ``SCOTT CAMPBELL, STEPHANIE ROPER, WENDY PRESTON, LOUARNA 
           GILLIS, AND NILA LYNN CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT''

Section 101. Short Title.
    This section sets forth the short title of Title I as the 
``Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna 
Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act.''
Section 102. Crime Victims' Rights.
    This section amends Title 18 to codify eight statutory 
rights of crime victims in the Federal judicial system. Among 
these rights are: the right to be reasonably protected from the 
accused; the right to be notified of, and not excluded from, 
public proceedings involving their case; the right to be heard 
at release, plea, or sentencing; the right to confer with the 
government attorney; the right to full and timely restitution; 
the right to be free from unreasonable delays in proceedings; 
and the right to respect. It requires Federal Government 
agencies to make their best efforts to ensure that crime 
victims are given these rights and to advise the victim of any 
conflict in providing these rights.
    Additionally, it allows a victim or the government, after a 
Federal court denies its request for appropriate relief, to 
apply for a writ of mandamus to a court of appeals to enforce 
the rights outlined in this section. This section does not 
allow a victim to reopen a plea or sentence or to receive a new 
trial as relief, and it makes no changes in the law with 
respect to victims' ability to get restitution.
Section 103 Increase Resources for Enforcement of Crime Victims' 
        Rights.
    Section 103 authorizes $155 million in grants over 5 years 
for a variety of victims assistance programs in the following 
manner:
    --$2 million in FY 2005 and $5 million annually for FY 
2006-09 for Victim/Witness Assistance programs at the offices 
of the United States Attorneys.
    --$2 million for FY 2005 and $5 million annually for FY 
2006-09 for the enhancement of the Victim Notification System 
at the Department of Justice.
    --$7 million for FY 2005 and $11 million annually for FY 
2006-09 for organizations that provide legal counsel and 
support services for victims both in the Federal Government and 
in the states and tribal governments that have victims' rights 
laws substantially equivalent to those provided in Sec. 102.
    --$300,000 for FY 2005 and $500,000 annually for FY 2006-09 
to the Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime to 
administer the grants.
    --$5 million in FY 2005 and $7 million for FY 2006-09 for 
the Office for Victims of Crime to support programs that will 
create state-of-the-art victims' rights laws in the states and 
provide compliance systems to ensure that victims are fairly 
treated under those statutes.
    --$5 million each for FY 2005-09 to develop state-of-the-
art crime victim notification systems.
Section 104. Reports.
    Federal courts are required under this legislation to 
collect data and report on the number of times a victim is 
denied the rights provided in this section. Section 104 further 
requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study not later 
than 4 years after the date of enactment that assesses the 
effect of the implementation of this Act on the treatment of 
crime victims in the Federal criminal justice system.

               TITLE II. THE ``DEBBIE SMITH ACT OF 2004''

Section 201. Short Title.
    This section sets forth the short title of Title II as the 
``Debbie Smith Act of 2004.''
Section 202. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.
    This section amends and expands the DNA Backlog Elimination 
Act of 2000 to allow for formula grants to states and units of 
local governments for analyses of DNA samples and for 
improvements to DNA laboratories. The language also makes it 
explicit that these improvements may extend to samples from 
rape kits, samples from other sexual assault evidence and 
samples taken in cases without an identified suspect. This 
section also adds the collection of DNA from convicted 
offenders as a specific program purpose and clarifies that 
funds can be used to increase the capacity of public labs. 
Additionally, this section allows 1% of the funds to be used 
for states or units of local governments to prepare for 
accreditation or to perform audits of programs to ensure 
compliance with Federal quality assurance standards.
    This section authorizes $151 million each year from FY 2005 
through FY 2009.
Section 203. Expansion of Combined DNA Index System.
    This section amends the statute governing the Combined DNA 
Index System (``CODIS'') to allow states to include in the DNA 
index the DNA profiles of all persons whose DNA samples have 
been collected under applicable legal authorities, including 
those authorized by State law as well as all felons convicted 
of Federal crimes and qualifying military offenses.
Section 204. Tolling of Statute of Limitations.
    This section provides that, in a case in which DNA testing 
implicates an identified person in the commission of a felony, 
except for a felony offense under chapter 109A, no statute of 
limitations would preclude prosecution of the offense until a 
time period equal to the statute of limitations has elapsed 
from the date of identification of the perpetrator.
Section 205. Legal Assistance for Victims of Violence.
    This section expands the Violence Against Women Act to 
allow the grant programs to be used to provide legal assistance 
for victims of dating violence.
Section 206. Ensuring Private Laboratory Assistance in Eliminating DNA 
        Backlog.
    This section amends the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 
Act of 2000 to ensure that states and local units of government 
may use grant funds to contract with private for profit 
companies to expedite DNA collection, analyses of DNA from 
crime scenes, and elimination of any backlog.

       TITLE III. THE ``DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2004''

Section 301. Short Title.
    This section sets forth the short title of Title III as the 
``DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2004.''
Section 302. Ensuring Public Crime Laboratory Compliance with Federal 
        Standards.
    This section requires that state and local government crime 
labs undergo accreditation and auditing at least every 2 years 
to ensure compliance with Federal standards that will be 
established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Section 303. DNA Training and Education for Law Enforcement, 
        Correctional Personnel, and Court Officers.
    This section authorizes $12.5 million per year for 5 years 
to provide grants for training and education relating to the 
identification, collection, preservation, and analysis of DNA 
evidence for law enforcement, correctional personnel, court 
officers including prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges, and 
forensic scientists.
Section 304. Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program Grants.
    This section authorizes $30 million per year for 5 years to 
create a grant program to provide training, technical 
assistance, education, equipment, and information to medical 
personnel relating to the identification, collection, 
preservation, analysis, and use of DNA samples and evidence.
Section 305. DNA Research and Development.
    This section authorizes $15 million per year for 5 years to 
establish a National Forensic Science Commission and allows for 
grants for demonstration projects to improve forensic DNA 
technology.
Section 306. National Forensic Science Commission.
    This section authorizes $500,000 for the National Forensic 
Science Commission to be appointed by the Attorney General to 
provide recommendations for maximizing the use of forensic 
science technology.
Section 307. FBI DNA Programs.
    This section authorizes $42.1 million in additional funds 
for the FBI to carry out its DNA programs including nuclear DNA 
analysis; mitochondrial DNA analysis; regional mitochondrial 
DNA laboratories; the Combined DNA Index System; the Federal 
convicted offender DNA program; and DNA research and 
development.
Section 308. DNA Identification of Missing Persons.
    This section authorizes $2 million per year for 5 years for 
DNA identification of missing persons and unidentified human 
remains.
Section 309. Enhanced Criminal Penalties for Unauthorized Disclosure or 
        Use of DNA Information.
    This section expands the criminal code provisions which 
criminalize unauthorized disclosure of DNA information to 
criminalize the unauthorized ``use'' of such information, and 
increases the potential fine to $100,000 for each criminal 
offense.
Section 310. Tribal Coalition Grants.
    This section authorizes grants to tribes for domestic 
violence and sexual assault awareness under the Violence 
Against Women Act.
Section 311. Creation of a New Forensic Backlog Elimination Grant 
        Program.
    This section authorizes $10 million per year for 5 years 
for grants to states, units of local governments, and tribal 
governments to eliminate forensic science backlogs including 
backlog in the analysis of firearms examinations, latent 
prints, toxicology, controlled substances, forensic pathology, 
questionable documents, and trace evidence.
Section 312. Report to Congress.
    This section requires the Attorney General to provide a 
report to Congress within 3 years of the date of enactment 
relating to progress in the implementation of Title I and II of 
this bill.

               TITLE IV. THE ``INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT''

Section 401. Short Title.
    This section sets forth the short title of Title IV as the 
``Innocence Protection Act of 2004.''
Section 411. Federal Post Conviction DNA Testing.
    This section establishes new procedures for applications 
for DNA testing by inmates in the Federal system. The new 
procedures require a court to order DNA testing if: (1) an 
applicant for testing asserts that he or she is actually 
innocent of a qualifying offense, (2) the proposed DNA testing 
would produce new material evidence that would support such an 
assertion, and (3) it would create a reasonable probability 
that the applicant did not commit the offense. Penalties are 
established in the event that testing inculpates the applicant. 
If the test results are exculpatory, the court must grant the 
applicant's motion for a new trial or resentencing if the 
evidence establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a 
new trial would result in an acquittal of the offense at issue.
    Additionally, this section seeks to preserve DNA evidence 
by prohibiting the destruction of biological evidence in a 
Federal criminal case while a defendant remains incarcerated 
unless there is a waiver by the defendant or prior notification 
to the defendant that the evidence may be destroyed. Violations 
of this section to prevent evidence from being tested or used 
in court are punishable by imprisonment.
Section 412. The Kirk Bloodsworth Actual Innocence Grant Program.
    Named for a death row inmate exonerated by DNA testing, 
this section authorizes $5 million per year for 5 years to 
provide grants to states for post conviction testing.
Section 413. Bonus Grants to States to Ensure Consideration of 
        Legitimate Claims of Actual Innocence.
    This section reserves the grant funds in Sec. Sec. 203, 
205, 207 and 303 of this bill for states that do the following: 
(1) make post-conviction DNA testing available to any person 
convicted of a State crime; (2) allow post conviction relief if 
such testing excludes the defendant; and (3) preserve evidence 
in relation to state cases.
Section 421. Capital Representation Improvement Grants.
    This section establishes a grant program to States to 
ensure effective representation in capital cases. Such a 
program may include training for defense counsel who litigate 
capital cases and establishment of qualifications standards for 
such counsel. To receive funding, the States must adopt and 
implement minimum standards for appointment of defense counsel 
to represent defendants in a capital case.
Section 422. Capital Prosecution Improvement Grants.
    This section authorizes grants to States to improve the 
representation by prosecutors in capital cases by requiring 
States that receive funding to: establish training programs for 
capital prosecutors; develop, implement, and enforce 
appropriate standards and qualifications for such prosecutors 
and assess their performance; establish programs under which 
prosecutors conduct a systematic review of cases in which a 
defendant is sentenced to death in order to identify cases in 
which post-conviction DNA testing is appropriate; and assist 
the families of murder victims.
Section 423. Applications.
    This section requires States applying for grants under this 
subtitle to provide a long-term strategy and detailed 
implementation plan. The plan must reflect consultation with 
the judiciary, the organized bar, and State and local 
prosecutor and defender organizations, and establish as a 
priority improvement in the quality of trial-level 
representation of indigents charged with capital crimes and 
trial-level prosecution of capital crimes to enhance the 
reliability of capital trial verdicts. This section also 
requires that funds received under this subtitle shall be 
allocated equally between the capital prosecution and capital 
representation improvement grants.
Section 424. State Reports.
    This section requires states receiving funds under this 
subtitle to provide an annual report to the Attorney General 
explaining the activities funded under the grant and the 
relationship to the grant program.
Section 425. Evaluations by Inspector General and Administrative 
        Remedies.
    This section requires the Inspector General of the 
Department of Justice to evaluate the States receiving funds 
under this title and submit reports to the Attorney General 
regarding compliance with the terms and conditions of the 
grant. In conducting such evaluations, the Inspector General 
must give priority to states at the highest risk of 
noncompliance. If, after receiving a report from the Inspector 
General, Attorney General finds that a state is not in 
compliance, the Attorney General shall take a series of steps 
to bring the state into compliance and report to Congress on 
the results.
Section 426. Authorization of Appropriations.
    This section authorizes $100 million per year for 5 years 
to provide grants under this subsection.
Section 431. Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted.
    This section increases the maximum amount of damages an 
individual may be awarded for being wrongfully imprisoned from 
$5,000 to $50,000 per year in non-capital cases and $100,000 
per year in capital cases.
Section 432. Sense of Congress Regarding Compensation in State Death 
        Penalty Cases.
    This section states that it is the sense of Congress that 
States should provide compensation to those persons who are 
wrongfully convicted.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Chap.                                                               Sec.
201.    General provisions........................................  3001
     * * * * * * *
228A.    Post-conviction DNA testing..............................  3600
     * * * * * * *
237.    Crime victims' rights.....................................  3771
     * * * * * * *

                        CHAPTER 213--LIMITATIONS

Sec.
3281.  Capital offenses.
     * * * * * * *
3297.  Cases involving DNA evidence.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 3297. Cases involving DNA evidence

    In a case in which DNA testing implicates an identified 
person in the commission of a felony, no statute of limitations 
that would otherwise preclude prosecution of the offense shall 
preclude such prosecution until a period of time following the 
implication of the person by DNA testing has elapsed that is 
equal to the otherwise applicable limitation period.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               CHAPTER 228A--POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING

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

Sec. 3600. DNA testing

    (a) In General.--Upon a written motion by an individual 
under a sentence of imprisonment or death pursuant to a 
conviction for a Federal offense (referred to in this section 
as the ``applicant''), the court that entered the judgment of 
conviction shall order DNA testing of specific evidence if--
            (1) the applicant asserts, under penalty of 
        perjury, that the applicant is actually innocent of--
                    (A) the Federal offense for which the 
                applicant is under a sentence of imprisonment 
                or death; or
                    (B) another Federal or State offense, if--
                            (i)(I) such offense was legally 
                        necessary to make the applicant 
                        eligible for a sentence as a career 
                        offender under section 3559(e) or an 
                        armed career offender under section 
                        924(e), and exoneration of such offense 
                        would entitle the applicant to a 
                        reduced sentence; or
                            (II) evidence of such offense was 
                        admitted during a Federal death 
                        sentencing hearing and exoneration of 
                        such offense would entitle the 
                        applicant to a reduced sentence or new 
                        sentencing hearing; and
                            (ii) in the case of a State 
                        offense--
                                    (I) the applicant 
                                demonstrates that there is no 
                                adequate remedy under State law 
                                to permit DNA testing of the 
                                specified evidence relating to 
                                the State offense; and
                                    (II) to the extent 
                                available, the applicant has 
                                exhausted all remedies 
                                available under State law for 
                                requesting DNA testing of 
                                specified evidence relating to 
                                the State offense;
            (2) the specific evidence to be tested was secured 
        in relation to the investigation or prosecution of the 
        Federal or State offense referenced in the applicant's 
        assertion under paragraph (1);
            (3) the specific evidence to be tested--
                    (A) was not previously subjected to DNA 
                testing and the applicant did not knowingly and 
                voluntarily waive the right to request DNA 
                testing of that evidence in a court proceeding 
                after the date of enactment of the Innocence 
                Protection Act of 2004; or
                    (B) was previously subjected to DNA testing 
                and the applicant is requesting DNA testing 
                using a new method or technology that is 
                substantially more probative than the prior DNA 
                testing;
            (4) the specific evidence to be tested is in the 
        possession of the Government and has been subject to a 
        chain of custody and retained under conditions 
        sufficient to ensure that such evidence has not been 
        substituted, contaminated, tampered with, replaced, or 
        altered in any respect material to the proposed DNA 
        testing;
            (5) the proposed DNA testing is reasonable in 
        scope, uses scientifically sound methods, and is 
        consistent with accepted forensic practices;
            (6) the applicant identifies a theory of defense 
        that--
                    (A) is not inconsistent with an affirmative 
                defense presented at trial; and
                    (B) would establish the actual innocence of 
                the applicant of the Federal or State offense 
                referenced in the applicant's assertion under 
                paragraph (1);
            (7) if the applicant was convicted following a 
        trial, the identity of the perpetrator was at issue in 
        the trial;
            (8) the proposed DNA testing of the specific 
        evidence--
                    (A) would produce new material evidence to 
                support the theory of defense referenced in 
                paragraph (6); and
                    (B) assuming the DNA test result excludes 
                the applicant, would raise a reasonable 
                probability that the applicant did not commit 
                the offense;
            (9) the applicant certifies that the applicant will 
        provide a DNA sample for purposes of comparison; and
            (10) the applicant's motion is filed for the 
        purpose of demonstrating the applicant's actual 
        innocence of the Federal or State offense, and not to 
        delay the execution of the sentence or the 
        administration of justice.
    (b) Notice to the Government; Preservation Order; 
Appointment of Counsel.--
            (1) Notice.--Upon the receipt of a motion filed 
        under subsection (a), the court shall--
                    (A) notify the Government; and
                    (B) allow the Government a reasonable time 
                period to respond to the motion.
            (2) Preservation order.--To the extent necessary to 
        carry out proceedings under this section, the court 
        shall direct the Government to preserve the specific 
        evidence relating to a motion under subsection (a).
            (3) Appointment of counsel.--The court may appoint 
        counsel for an indigent applicant under this section in 
        the same manner as in a proceeding under section 
        3006A(a)(2)(B).
    (c) Testing Procedures.--
            (1) In general.--The court shall direct that any 
        DNA testing ordered under this section be carried out 
        by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
            (2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
        court may order DNA testing by another qualified 
        laboratory if the court makes all necessary orders to 
        ensure the integrity of the specific evidence and the 
        reliability of the testing process and test results.
            (3) Costs.--The costs of any DNA testing ordered 
        under this section shall be paid--
                    (A) by the applicant; or
                    (B) in the case of an applicant who is 
                indigent, by the Government.
    (d) Time Limitation in Capital Cases.--In any case in which 
the applicant is sentenced to death--
            (1) any DNA testing ordered under this section 
        shall be completed not later than 60 days after the 
        date on which the Government responds to the motion 
        filed under subsection (a); and
            (2) not later than 120 days after the date on which 
        the DNA testing ordered under this section is 
        completed, the court shall order any post-testing 
        procedures under subsection (f) or (g), as appropriate.
    (e) Reporting of Test Results.--
            (1) In general.--The results of any DNA testing 
        ordered under this section shall be simultaneously 
        disclosed to the court, the applicant, and the 
        Government.
            (2) NDIS.--The Government shall submit any test 
        results relating to the DNA of the applicant to the 
        National DNA Index System (referred to in this 
        subsection as ``NDIS'').
            (3) Retention of dna sample.--
                    (A) Entry into ndis.--If the DNA test 
                results obtained under this section are 
                inconclusive or show that the applicant was the 
                source of the DNA evidence, the DNA sample of 
                the applicant may be retained in NDIS.
                    (B) Match with other offense.--If the DNA 
                test results obtained under this section 
                exclude the applicant as the source of the DNA 
                evidence, and a comparison of the DNA sample of 
                the applicant results in a match between the 
                DNA sample of the applicant and another 
                offense, the Attorney General shall notify the 
                appropriate agency and preserve the DNA sample 
                of the applicant.
                    (C) No match.--If the DNA test results 
                obtained under this section exclude the 
                applicant as the source of the DNA evidence, 
                and a comparison of the DNA sample of the 
                applicant does not result in a match between 
                the DNA sample of the applicant and another 
                offense, the Attorney General shall destroy the 
                DNA sample of the applicant and ensure that 
                such information is not retained in NDIS if 
                there is no other legal authority to retain the 
                DNA sample of the applicant in NDIS.
    (f) Post-Testing Procedures; Inconclusive and Inculpatory 
Results.--
            (1) Inconclusive results.--If DNA test results 
        obtained under this section are inconclusive, the court 
        may order further testing, if appropriate, or may deny 
        the applicant relief.
            (2) Inculpatory results.--If DNA test results 
        obtained under this section show that the applicant was 
        the source of the DNA evidence, the court shall--
                    (A) deny the applicant relief; and
                    (B) on motion of the Government--
                            (i) make a determination whether 
                        the applicant's assertion of actual 
                        innocence was false, and, if the court 
                        makes such a finding, the court may 
                        hold the applicant in contempt;
                            (ii) assess against the applicant 
                        the cost of any DNA testing carried out 
                        under this section;
                            (iii) forward the finding to the 
                        Director of the Bureau of Prisons, who, 
                        upon receipt of such a finding, may 
                        deny, wholly or in part, the good 
                        conduct credit authorized under section 
                        3632 on the basis of that finding;
                            (iv) if the applicant is subject to 
                        the jurisdiction of the United States 
                        Parole Commission, forward the finding 
                        to the Commission so that the 
                        Commission may deny parole on the basis 
                        of that finding; and
                            (v) if the DNA test results relate 
                        to a State offense, forward the finding 
                        to any appropriate State official.
            (3) Sentence.--In any prosecution of an applicant 
        under chapter 79 for false assertions or other conduct 
        in proceedings under this section, the court, upon 
        conviction of the applicant, shall sentence the 
        applicant to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 
        years, which shall run consecutively to any other term 
        of imprisonment the applicant is serving.
    (g) Post-Testing Procedures; Motion for New Trial or 
Resentencing.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any law that would 
        bar a motion under this paragraph as untimely, if DNA 
        test results obtained under this section exclude the 
        applicant as the source of the DNA evidence, the 
        applicant may file a motion for a new trial or 
        resentencing, as appropriate. The court shall establish 
        a reasonable schedule for the applicant to file such a 
        motion and for the Government to respond to the motion.
            (2) Standard for granting motion for new trial or 
        resentencing.--The court shall grant the motion of the 
        applicant for a new trial or resentencing, as 
        appropriate, if the DNA test results, when considered 
        with all other evidence in the case (regardless of 
        whether such evidence was introduced at trial), 
        establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a new 
        trial would result in an acquittal of--
                    (A) in the case of a motion for a new 
                trial, the Federal offense for which the 
                applicant is under a sentence of imprisonment 
                or death; and
                    (B) in the case of a motion for 
                resentencing, another Federal or State offense, 
                if--
                            (i) such offense was legally 
                        necessary to make the applicant 
                        eligible for a sentence as a career 
                        offender under section 3559(e) or an 
                        armed career offender under section 
                        924(e), and exoneration of such offense 
                        would entitle the applicant to a 
                        reduced sentence; or
                            (ii) evidence of such offense was 
                        admitted during a Federal death 
                        sentencing hearing and exoneration of 
                        such offense would entitle the 
                        applicant to a reduced sentence or a 
                        new sentencing proceeding.
    (h) Other Laws Unaffected.--
            (1) Post-conviction relief.--Nothing in this 
        section shall affect the circumstances under which a 
        person may obtain DNA testing or post-conviction relief 
        under any other law.
            (2) Habeas corpus.--Nothing in this section shall 
        provide a basis for relief in any Federal habeas corpus 
        proceeding.
            (3) Application not a motion.--An application under 
        this section shall not be considered to be a motion 
        under section 2255 for purposes of determining whether 
        the application or any other motion is a second or 
        successive motion under section 2255.

Sec. 3600A. Preservation of biological evidence

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, the Government shall preserve biological evidence that was 
secured in the investigation or prosecution of a Federal 
offense, if a defendant is under a sentence of imprisonment for 
such offense.
    (b) Defined Term.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``biological evidence'' means--
            (1) a sexual assault forensic examination kit; or
            (2) semen, blood, saliva, hair, skin tissue, or 
        other identified biological material.
    (c) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if--
            (1) a court has denied a request or motion for DNA 
        testing of the biological evidence by the defendant 
        under section 3600, and no appeal is pending;
            (2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived 
        the right to request DNA testing of such evidence in a 
        court proceeding conducted after the date of enactment 
        of the Innocence Protection Act of 2004;
            (3) the defendant is notified after conviction that 
        the biological evidence may be destroyed and the 
        defendant does not file a motion under section 3600 
        within 180 days of receipt of the notice; or
            (4)(A) the evidence must be returned to its 
        rightful owner, or is of such a size, bulk, or physical 
        character as to render retention impracticable; and
            (B) the Government takes reasonable measures to 
        remove and preserve portions of the material evidence 
        sufficient to permit future DNA testing.
    (d) Other Preservation Requirement.--Nothing in this 
section shall preempt or supersede any statute, regulation, 
court order, or other provision of law that may require 
evidence, including biological evidence, to be preserved.
    (e) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of the Innocence Protection Act of 2004, the Attorney 
General shall promulgate regulations to implement and enforce 
this section, including appropriate disciplinary sanctions to 
ensure that employees comply with such regulations.
    (f) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever knowingly and intentionally 
destroys, alters, or tampers with biological evidence that is 
required to be preserved under this section with the intent to 
prevent that evidence from being subjected to DNA testing or 
prevent the production or use of that evidence in an official 
proceeding, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not 
more than 5 years, or both.
    (g) Habeas Corpus.--Nothing in this section shall provide a 
basis for relief in any Federal habeas corpus proceeding.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   CHAPTER 237--CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS

Sec.
3771.  Crime victims' rights.

Sec. 3771. Crime victims' rights

    (a) Rights of Crime Victims.--A crime victim has the 
following rights:
            (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the 
        accused.
            (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely 
        notice of any public court proceeding involving the 
        crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
            (3) The right not to be excluded from any such 
        public court proceeding, unless the court determines 
        that testimony by the victim would be materially 
        affected if the victim heard other testimony at that 
        proceeding.
            (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public 
        proceeding involving release, plea, or sentencing.
            (5) The reasonable right to confer with the 
        attorney for the Government in the case.
            (6) The right to full and timely restitution as 
        provided in law.
            (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable 
        delay.
            (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with 
        respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.
    (b) Rights Afforded.--In any court proceeding involving an 
offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the 
crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection 
(a). Before denying a crime victim the right described in 
subsection (a)(3), the court shall make every effort to permit 
the fullest attendance possible by the victim and shall 
consider reasonable alternatives to the exclusion of the victim 
from the criminal proceeding. The reasons for any decision 
denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on 
the record.
    (c) Best Efforts to Accord Rights.--
            (1) Government.--Officers and employees of the 
        Department of Justice and other departments and 
        agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, 
        investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their 
        best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, 
        and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).
            (2) Advice of attorney.--The prosecutor shall 
        advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek 
        the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights 
        described in subsection (a).
            (3) Notice.--Notice of release otherwise required 
        pursuant to this chapter shall not be given if such 
        notice may endanger the safety of any person.
    (d) Enforcement and Limitations.--
            (1) Rights.--The crime victim or the crime victim's 
        lawful representative, and the attorney for the 
        Government may assert the rights described in 
        subsection (a). A person accused of the crime may not 
        obtain any form of relief under this chapter.
            (2) Multiple crime victims.--In a case where the 
        court finds that the number of crime victims makes it 
        impracticable to accord all of the crime victims the 
        rights described in subsection (a), the court shall 
        fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this 
        chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the 
        proceedings.
            (3) Motion for relief and writ of mandamus.--The 
        rights described in subsection (a) shall be asserted in 
        the district court in which a defendant is being 
        prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is 
        underway, in the district court in the district in 
        which the crime occurred. The district court shall take 
        up and decide such motion forthwith. If the district 
        court denies the relief sought, the movant may petition 
        the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. The court 
        of appeals may issue the writ on the order of a single 
        judge pursuant to circuit rule or the Federal Rules of 
        Appellate Procedure. The court of appeals shall take up 
        and decide such application forthwith within 72 hours 
        after the petition has been filed. In no event shall 
        proceedings be stayed or subject to a continuance of 
        more than five day, or affect the defendant's right to 
        a speedy trial, for purposes of enforcing this chapter.
            (4) Error.--In any appeal in a criminal case, the 
        Government may assert as error the district court's 
        denial of any crime victim's right in the proceeding to 
        which the appeal relates.
            (5) Limitation on relief.--In no case shall a 
        failure to afford a right under this chapter provide 
        grounds for a new trial, or to reopen a plea or a 
        sentence, except in the case of restitution as provided 
        in title 18.
            (6) No cause of action.--Nothing in this chapter 
        shall be construed to authorize a cause of action for 
        damages or to create, to enlarge, or to imply any duty 
        or obligation to any victim or other person for the 
        breach of which the United States or any of its 
        officers or employees could be held liable in damages. 
        Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair 
        the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or 
        any officer under his direction.
    (e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this chapter, the 
term ``crime victim'' means a person directly and proximately 
harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an 
offense in the District of Columbia. In the case of a crime 
victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, 
incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardians of the crime 
victim or the representatives of the crime victim's estate, 
family members, or any other persons appointed as suitable by 
the court, may assume the crime victim's rights under this 
chapter, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such 
guardian or representative.
    (f) Procedures to Promote Compliance.--
            (1) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the 
        date of enactment of this chapter, the Attorney General 
        of the United States shall promulgate regulations to 
        enforce the rights of crime victims and to ensure 
        compliance by responsible officials with the 
        obligations described in law respecting crime victims.
            (2) Contents.--The regulations promulgated under 
        paragraph (1) shall--
                    (A) designate an administrative authority 
                within the Department of Justice to receive and 
                investigate complaints relating to the 
                provision or violation of the rights of a crime 
                victim;
                    (B) require a course of training for 
                employees and offices of the Department of 
                Justice that fail to comply with provisions of 
                Federal law pertaining to the treatment of 
                crime victims, and otherwise assist such 
                employees and offices in responding more 
                effectively to the needs of crime victims;
                    (C) contain disciplinary sanctions, 
                including suspension or termination from 
                employment, for employees of the Department of 
                Justice who willfully or wantonly fail to 
                comply with provisions of Federal law 
                pertaining to the treatment of crime victims; 
                and
                    (D) provide that the Attorney General, or 
                the designee of the Attorney General, shall be 
                the final arbiter of the complaint, and that 
                there shall be no judicial review of the final 
                decision of the Attorney General by a 
                complainant.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


     SECTION 502 OF THE VICTIMS' RIGHTS AND RESTITUTION ACT OF 1990

[SEC. 502. VICTIMS' RIGHTS.

  [(a) Best Efforts to Accord Rights.--Officers and employees 
of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies 
of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, 
or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see 
that victims of crime are accorded the rights described in 
subsection (b).
  [(b) Rights of Crime Victims.--A crime victim has the 
following rights:
          [(1) The right to be treated with fairness and with 
        respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.
          [(2) The right to be reasonably protected from the 
        accused offender.
          [(3) The right to be notified of court proceedings.
          [(4) The right to be present at all public court 
        proceedings related to the offense, unless the court 
        determines that testimony by the victim would be 
        materially affected if the victim heard other testimony 
        at trial.
          [(5) The right to confer with attorney for the 
        Government in the case.
          [(6) The right to restitution.
          [(7) The right to information about the conviction, 
        sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender.
  [(c) No Cause of Action or Defense.--This section does not 
create a cause of action or defense in favor of any person 
arising out of the failure to accord to a victim the rights 
enumerated in subsection (b).]
                              ----------                              


VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT OF 1984

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER XIV--VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1404D. CRIME VICTIMS LEGAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

    (a) In General.--The Director may make grants as provided 
in section 1404(c)(1)(A) to State, tribal, and local 
prosecutors' offices, law enforcement agencies, courts, jails, 
and correctional institutions, and to qualified public and 
private entities, to develop, establish, and maintain programs 
for the enforcement of crime victims' rights as provided in 
law.
    (b) Prohibition.--Grant amounts under this section may not 
be used to bring a cause of action for damages.
    (c) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729 through 
3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known as the 
``False Claims Act''), may be used for grants under this 
section, subject to appropriation.

SEC. 1404E. CRIME VICTIMS NOTIFICATION GRANTS.

    (a) In General.--The Director may make grants as provided 
in section 1404(c)(1)(A) to State, tribal, and local 
prosecutors' offices, law enforcement agencies, courts, jails, 
and correctional institutions, and to qualified public or 
private entities, to develop and implement state-of-the-art 
systems for notifying victims of crime of important dates and 
developments relating to the criminal proceedings at issue in a 
timely and efficient manner, provided that the jurisdiction has 
laws substantially equivalent to the provisions of chapter 237 
of title 18, United States Code.
    (b) Integration of Systems.--Systems developed and 
implemented under this section may be integrated with existing 
case management systems operated by the recipient of the grant.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to funds 
made available under section 1402(d), there are authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section--
            (1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
            (2) $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006, 
        2007, 2008, and 2009.
    (d) False Claims Act.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, amounts collected pursuant to sections 3729 through 
3731 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known as the 
``False Claims Act''), may be used for grants under this 
section, subject to appropriation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


              DNA ANALYSIS BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT OF 2000



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
[SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.]

SEC. 2. THE DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Authorization of Grants.--The Attorney General may make 
grants to eligible States or units of local government for use 
by the State or unit of local government for the following 
purposes:
            (1) * * *
            (2) To carry out, for inclusion in such Combined 
        DNA Index System, DNA analyses of samples from crime 
        scenes, including samples from rape kits, samples from 
        other sexual assault evidence, and samples taken in 
        cases without an identified suspect.
            (3) To increase the capacity of laboratories owned 
        by the State or by units of local government [within 
        the State] to carry out DNA analyses of samples 
        specified in paragraph (1) or (2).
            (4) To collect DNA samples specified in paragraph 
        (1).
            (5) To ensure that DNA testing and analysis of 
        samples from crimes, including sexual assault and other 
        serious violent crimes, are carried out in a timely 
        manner.
    (b) Eligibility.--For a State or unit of local government 
to be eligible to receive a grant under this section, the chief 
executive officer of the State or unit of local government 
shall submit to the Attorney General an application in such 
form and containing such information as the Attorney General 
may require. The application shall, as required by the Attorney 
General--
            (1) provide assurances that the State or unit of 
        local government 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;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) include a certification that the State or unit 
        of local government 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 or unit 
        of local government 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 or unit of local government shall use for the 
        purpose specified in subsection (a)(3)[.];
            (6) if submitted by a unit of local government, 
        certify that the unit of local government has taken, or 
        is taking, all necessary steps to ensure that it is 
        eligible to include, directly or through a State law 
        enforcement agency, all analyses of samples for which 
        it has requested funding in the Combined DNA Index 
        System; and
            (7) specify that portion of grant amounts that the 
        State or unit of local government shall use for the 
        purpose specified in subsection (a)(4).
    [(c) Crimes Without Suspects.--A State 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.]
    (c) Formula for Distribution of Grants.--
            (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall 
        distribute grant amounts, and establish appropriate 
        grant conditions under this section, in conformity with 
        a formula or formulas that are designed to effectuate a 
        distribution of funds among eligible States and units 
        of local government that--
                    (A) maximizes the effective utilization of 
                DNA technology to solve crimes and protect 
                public safety; and
                    (B) allocates grants among eligible 
                entities fairly and efficiently to address 
                jurisdictions in which significant backlogs 
                exist, by considering--
                            (i) the number of offender and 
                        casework samples awaiting DNA analysis 
                        in a jurisdiction;
                            (ii) the population in the 
                        jurisdiction; and
                            (iii) the number of part 1 violent 
                        crimes in the jurisdiction.
            (2) Minimum amount.--The Attorney General shall 
        allocate to each State not less than 0.50 percent of 
        the total amount appropriated in a fiscal year for 
        grants under this section, except that the United 
        States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
        Northern Mariana Islands shall each be allocated 0.125 
        percent of the total appropriation.
            (3) Limitation.--Grant amounts distributed under 
        paragraph (1) shall be awarded to conduct DNA analyses 
        of samples from casework or from victims of crime under 
        subsection (a)(2) in accordance with the following 
        limitations:
                    (A) For fiscal year 2005, not less than 50 
                percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded 
                for purposes under subsection (a)(2).
                    (B) For fiscal year 2006, not less than 50 
                percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded 
                for purposes under subsection (a)(2).
                    (C) For fiscal year 2007, not less than 45 
                percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded 
                for purposes under subsection (a)(2).
                    (D) For fiscal year 2008, not less than 40 
                percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded 
                for purposes under subsection (a)(2).
                    (E) For fiscal year 2009, not less than 40 
                percent of the grant amounts shall be awarded 
                for purposes under subsection (a)(2).
    (d) Analysis of Samples.--
            (1) In general.--[The plan] A plan pursuant to 
        subsection (b)(1) 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 [within the State]; or
                    (B) operated by a private entity pursuant 
                to a contract with the State or a unit of local 
                government [within the State].
            (2) Quality assurance standards.--(A) The Director 
        of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall maintain 
        and make available to States and units of local 
        government a description of quality assurance protocols 
        and practices that the Director considers adequate to 
        assure the quality of a forensic laboratory.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            [(3) Use of vouchers for certain purposes.--A grant 
        for the purposes specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
        subsection (a) may be made in the form of a voucher for 
        laboratory services, which may be redeemed at a 
        laboratory operated by a private entity approved by the 
        Attorney General that satisfies quality assurance 
        standards. The Attorney General may make payment to 
        such a laboratory for the analysis of DNA samples using 
        amounts authorized for those purposes under subsection 
        ( j).]
            (3) Use of vouchers or contracts for certain 
        purposes.--
                    (A) In general.--A grant for the purposes 
                specified in paragraph (1), (2), or (5) of 
                subsection (a) may be made in the form of a 
                voucher or contract for laboratory services.
                    (B) Redemption.--A voucher or contract 
                under subparagraph (A) may be redeemed at a 
                laboratory operated by a private entity that 
                satisfies quality assurance standards and has 
                been approved by the Attorney General.
                    (C) Payments.--The Attorney General may use 
                amounts authorized under subsection (j) to make 
                payments to a laboratory described under 
                subparagraph (B).
    (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 funds, be made available from State or local 
        government sources for the purposes of this Act.
            (2) Administrative costs.--A State or unit of local 
        government may not use more than 3 percent of the funds 
        it receives from this section for administrative 
        expenses.
    (f ) Reports to the Attorney General.--Each State or unit 
of local government 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--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (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 or unit of local government for 
        such fiscal year; [and]
            (2) a summary of the information provided by States 
        or units of local government receiving grants under 
        this section[.]; and
            (3) a description of the priorities and plan for 
        awarding grants among eligible States and units of 
        local government, and how such plan will ensure the 
        effective use of DNA technology to solve crimes and 
        protect public safety.
    (h) Expenditure Records.--
            (1) In general.--Each State or unit of local 
        government 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 or unit of local government 
        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.
            [(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.]
            (1) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
            (2) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
            (3) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
            (4) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
            (5) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
    (k) Use of Funds for Accreditation and Audits.--The 
Attorney General may distribute not more than 1 percent of the 
grant amounts under subsection (j)--
            (1) to States or units of local government to 
        defray the costs incurred by laboratories operated by 
        each such State or unit of local government in 
        preparing for accreditation or reaccreditation;
            (2) in the form of additional grants to States, 
        units of local government, or nonprofit professional 
        organizations of persons actively involved in forensic 
        science and nationally recognized within the forensic 
        science community--
                    (A) to defray the costs of external audits 
                of laboratories operated by such State or unit 
                of local government, which participates in the 
                National DNA Index System, to determine whether 
                the laboratory is in compliance with quality 
                assurance standards;
                    (B) to assess compliance with any plans 
                submitted to the National Institute of Justice, 
                which detail the use of funds received by 
                States or units of local government under this 
                Act; and
                    (C) to support future capacity building 
                efforts; and
            (3) in the form of additional grants to nonprofit 
        professional associations actively involved in forensic 
        science and nationally recognized within the forensic 
        science community to defray the costs of training 
        persons who conduct external audits of laboratories 
        operated by States and units of local government and 
        which participate in the National DNA Index System.
    (l) External Audits and Remedial Efforts.--In the event 
that a laboratory operated by a State or unit of local 
government which has received funds under this Act has 
undergone an external audit conducted to determine whether the 
laboratory is in compliance with standards established by the 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, as a 
result of such audit, identifies measures to remedy 
deficiencies with respect to the compliance by the laboratory 
with such standards, the State or unit of local government 
shall implement any such remediation as soon as practicable.

SEC. 3. COLLECTION AND USE OF DNA IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION FROM 
                    CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFENDERS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(d) Qualifying Federal Offenses.--(1) The offenses that 
shall be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying 
Federal offenses are the following offenses under title 18, 
United States Code, as determined by the Attorney General:
            [(A) Murder (as described in section 1111 of such 
        title), voluntary manslaughter (as described in section 
        1112 of such title), or other offense relating to 
        homicide (as described in chapter 51 of such title, 
        sections 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, and 1121).
            [(B) An offense relating to sexual abuse (as 
        described in chapter 109A of such title, sections 2241 
        through 2245), to sexual exploitation or other abuse of 
        children (as described in chapter 110 of such title, 
        sections 2251 through 2252), or to transportation for 
        illegal sexual activity (as described in chapter 117 of 
        such title, sections 2421, 2422, 2423, and 2425).
            [(C) An offense relating to peonage and slavery (as 
        described in chapter 77 of such title).
            [(D) Kidnapping (as defined in section 
        3559(c)(2)(E) of such title).
            [(E) An offense involving robbery or burglary (as 
        described in chapter 103 of such title, sections 2111 
        through 2114, 2116, and 2118 through 2119).
            [(F) Any violation of section 1153 involving 
        murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, a felony 
        offense relating to sexual abuse (as described in 
        chapter 109A), incest, arson, burglary, or robbery.
            [(G) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the 
        above offenses.
            [(2) In addition to the offenses described in 
        paragraph (1), the following offenses shall be treated 
        for purposes of this section as qualifying Federal 
        offenses, as determined by the Attorney General:
                    [(A) Any offense listed in section 
                2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18, United States Code.
                    [(B) Any crime of violence (as defined in 
                section 16 of title 18, United States Code).
                    [(C) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit 
                any of the above offenses.]
    (d) Qualifying Federal Offenses.--The offenses that shall 
be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying Federal 
offenses are the following offenses, as determined by the 
Attorney General:
            (1) Any felony.
            (2) Any offense under chapter 109A of title 18, 
        United States Code.
            (3) Any crime of violence (as that term is defined 
        in section 16 of title 18, United States Code).
            (4) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the 
        offenses in paragraphs (1) through (3).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 10. PRIVACY PROTECTION STANDARDS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(c) Criminal Penalty.--A person who knowingly--
            [(1) discloses a sample or result 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.]
    (c) Criminal Penalty.--A person who knowingly discloses a 
sample or result described in subsection (a) in any manner to 
any person not authorized to receive it, or obtains or uses, 
without authorization, such sample or result, shall be fined 
not more than $100,000. Each instance of disclosure, obtaining, 
or use shall constitute a separate offense under this 
subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


          SECTION 210304 OF THE DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT OF 1994

SEC. 210304. INDEX TO FACILITATE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCHANGE OF DNA 
                    IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.

    (a) Establishment of Index.--The Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation may establish an index of--
            (1) DNA identification records [of persons 
        convicted of crimes;] of--
                    (A) persons convicted of crimes;
                    (B) persons who have been indicted or who 
                have waived indictment for a crime; and
                    (C) other persons whose DNA samples are 
                collected under applicable legal authorities, 
                provided that DNA profiles from arrestees who 
                have not been indicted and DNA samples that are 
                voluntarily submitted solely for elimination 
                purposes shall not be included in the Combined 
                DNA Index System;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) Information.--The index described in subsection (a) 
shall include only information on DNA identification records 
and DNA analyses that are--
            (1) * * *
            [(2) prepared by laboratories, and DNA analysts, 
        that undergo semiannual external proficiency testing by 
        a DNA proficiency testing program meeting the standards 
        issued under section 210303; and]
            (2) prepared by laboratories that--
                    (A) not later than 2 years after the date 
                of enactment of the DNA Sexual Assault Justice 
                Act of 2004, have been accredited by a 
                nonprofit professional association of persons 
                actively involved in forensic science that is 
                nationally recognized within the forensic 
                science community; and
                    (B) undergo external audits, not less than 
                once every 2 years, that demonstrate compliance 
                with standards established by the Director of 
                the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Expungement of Records.--
            (1) * * *
            (2) By states.--(A) As a condition of access to the 
        index described in subsection (a), a State shall 
        promptly expunge from that index the DNA analysis of a 
        person included in the index by that State [if the 
        responsible agency] if--
                            (i) the responsible agency or 
                        official of that State receives, for 
                        each conviction of the person of an 
                        offense on the basis of which that 
                        analysis was or could have been 
                        included in the index, a certified copy 
                        of a final court order establishing 
                        that such conviction has been 
                        overturned[.]; or
                    (ii) the person has not been convicted of 
                an offense on the basis of which that analysis 
                was or could have been included in the index, 
                and all charges for which the analysis was or 
                could have been included in the index have been 
                dismissed or resulted in acquittal.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Authority for Keyboard Searches.--
            (1) In general.--The Director shall ensure that any 
        person who is authorized to access the index described 
        in subsection (a) for purposes of including information 
        on DNA identification records or DNA analyses in that 
        index may also access that index for purposes of 
        carrying out a one-time keyboard search on information 
        obtained from any DNA sample lawfully collected for a 
        criminal justice purpose except for a DNA sample 
        voluntarily submitted solely for elimination purposes.
            (2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
        term ``keyboard search'' means a search under which 
        information obtained from a DNA sample is compared with 
        information in the index without resulting in the 
        information obtained from a DNA sample being included 
        in the index.
            (3) No preemption.--This subsection shall not be 
        construed to preempt State law.
                              ----------                              


              SECTION 1565 OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 1565. DNA identification information: collection from certain 
                    offenders; use

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(d) Qualifying Military Offenses.--(1) Subject to 
paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 
the Attorney General, shall determine those felony or sexual 
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that shall 
be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying military 
offenses.
    [(2) An offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
that is comparable to a qualifying Federal offense (as 
determined under section 3(d) of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
Elimination Act of 2000), as determined by the Secretary in 
consultation with the Attorney General, shall be treated for 
purposes of this section as a qualifying military offense.]
    (d) Qualifying Military Offenses.--The offenses that shall 
be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying military 
offenses are the following offenses, as determined by the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney 
General:
            (1) Any offense under the Uniform Code of Military 
        Justice for which a sentence of confinement for more 
        than one year may be imposed.
            (2) Any other offense under the Uniform Code of 
        Military Justice that is comparable to a qualifying 
        Federal offense (as determined under section 3(d) of 
        the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 
        U.S.C. 14135a(d))).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


         SECTION 1201 OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 2000

SEC. 1201. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS.

    (a) In General.--The purpose of this section is to enable 
the Attorney General to award grants to increase the 
availability of legal assistance necessary to provide effective 
aid to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, 
or sexual assault who are seeking relief in legal matters 
arising as a consequence of that abuse or violence, at minimal 
or no cost to the victims.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Dating violence.--The term ``dating violence'' 
        means violence committed by a person who is or has been 
        in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate 
        nature with the victim. The existence of such a 
        relationship shall be determined based on a 
        consideration of--
                    (A) the length of the relationship;
                    (B) the type of relationship; and
                    (C) the frequency of interaction between 
                the persons involved in the relationship.
            [(1)] (2) Domestic violence.--The term ``domestic 
        violence'' has the meaning given the term in section 
        2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
        Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).
            [(2)] (3) Legal assistance for victims.--The term 
        ``legal assistance'' includes assistance to victims of 
        domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and 
        sexual assault in family, immigration, administrative 
        agency, or housing matters, protection or stay away 
        order proceedings, and other similar matters. No funds 
        made available under this section may be used to 
        provide financial assistance in support of any 
        litigation described in paragraph (14) of section 504 
        of Public Law 104-134.
            [(3)] (4) Sexual assault.--The term ``sexual 
        assault'' has the meaning given the term in section 
        2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
        Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).
    (c) Legal Assistance for Victims Grants.--The Attorney 
General may award grants under this subsection to private 
nonprofit entities, Indian tribal governments, and publicly 
funded organizations not acting in a governmental capacity such 
as law schools, and which shall be used--
            (1) to implement, expand, and establish cooperative 
        efforts and projects between domestic violence, dating 
        violence, and sexual assault victim services 
        organizations and legal assistance providers to provide 
        legal assistance for victims of domestic violence, 
        dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault;
            (2) to implement, expand, and establish efforts and 
        projects to provide legal assistance for victims of 
        domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and 
        sexual assault by organizations with a demonstrated 
        history of providing direct legal or advocacy services 
        on behalf of these victims; and
            (3) to provide training, technical assistance, and 
        data collection to improve the capacity of grantees and 
        other entities to offer legal assistance to victims of 
        domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and 
        sexual assault.
    (d) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under 
subsection (c), applicants shall certify in writing that--
            (1) any person providing legal assistance through a 
        program funded under subsection (c) has completed or 
        will complete training in connection with domestic 
        violence, dating violence, or sexual assault and 
        related legal issues;
            (2) any training program conducted in satisfaction 
        of the requirement of paragraph (1) has been or will be 
        developed with input from and in collaboration with a 
        State, local, or tribal domestic violence, dating 
        violence, or sexual assault program or coalition, as 
        well as appropriate State and local law enforcement 
        officials;
            (3) any person or organization providing legal 
        assistance through a program funded under subsection 
        (c) has informed and will continue to inform State, 
        local, or tribal domestic violence, dating violence, or 
        sexual assault programs and coalitions, as well as 
        appropriate State and local law enforcement officials 
        of their work; and
            (4) the grantee's organizational policies do not 
        require mediation or counseling involving offenders and 
        victims physically together, in cases where sexual 
        assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or child 
        sexual abuse is an issue.
    (e) Evaluation.--The Attorney General may evaluate the 
grants funded under this section through contracts or other 
arrangements with entities expert on domestic violence, dating 
violence, stalking, and sexual assault, and on evaluation 
research.
    (f ) Authorization of Appropriations.--
            (1) * * *
            (2) Allocation of funds.--
                    (A) Tribal programs.--Of the amount made 
                available under this subsection in each fiscal 
                year, not less than 5 percent shall be used for 
                grants for programs that assist victims of 
                domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, 
                and sexual assault on lands within the 
                jurisdiction of an Indian tribe.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            Part J--Funding

                    AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

    Sec. 1001. (a)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (24) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
part BB, to remain available until expended--
            (A) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
            (B) $85,400,000 for fiscal year 2002;
            (C) $134,733,000 for fiscal year 2003;
            (D) $128,067,000 for fiscal year 2004;
            (E) $56,733,000 for fiscal year 2005; [and]
            (F) $42,067,000 for fiscal year 2006[.];
            (G) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
            (H) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
            (I) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
    (25)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), there are 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out part EE--
            (i) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
            (ii) $54,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
            (iii) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
            (iv) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
    (B) The Attorney General shall reserve not less than 1 
percent and not more than 4.5 percent of the sums appropriated 
for this program in each fiscal year for research and 
evaluation of this program.
    (C) No funds made available to carry out part EE shall be 
expended if the Attorney General fails to submit the report 
required to be submitted under section 2401(c) of title II of 
Division B of the 21st Century Department of Justice 
Appropriations Authorization Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


         Part T--Grants To Combat Violent Crimes Against Women

SEC. 2001. PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM AND GRANTS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Tribal Coalition Grants.--
            (1) Purpose.--The Attorney General shall award 
        grants to tribal domestic violence and sexual assault 
        coalitions for purposes of--
                    (A) increasing awareness of domestic 
                violence and sexual assault against Indian 
                women;
                    (B) enhancing the response to violence 
                against Indian women at the tribal, Federal, 
                and State levels; and
                    (C) identifying and providing technical 
                assistance to coalition membership and tribal 
                communities to enhance access to essential 
                services to Indian women victimized by domestic 
                and sexual violence.
            (2) Grants to tribal coalitions.--The Attorney 
        General shall award grants under paragraph (1) to--
                    (A) established nonprofit, nongovernmental 
                tribal coalitions addressing domestic violence 
                and sexual assault against Indian women; and
                    (B) individuals or organizations that 
                propose to incorporate as nonprofit, 
                nongovernmental tribal coalitions to address 
                domestic violence and sexual assault against 
                Indian women.
            (3) Eligibility for other grants.--Receipt of an 
        award under this subsection by tribal domestic violence 
        and sexual assault coalitions shall not preclude the 
        coalition from receiving additional grants under this 
        title to carry out the purposes described in subsection 
        (b).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2007. STATE GRANTS.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Amounts.--Of the amounts appropriated for the purposes 
of this part--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            [(4) \1/54\ shall be available for the development 
        and operation of nonprofit tribal domestic violence and 
        sexual assault coalitions in Indian country;]
            (4) \1/54\ shall be available for grants under 
        section 2001(d);

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART BB--PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT GRANTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2802. APPLICATIONS.

    To request a grant under this part, a State or unit of 
local government shall submit to the Attorney General--
            (1) * * *
            (2) a certification that any forensic science 
        laboratory system, medical examiner's office, or 
        coroner's office in the State, including any laboratory 
        operated by a unit of local government within the 
        State, that will receive any portion of the grant 
        amount uses generally accepted laboratory practices and 
        procedures, established by accrediting organizations or 
        appropriate certifying bodies; [and]
            (3) a specific description of any new facility to 
        be constructed as part of the program for a State or 
        local plan described in paragraph (1), and the 
        estimated costs of that facility, and a certification 
        that the amount of the grant used for the costs of the 
        facility will not exceed the limitations set forth in 
        section 2804(c)[.]; and
            (4) a certification that a government entity exists 
        and an appropriate process is in place to conduct 
        independent external investigations into allegations of 
        serious negligence or misconduct substantially 
        affecting the integrity of the forensic results 
        committed by employees or contractors of any forensic 
        laboratory system, medical examiner's office, coroner's 
        office, law enforcement storage facility, or medical 
        facility in the State that will receive a portion of 
        the grant amount.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2804. USE OF GRANTS.

    (a) In General.--A State or unit of local government that 
receives a grant under this part [shall use the grant to carry 
out] shall use the grant to do any one or more of the 
following:
            (1) To carry out all or a substantial part of a 
        program intended to improve the quality and timeliness 
        of forensic science or medical examiner services in the 
        State, including such services provided by the 
        laboratories operated by the State and those operated 
        by units of local government within the State.
            (2) To eliminate a backlog in the analysis of 
        forensic science evidence, including firearms 
        examination, latent prints, toxicology, controlled 
        substances, forensic pathology, questionable documents, 
        and trace evidence.
            (3) To train, assist, and employ forensic 
        laboratory personnel, as needed, to eliminate such a 
        backlog.
    (b) Permitted Categories of Funding.--Subject to 
subsections (c) and (d), a grant awarded [under this part] for 
the purpose set forth in subsection (a)(1)--
            (1) may only be used for program expenses relating 
        to facilities, personnel, computerization, equipment, 
        supplies, accreditation and certification, education, 
        and training; and
            (2) may not be used for any general law enforcement 
        or nonforensic investigatory function.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Backlog Defined.--For purposes of this section, a 
backlog in the analysis of forensic science evidence exists if 
such evidence--
            (1) has been stored in a laboratory, medical 
        examiner's office, coroner's office, law enforcement 
        storage facility, or medical facility; and
            (2) has not been subjected to all appropriate 
        forensic testing because of a lack of resources or 
        personnel.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


          SECTION 402 OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE ACT

                          (Public Law 107-273)

 SEC. 402. ESTABLISHMENT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.

    Part T of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg et seq.) is amended--
            (1) * * *
            (2) by redesignating sections 2002 through 2006 as 
        [sections 2006 through 2011] sections 2007 through 
        2011, respectively; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


              SECTION 2513 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE

 SEC. 2513. UNJUST CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) The amount of damages awarded shall not [exceed the sum 
of $5,000] exceed $100,000 for each 12-month period of 
incarceration for any plaintiff who was unjustly sentenced to 
death and $50,000 for each 12-month period of incarceration for 
any other plaintiff.

                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2004

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee on the Judiciary will 
be in order. A working quorum is present.
    Pursuant to notice, I call up the bill, H.R. 5107, the 
``Justice For All Act of 2004'' for purposes of markup and move 
its favorable recommendation to the House.
    Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and 
open for amendment at any point and the Chair recognizes 
himself for 5 minutes.
    [The bill, H.R. 5107, follows:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Yesterday I introduced this bill 
with the bipartisan cosponsorship of a number of Members of the 
Committee. The bill is called ``Justice For All'' because it 
will enhance the rights and protections of all persons who are 
involved in the criminal justice system. The legislation does 
this through two different but complementary mechanisms: a new 
set of statutory victims' rights that are both enforceable in 
court and supported by fully funded victims' assistance 
programs, and a comprehensive DNA bill that seeks to ensure 
that the true offender is caught and convicted of the crime.
    Victims of crime have longed complained that they are the 
forgotten voice in the criminal justice system. For example, 
Roberta Roper, whose daughter Stephanie was kidnapped, brutally 
raped, tortured, and murdered in 1982, testified before the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution that, unlike her daughter's 
killers, she had no rights to be informed, no rights to attend 
the trial, and no rights to be heard before sentencing. Her 
experience and that of many others like her have led victims' 
rights advocates to push for a victims' rights statute to 
counterbalance the rights provided to the accused under the 
Constitution.
    The victims' rights portion of this bill originated with S. 
2329, which passed the Senate on April 22 by a vote of 96 to 1. 
Like S. 2329, this bill contains eight enumerated rights for 
the victim, including the rights to be reasonably protected 
from the accused; the right to timely notice of public court 
proceedings involving the crime; the right not to be excluded 
from such public court proceedings; the right to be reasonably 
heard at certain proceedings and the reasonable right to confer 
with the prosecutor; the right to restitution and the right to 
proceedings free from unreasonable delay; and the right to be 
treated with fairness and respect. Each of these rights is 
enforceable by both the prosecutor and the crime victim.
    A crime victim or the prosecutor may assert the crime 
victim's rights and, if necessary, seek a stay of any 
proceeding in which the victim's rights are being denied. The 
Government or the crime victim can then seek a writ of mandamus 
from the appropriate court of appeals to ensure that the crime 
victim's rights are protected.
    In addition, the Justice For All Act contains important 
provisions to ensure that the criminal justice system will 
continue to operate in an efficient manner and that there will 
be an appropriate level of finality to the proceedings. 
Additionally, the legislation will provide funds for victims' 
assistance programs at both the Federal and State level.
    The bill is not identical to the Senate bill, but it is 
close. Since Senate passage, the Committee has worked with many 
interested parties on the issues. I believe this bill, which is 
the product of that process, is a very good bill that meets 
many of the concerns expressed. We will continue to work on 
this bill as it goes to the floor to make the best bill 
possible.
    The second important element of the Justice For All Act 
pertains to the use of DNA technology. These provisions come 
from H.R. 3214, which the House passed 357 to 67 on November 5 
of last year, but continues to await action in the Senate.
    The DNA of the Justice For All Act is identical with the 
version of H.R. 3214 passed by the House. It seeks also to 
resolve another problem that victims face: frustration and 
depression over the length of time it takes to track down and 
apprehend their attacker. DNA samples can help to quickly 
apprehend offenders and solve crimes if law enforcement 
agencies have access to the most up-to-date testing 
capabilities. Additionally, DNA technology is increasingly 
vital to ensuring accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice 
system. DNA can be used to identify criminals with incredible 
accuracy, and if biological evidence exists, and DNA can be 
used to clear suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly accused 
or convicted of crimes.
    The current Federal and State DNA collection and analysis 
system needs improvement. The Justice For All Act will provide 
the necessary funding to ensure that these critical programs 
have access to the necessary equipment and training. It will 
also provide funds to eliminate the backlog of DNA samples in 
need of testing and provide greater access to potentially 
exculpatory evidence to those who may have been wrongfully 
convicted of a crime.
    As with the victims' portion, we will also continue to work 
on this portion of the bill as we go to the floor to make it 
the best bill possible.
    I would like to thank Congressman Chabot, who has been a 
tireless advocate for victims rights, for his support of the 
Justice For All Act. I would like to thank Ranking Member 
Conyers and Congressman Delahunt and all of the other co-
sponsors for their support, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]
  Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a 
 Representative in Congress From the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, 
                       Committee on the Judiciary
    Yesterday, I introduced H.R. 5107, the ``Justice for All Act of 
2004,'' with the bipartisan cosponsorship of a number of members of the 
Committee. The bill is called ``Justice for All'' because it will 
enhance the rights and protections of all persons who are involved in 
the criminal justice system. The legislation does this through two 
different, but complementary mechanisms: (1) a new set of statutory 
victims' rights that are both enforceable in a court of law and 
supported by fully-funded victims' assistance programs; and (2) a 
comprehensive DNA bill that seeks to ensure that the true offender is 
caught and convicted for the crime.
    Victims of crime have long complained that they are the forgotten 
voice in the criminal justice system. For example, Roberta Roper, whose 
daughter Stephanie was kidnapped, brutally raped, tortured, and 
murdered in 1982, testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
that--unlike her daughter's killers--she had no rights to be informed, 
no rights to attend the trial, and no rights to be heard before 
sentencing.
    Her experience, and that of many others like her, have led victims' 
rights advocates to push for a victims' rights statute to 
counterbalance the rights provided to the accused under the 
Constitution.
    The victims' rights portion of this bill originated with S. 2329, 
which passed the Senate on April 22, 2004 by a vote of 96 to 1. Like S. 
2329, this bill contains eight enumerated rights for the victim, 
including the right to be reasonably protected from the accused, the 
right to timely notice of public court proceedings involving the crime, 
the right not to be excluded from such public court proceedings, the 
right to be reasonably heard at certain proceedings, the reasonable 
right to confer with the prosecutor, the right to restitution, the 
right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and the right to be 
treated with fairness and respect.
    Each of these rights is enforceable by both the prosecutor and the 
crime victim. A crime victim or the prosecutor may assert the crime 
victims' rights, and, if necessary, seek a stay of any proceeding in 
which the victims' rights are being denied.
    The government or the crime victim can then seek a writ of mandamus 
from the appropriate court of appeals to ensure that the crime victims' 
rights are protected.
    In addition, the Justice for All Act contains important provisions 
to ensure that the criminal justice system will continue to operate in 
an efficient manner and that there will be an appropriate level of 
finality to proceedings. Additionally, this legislation will provide 
funds for victims' assistance programs both at the Federal and state 
level.
    The bill is not identical to the Senate bill, but it is close. 
Since Senate passage, the Committee has worked with many interested 
parties on these issues. I believe that this bill, which is the product 
of that process, is a very good bill that meets many of the concerns 
expressed. We will continue to work on this bill as it goes to the 
floor to make it the best bill possible.
    The second important element of the Justice for All Act pertains to 
the use of DNA technology. These provisions come from H.R. 3214, which 
passed the House by the wide margin of 357 to 67 on November 5, 2003, 
but continues to await action in the Senate. The DNA portion of the 
Justice for All Act is identical to the version of HR 3214 passed by 
the House.
    It seeks to resolve another problem that victims face: frustration 
and depression over the length of time it takes to track down and 
apprehend their attacker. DNA samples can help to quickly apprehend 
offenders and solve crimes if law enforcement agencies have access to 
the most up-to-date testing capabilities. Additionally, DNA technology 
is increasingly vital to ensuring accuracy and fairness in the criminal 
justice system. DNA can be used to identify criminals with incredible 
accuracy when biological evidence exists, and DNA can be used to clear 
suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly accused or convicted of 
crimes.
    The current federal and state DNA collection and analysis system 
needs improvement. The Justice for All Act will provide the necessary 
funding to ensure that these critical programs have access to the 
necessary equipment and training. It will also provide funds to 
eliminate the backlog of DNA samples in need of testing and provide 
greater access to potentially exculpatory evidence to those who may 
have been wrongfully convicted of a crime.
    As with the victims portion of the bill, we will also continue to 
work on this portion of the bill as we go to the floor to make it the 
best bill possible.
    I would like to thank Congressman Chabot, who has been a tireless 
advocate for victims' rights, for his support of the Justice For All 
Act. I would also like to thank Ranking Member Conyers and Congressman 
Delahunt and all of the other cosponsors for their support of this 
important bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And, without objection, I would 
like to include a letter addressed to the gentleman from 
Michigan Mr. Conyers and myself, dated today, supporting this 
legislation from the National Center for Victims of Crime.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    
    
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Who would like to give the 
Democratic opening statement? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a fairly lengthy 
statement and I understand the gentleman from Massachusetts 
wants to make a statement, so let me just say that I would like 
to say something about the advancing-justice-through-forensic-
DNA-technology portion of the bill and acknowledge that 
Virginia has been a leader in DNA technology.
    Just yesterday we received a grant to help us expand our 
facilities. Debbie Smith, who is a resident of Virginia, was 
there at the press conference. And I would like unanimous 
consent to revise and extend my remarks.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Scott. And yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Delahunt. I thank my friend for yielding. And let me 
begin by acknowledging the fine work of many Members of this 
panel: Anthony Weiner, Adam Schiff, my colleague to my 
immediate right here, Mark Green; obviously the Ranking Member 
of the Subcommittee on Crime, Mr. Scott as, well as Mr. 
Conyers. And I also want to acknowledge, as the Chairman has, 
the commitment and work of Mr. Chabot in terms of the 
protection of victims of crime.
    I would be remiss, however, if I did not underscore the 
work by our distinguished Chairman, and particularly his chief 
counsel. Oftentimes those of us who sit in these chairs are 
acknowledged for things that others do. Well, in this case, 
Phil Kiko has been an extraordinary resource for both Democrats 
and Republicans in terms of crafting an omnibus bill, if you 
will, that is appropriately entitled Justice for All, because 
that is exactly what it does do.
    So from both sides of the aisle and the political spectrum, 
we come together on this bipartisan legislation, because there 
is unanimous agreement that the criminal justice system is 
about the search--or a search for the truth. We will never know 
whether innocent people have been executed since the death 
penalty was reinstated in 1976. We do know, however, that there 
have been some very close calls. Since 1976, 116 people in 25 
States have been released after spending years on death row for 
crimes they did not commit. Some of them came within days, 
hours, of being put to death. Imagine the potential miscarriage 
of justice if these individuals could not have accessed DNA 
tests.
    Mr. Conyers. Could the gentleman from Massachusetts yield 
very briefly to me?
    Mr. Delahunt. Certainly.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank you and commend you for the work you 
have done in the DNA part of these negotiations. I want to 
congratulate all that worked with us on the Subcommittee, and 
other Members. We have got the most delicate compromise that I 
have seen in quite a long time come before the Committee. No 
one needs to know that I regret that the Federal death penalty 
had to be included, but we all gave up something in this 
compromise. It brings together the most important DNA 
considerations that have come out of the Congress. I commend 
the Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for his 
steadfast leadership across the years on this, and I yield 
back. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Delahunt. Yes. And I ask unanimous consent to have an 
additional 2 minutes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair is always disinclined to 
do this in opening statements. Would the gentleman like to 
withdraw his unanimous consent?
    Mr. Delahunt. I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
    Let me go further here. DNA was responsible for exonerating 
12 of the people freed from death row and another 126 who were 
wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. The same test that 
exonerated an innocent person led to the apprehension of the 
real perpetrator. I think that probably the case that comes to 
mind of those----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Time of the gentleman from Virginia 
has expired. Without objection, all Members may put opening 
statements in the record at this point. Hearing none, so 
ordered. Are there amendments?
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 
 in Congress From the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 
                            on the Judiciary
    I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Representative Delahunt and 
other Members of the Judiciary Committee for their hard work in 
developing this bipartisan compromise. H.R. 5107 takes a giant step 
towards improving the integrity of our criminal justice system.
    This bill combines two separate initiatives that we've been working 
on for a long time. Title 1 addresses the rights of crime victims in 
criminal proceedings. These rights are established in both pretrial and 
trial proceedings, and include the right to be notified of any 
proceeding involving the crime, the right not to be excluded from such 
proceeding, and the right to testify at certain proceedings.
    Titles 2, 3, and 4 contain the substance of a bill we passed last 
year, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act. That bill 
provides federal inmates with access to DNA testing, thereby enabling 
them to establish their innocence after being subjected to a wrongful 
conviction. As many of you know, over the past few years, more than 110 
innocent Americans have already been exonerated thanks to post-
conviction DNA testing. This provision will ensure that others 
wrongfully convicted will also have an equal chance at obtaining 
justice.
    The DNA bill also authorizes grants to be awarded to States with 
the express purpose of improving the quality of legal representation 
afforded indigent defendants in capital cases. Experts have indicated 
that many of the most egregious cases in which an innocent person was 
wrongfully convicted involved attorneys who were incompetent, ill-
trained or simply ineffective. These grants will dramatically alter 
this situation by providing defendants with defense counsel that meet a 
minimum standard of competency.
    Finally, the DNA bill contains a provision--not often mentioned--
but of extreme importance to those that have been subjected to a 
wrongful conviction. I'm speaking of the provision in the bill that 
increases the maximum amount of damages an individual may be awarded 
for being wrongfully imprisoned from $5,000 to $50,000 per year in non-
capital cases and up to $100,000 per year in capital cases.
    Having pointed out the many virtues of both pieces of this 
legislation, I must admit this bill remains far from perfect. With 
respect to victims' rights, this bill has not resolved the concern that 
the writ of mandamus procedure allows victims to be a third party to 
the criminal justice system and gives victims the ability to assert the 
denial of their rights as an error on appeal. If this bill is enacted 
as it is currently drafted, it could change the complexion of criminal 
justice system as we know it from a two party adversarial system to a 
three party system.
    In addition, drafting of the bill could be tightened in several 
places. One example is in Section 3771(b), which addresses victims who 
are witnesses but are excluded from the proceedings. The legislation 
places an enormous burden on courts to figure out a way to allow 
victims to attend proceedings. In my view, we should focus more on 
whether the victim testifies during the proceeding, and the presumption 
should be for exclusion for victim/witnesses.
    With respect to the DNA bill, I would prefer the legislation to 
include an outright ban on the use of the federal death penalty. I also 
think the bill would have been considerably better if it addressed some 
of the many factors that contribute to the unacceptably high rate of 
wrongful convictions, including eyewitness error, perjury, false 
confessions and police torture.
    Nevertheless, I strongly support the delicate compromise that has 
been reached today. And, I urge my colleagues to support this 
worthwhile initiative.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative 
      in Congress From the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, 
        Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
    DNA Technology has revolutionized criminal justice. Effectiveness 
has been increased exponentially by DNA technology, not only for 
investigating and prosecuting crime, but also for exonerating innocent 
suspects, and many who were wrongly convicted because the technology 
was not available or otherwise not applied.
    DNA technology has proven so effective and so much in demand that 
one of the problems we have been struggling with is providing the 
funding and the expertise and structural support necessary to take 
advantage of it. Not only have we seen huge backlogs in DNA samples of 
already convicted offenders waiting to be processed for addition to 
CODIS, the database for convicted offenders, but we have also incurred 
huge backlogs in rape kits and other crime scene samples awaiting 
processing in order to take dangerous offenders off the streets. This 
is something we must not only prioritize, but must adequately fund as a 
matter of immediate public safety.
    And there can be no greater calling for this committee than the 
call to protect innocent people from unjust convictions and even 
execution. Our system of criminal law and procedure is premised upon 
``the golden thread'' of the criminal justice system, the presumption 
of innocence. Its origin is in common law traditions dating back to the 
Romans. In Coffin v. U.S. (156 U.S. 432 [1895]), the Court quoted a 
Roman official who wrote: ``it is better to let the crime of a guilty 
person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.''
    In recent years, the advent of DNA evidence has shown us, 
unequivocally, that we have been violating this principle with 
astounding frequency. We are now up to 108 convicted and sentenced 
individuals who have been exonerated by DNA evidence, including 13 who 
were on death row. And the numbers are even greater on exclusions at 
the outset of criminal investigations. FBI data reveals that about 25% 
of suspects who are DNA tested are exonerated.
    While DNA is incontrovertible proof that innocent people are 
sentenced to death in this country despite our reverence for the 
presumption of innocence, DNA evidence is simply a way of revealing the 
there are fatal flaws in the system. The real question we have to 
answer, Mr. Chairman, is what is wrong with a system where BUT FOR DNA 
evidence, innocent people would be put to death.
    A 23-year study conducted by Professor James Liebman of Columbia 
University, involving over 4,500 capital cases in 34 states revealed 
that the courts found serious, reversible error in 68 percent of the 
capital cases. Of these, 82% were not sentenced to death upon retrial, 
including 7% who were found to be innocent of the capital charge. I 
understand that the Innocence Project finds that in a third of the 
cases it handles in which DNA evidence is still available, convicted 
defendants are found to be outright innocent. When we consider that the 
reason they were convicted is due to flaws in our criminal justice 
system, there is every reason to believe that the percentage of 
erroneous conviction is the same in cases where DNA evidence is not 
available.
    The notion that the flaws in the system can be addressed through a 
governor's clemency powers is clearly an inadequate response to a 
serious problem. Our criminal justice principles are designed to ensure 
a fair trial for all accused persons. Ultimate questions of life, death 
or freedom should not depend upon the politics of the moment or the 
popularity of the defendant, or whether the governor is in an election 
campaign, or any such vagary. Furthermore, the governor's office is an 
inappropriate forum to decide such cases. The governor has no subpoena 
power, no right or opportunity to cross examine key witnesses or to 
observe witnesses subjected to cross examination by advocates familiar 
with the case. Nor does the governor have other investigatory power 
necessary to ensure fairness. The forum for testing the reliability of 
evidence is the trial, not the political forum of the governor's 
office.
    Mr. Chairman, I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that 
crime is efficiently and accurately investigated and prosecuted, and 
that people are not mistakenly convicted and deprived of their freedom 
on account of preventable errors or flaws in our system of justice 
administration. We can do a lot to prevent and address such errors and 
flaws.
    Last Congress, the ``Innocence Protection Act,'' which provides for 
funding and standards for DNA testing, safeguards to assure adequate 
counsel and other system supports crucial to protecting innocence, was 
cosponsored by 250 members. The Debbie Smith Act, which provides for 
funding and system supports to address the backlog in DNA sample 
processing, also has broad bi-partisan support. So these would be good 
efforts to start with. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that you and Mr. 
Delahunt, and other members, have been working with Chairman Coble to 
craft bills that we can all support to accomplish these ends.
    I cannot stress the importance of these programs enough. My home 
state of Virginia happens to be home of the oldest and most 
comprehensive DNA data bank in the country. It now contains the genetic 
profiles of more than 191,000 convicted felons. Today, the database is 
part of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a system of computer 
databases designed by the FBI to store DNA profiles from convicted 
offenders as well as crime scene evidence. Through the work of Dr. Paul 
Ferrara, Ph.D., Director, Virginia Division of Forensic Science and Dr. 
Marcella Fiero, Chief Medical Examiner for the state of Virginia, 
hundreds of crimes have been solved not only in Virginia, but other 
states. And just yesterday, the importance of funding such programs was 
recognized when DOJ announced $201 million in grants to help eliminate 
the DNA backlog.
    This Victim's Rights bill is a partisan bill in the Senate and in 
the House bill to assure that victims are accorded respect and input 
into the trial processes of the accused offender we have come up with 
the current bi-partisan bill. I applaud your efforts and look forward 
to working with you as we move forward on markup of historic 
legislation in this Congress. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Delahunt follows:]
      Prepared Statement of the Honorable William D. Delahunt, a 
       Representative in Congress From the State of Massachusetts
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This bill is the culmination of years of diligent bicameral, 
bipartisan efforts toward a common goal. The bill's supporters want to 
use all the tools we can to solve crimes. And protect the innocent. In 
doing so, crime victims will have access to a justice system that is 
fair and truthful. I'd like to thank Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy 
for working with us throughout this process.
    I would also like to pay tribute to the distinguished Chairman of 
this Committee and his Chief Counsel. Without their good faith and 
commitment thus far, we would not be where we are today.
    From both sides of the aisle and political spectrum, we come 
together on this bipartisan legislation. Because we agree the criminal 
justice system is about a search for the truth.
    We will never know whether innocent people have been executed since 
the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. We do know that there have 
been some very close calls. Since 1976, 116 people in 25 States have 
been released after spending years on death row for crimes they did not 
commit. Some of them came within days or hours of being put to death. 
Imagine the potential miscarriage of justice if these innocent 
individuals could not access a DNA test.
    I oppose any time limits on DNA testing because there should not be 
any time limits on justice. And there should not be any time limits on 
innocence.
    DNA was responsible for exonerating 12 of the people freed from 
death row, and another 126 who were wrongfully convicted of serious 
crimes. In at least 34 of these cases, the same test that exonerated an 
innocent person led to the apprehension of the real perpetrator.
    With this bill, we must ensure that innocent people do not face 
arbitrary time limits on DNA tests. There is no significant 
governmental interest in denying DNA testing. DNA is the ultimate tool 
in a search for truth. To advance justice, we must allow DNA testing in 
every appropriate case.
    I am pleased with the new legislation before the Committee today 
because it seeks to repair the two sides of injustice when mistakes 
happen. As a district attorney for more than 20 years, I remember the 
mistakes more than the victories. And I remember the victims. Victims 
of the criminal justice system don't all look alike. They just get 
caught in the system in different ways.
    Think of victims like Debbie Smith. She is a courageous advocate 
who has done so much to help her fellow survivors of sexual assault. 
Yet it took six years for the DNA evidence to be tested in her case--
evidence that ultimately led to the capture of her rapist. Only then 
was she free from what she has called an ``emotional prison.''
    Those charged with false accusations and imprisoned based on 
wrongful convictions are also victims. Like Kirk Bloodsworth, the first 
death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing. After 10 years on 
death row, Kirk had to convince his lawyer to get the test. DNA 
established Kirk's innocence. DNA also led to the identification and 
conviction of the true perpetrator within the past year.
    We have the means at our disposal to minimize the possibility of 
error--and, where lives are at stake, we must use them. We must also 
ensure the rights of crime victims are reasonably and adequately 
protected in our federal courts. Why would any Member of the House or 
Senate oppose these goals?
    Ultimately, this bill is not about the death penalty. It's not 
about DNA backlogs. It's about restoring public confidence in the 
integrity of the American justice system. It's about justice for all 
victims. And it's about innocent people like Debbie Smith and Kirk 
Bloodsworth. That is a goal on which we stand united, and I look 
forward to working closely with my colleagues to see that this 
important initiative is signed into law.

    Mr. Flake. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Arizona.
    Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In lieu of amendments, 
I move to strike the last word and make a very brief statement. 
I feel compelled to note some concerns that I have about this 
bill. My understanding is that some of these concerns are going 
to be worked on before it passes. In order for it to pass the 
Senate, certain changes have to be made with regard to 
reasonable doubt standards and some other things that need to 
be worked on. But I will insert my statement for the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Flake follows:]
  Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jeff Flake, a Representative in 
                   Congress From the State of Arizona
    Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to note my concerns about H.R. 5107, 
the ``Justice for All Act of 2004.''
    As I stated during the mark-up of this bill's predecessor, H.R. 
3214, there are many worthwhile parts of this bill, and the goal of 
protecting the innocent is indeed important.
    However, the concerns that I and some of my colleagues share about 
H.R. 3214 have not been addressed in the bill before us today. The 
content of H.R. 3214 has been completely transferred into this bill. To 
mention just a few of the problematic area of the bill:
    H.R. 5107 contains a problematic ``reasonable doubt'' standard for 
ordering new trials. Under H.R. 5107, a federal court would have to 
order a new trial if DNA-test results ``establish by a preponderance of 
the evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal.'' In many 
circumstances this would allow the defendant to walk free, regardless 
of his or her innocence. A test result would not have to demonstrate 
actual innocence in order to force a new trial; it would only need to 
conflict with other evidence of guilt, so as to undermine a jury's 
ability to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
    H.R. 5107 contains a provision permitting post-conviction DNA 
testing of convicts who had pleaded guilty, and even if they had failed 
to seek available DNA testing before trial. This will permit defendants 
to reopen cases, re-traumatize victims, and waste resources even if 
there is no reason to think that testing will change the outcome of the 
case.
    H.R. 5107 contains no limitation at all on the duration of its 
proposed post-conviction DNA testing remedy, or on how long a convict 
may wait before seeking post-conviction DNA testing once this bill 
becomes law. Other post-conviction federal remedies are subject to time 
limits, and there is no reason to adopt a uniquely open-ended approach 
for post-conviction DNA testing. To do invites abuse. A person who is 
actually innocent has every reason to seek relief promptly, while a 
person who is guilty would probably seek to delay until it's impossible 
for the government to retry his case.
    The bill also grants $100 million in federal funds to operate state 
programs. The National District Attorneys Association has expressed 
concern that the bill attempts to re-establish the old ``death penalty 
resource centers,'' even though Congress abolished funding for such 
centers because they devolved into organizations dedicated solely to 
the abolition of the death penalty and were staffed and controlled by 
those dedicated to the disruption of the criminal justice system by 
whatever means available, ethical or otherwise.
    H.R. 5107 also does not give the states adequate discretion in 
determining the details of their DNA testing system. Even those states 
with existing procedures for post-conviction DNA testing would be 
ineligible for federal grants if they employed reasonable provisions in 
their DNA testing systems.
    The Department of Justice shares many of these concerns, and I 
would like to request unanimous consent to insert into the record a 
copy of a letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to 
Senator Hatch that outlines their concerns with the ``Innocence 
Protection'' portion of the bill.
    I know that Chairman Sensenbrenner and his staff are open to making 
changes to this bill, and I also know that, without signification 
modifications to this bill, it is not going anywhere on the Senate 
side. In the interest of giving the Chairman's negotiations with the 
Justice Department and other interested Members a fair chance, I will 
not offer any amendments to the bill, as I had originally planned.
    I yield back the remainder of my time.

    Mr. Flake. And also ask unanimous consent to insert into 
the record a copy of a letter from Assistant Attorney General 
William Moschella to Senator Hatch.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments? The gentleman 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to commend the 
Chairman for his outstanding hard work on the whole issue of 
crime victims' rights and DNA testing. I think we are on the 
verge of doing something historic and very special.
    I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
record a letter from Debbie Smith to Chairman Sensenbrenner in 
strong support of this legislation, and strong support in 
particular of the DNA provisions that are in it, and commending 
the Chairman for his work.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Green. And I would like to yield the balance of my time 
to Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. I thank my friend for yielding and I will try 
to wrap this up so we can move this, as you say, this historic 
piece of legislation.
    As I indicated, the case that particularly comes to my mind 
when an individual is falsely accused is the case of Kurt 
Bloodsworth who is the first death row inmate to be exonerated 
by DNA testing. After spending 10 years on death row, Kurt had 
to convince his lawyer to get the test. The test established 
Kurt's innocence. And just recently, subsequently, that DNA--
the access to the DNA technology also finally led to the 
identification and conviction of the true perpetrator, sometime 
within this past year.
    I think that sums it up rather well. Again, this new 
legislation before the Committee today to me repairs the two 
sides of injustice when mistakes happen. I served as a district 
attorney for more than 20 years and I remember the mistakes 
more than I do the wins. And I remember the victims. And 
victims of the criminal justice system don't all look alike. 
They just get caught in the system in different ways.
    And with that, I yield back to the gentleman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Wisconsin yield 
back?
    Mr. Green. I do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments? If there are 
no amendments, a reporting quorum is present.
    The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 
5107 favorably.
    All in favor say aye. Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the motion 
to report favorably is agreed to.
    Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go 
to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes 
and all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House 
rules, in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental 
or minority views.

                                  
