Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?


108th Congress                                            Rept. 108-321
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1
======================================================================
 
          ADVANCING JUSTICE THROUGH DNA TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2003

                                _______
                                

October 16, 2003.--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. 3214]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 3214) to eliminate the substantial backlog of DNA samples 
collected from crime scenes and convicted offenders, to improve 
and expand the DNA testing capacity of Federal, State, and 
local crime laboratories, to increase research and development 
of new DNA testing technologies, to develop new training 
programs regarding the collection and use of DNA evidence, to 
provide post-conviction testing of DNA evidence to exonerate 
the innocent, to improve the performance of counsel in State 
capital cases, and for other purposes, having considered the 
same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend 
that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................    19
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................    19
Hearings.........................................................    21
Committee Consideration..........................................    21
Vote of the Committee............................................    21
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    23
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    23
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................    23
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    25
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    25
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................    26
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    31
Committee Jurisdiction Letters...................................    49
Markup Transcript................................................    50

                             The Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

  TITLE I--RAPE KITS AND DNA EVIDENCE BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT OF 2003

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

            TITLE II--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2003

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

              TITLE III--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

Sec. 301. Short title.

        Subtitle A--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing

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

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

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

         Subtitle C--Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted

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

  TITLE I--RAPE KITS AND DNA EVIDENCE BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT OF 2003

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Rape Kits and DNA Evidence Backlog 
Elimination Act of 2003''.

SEC. 102. DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PROGRAM.

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

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

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

SEC. 103. EXPANSION OF COMBINED DNA INDEX SYSTEM.

  (a) Inclusion of All DNA Samples From States.--Section 210304(a)(1) 
of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132(a)(1)) is 
amended by striking ``of persons convicted of crimes;'' and inserting 
the following: ``of--
                  ``(A) persons convicted of crimes; and
                  ``(B) other persons whose DNA samples are collected 
                under applicable legal authorities, provided that DNA 
                profiles from DNA samples that are voluntarily 
                submitted solely for elimination purposes shall not be 
                included in the Combined DNA Index System;''.
  (b) Felons Convicted of Federal Crimes.--Section 3(d) of the DNA 
Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a(d)) is 
amended to read as follows:
  ``(d) Qualifying Federal Offenses.--The offenses that shall be 
treated for purposes of this section as qualifying Federal offenses are 
the following offenses, as determined by the Attorney General:
          ``(1) Any felony.
          ``(2) Any offense under chapter 109A of title 18, United 
        States Code.
          ``(3) Any crime of violence (as that term is defined in 
        section 16 of title 18, United States Code).
          ``(4) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the offenses 
        in paragraphs (1) through (3).''.
  (c) Military Offenses.--Section 1565(d) of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows:
  ``(d) Qualifying Military Offenses.--The offenses that shall be 
treated for purposes of this section as qualifying military offenses 
are the following offenses, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
in consultation with the Attorney General:
          ``(1) Any offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
        for which a sentence of confinement for more than one year may 
        be imposed.
          ``(2) Any other offense under the Uniform Code of Military 
        Justice that is comparable to a qualifying Federal offense (as 
        determined under section 3(d) of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
        Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a(d))).''.
  (d) Keyboard Searches.--Section 210304 of the DNA Identification Act 
of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132), as amended by subsection (a), is further 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(e) Authority for Keyboard Searches.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Director shall ensure that any person 
        who is authorized to access the index described in subsection 
        (a) for purposes of including information on DNA identification 
        records or DNA analyses in that index may also access that 
        index for purposes of carrying out a keyboard search.
          ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term 
        `keyboard search' means a search under which information held 
        by a person is compared with information in the index without 
        resulting in the information held by the person being included 
        in the index.
          ``(3) No preemption.--This subsection shall not be construed 
        to preempt State law.''.

SEC. 104. TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

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

``Sec. 3297. Cases involving DNA evidence

  ``In a case in which DNA testing implicates an identified person in 
the commission of a felony, except for a felony offense under chapter 
109A, no statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude 
prosecution of the offense shall preclude such prosecution until a 
period of time following the implication of the person by DNA testing 
has elapsed that is equal to the otherwise applicable limitation 
period.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 213 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``3297. Cases involving DNA evidence.''.

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

SEC. 105. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE.

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

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

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

            TITLE II--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2003

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 204. SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAM PROGRAM GRANTS.

  (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to eligible 
entities to provide training, technical assistance, education, 
equipment, and information relating to the identification, collection, 
preservation, analysis, and use of DNA samples and DNA evidence by 
medical personnel and other personnel, including doctors, medical 
examiners, coroners, nurses, victim service providers, and other 
professionals involved in treating victims of sexual assault and sexual 
assault examination programs, including SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse 
Examiner), SAFE (Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner), and SART (Sexual 
Assault Response Team).
  (b) Eligible Entity.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``eligible entity'' includes--
          (1) States;
          (2) units of local government; and
          (3) sexual assault examination programs, including--
                  (A) sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs;
                  (B) sexual assault forensic examiner (SAFE) programs;
                  (C) sexual assault response team (SART) programs;
                  (D) State sexual assault coalitions;
                  (E) medical personnel, including doctors, medical 
                examiners, coroners, and nurses, involved in treating 
                victims of sexual assault; and
                  (F) victim service providers involved in treating 
                victims of sexual assault.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to 
carry out this section.

SEC. 205. DNA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

  (a) Improving DNA Technology.--The Attorney General shall make grants 
for research and development to improve forensic DNA technology, 
including increasing the identification accuracy and efficiency of DNA 
analysis, decreasing time and expense, and increasing portability.
  (b) Demonstration Projects.--The Attorney General shall make grants 
to appropriate entities under which research is carried out through 
demonstration projects involving coordinated training and commitment of 
resources to law enforcement agencies and key criminal justice 
participants to demonstrate and evaluate the use of forensic DNA 
technology in conjunction with other forensic tools. The demonstration 
projects shall include scientific evaluation of the public safety 
benefits, improvements to law enforcement operations, and cost-
effectiveness of increased collection and use of DNA evidence.
  (c) National Forensic Science Commission.--
          (1) Appointment.--The Attorney General shall appoint a 
        National Forensic Science Commission (in this section referred 
        to as the ``Commission''), composed of persons experienced in 
        criminal justice issues, including persons from the forensic 
        science and criminal justice communities, to carry out the 
        responsibilities under paragraph (2).
          (2) Responsibilities.--The Commission shall--
                  (A) assess the present and future resource needs of 
                the forensic science community;
                  (B) make recommendations to the Attorney General for 
                maximizing the use of forensic technologies and 
                techniques to solve crimes and protect the public;
                  (C) identify potential scientific advances that may 
                assist law enforcement in using forensic technologies 
                and techniques to protect the public;
                  (D) make recommendations to the Attorney General for 
                programs that will increase the number of qualified 
                forensic scientists available to work in public crime 
                laboratories;
                  (E) disseminate, through the National Institute of 
                Justice, best practices concerning the collection and 
                analyses of forensic evidence to help ensure quality 
                and consistency in the use of forensic technologies and 
                techniques to solve crimes and protect the public;
                  (F) examine additional issues pertaining to forensic 
                science as requested by the Attorney General;
                  (G) examine Federal, State, and local privacy 
                protection statutes, regulations, and practices 
                relating to access to, or use of, stored DNA samples or 
                DNA analyses, to determine whether such protections are 
                sufficient;
                  (H) make specific recommendations to the Attorney 
                General, as necessary, to enhance the protections 
                described in subparagraph (G) to ensure--
                          (i) the appropriate use and dissemination of 
                        DNA information;
                          (ii) the accuracy, security, and 
                        confidentiality of DNA information;
                          (iii) the timely removal and destruction of 
                        obsolete, expunged, or inaccurate DNA 
                        information; and
                          (iv) that any other necessary measures are 
                        taken to protect privacy; and
                  (I) provide a forum for the exchange and 
                dissemination of ideas and information in furtherance 
                of the objectives described in subparagraphs (A) 
                through (H).
          (3) Personnel; procedures.--The Attorney General shall--
                  (A) designate the Chair of the Commission from among 
                its members;
                  (B) designate any necessary staff to assist in 
                carrying out the functions of the Commission; and
                  (C) establish procedures and guidelines for the 
                operations of the Commission.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to 
carry out this section.

SEC. 206. FBI DNA PROGRAMS.

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

SEC. 207. DNA IDENTIFICATION OF MISSING PERSONS.

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

SEC. 208. ENHANCED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OR 
                    USE OF DNA INFORMATION.

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

SEC. 209. TRIBAL COALITION GRANTS.

  Section 2001 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
  ``(d) Tribal Coalition Grants.--
          ``(1) Purpose.--The Attorney General shall award grants to 
        tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions for 
        purposes of--
                  ``(A) increasing awareness of domestic violence and 
                sexual assault against Indian women;
                  ``(B) enhancing the response to violence against 
                Indian women at the tribal, Federal, and State levels; 
                and
                  ``(C) identifying and providing technical assistance 
                to coalition membership and tribal communities to 
                enhance access to essential services to Indian women 
                victimized by domestic and sexual violence.
          ``(2) Grants to tribal coalitions.--The Attorney General 
        shall award grants under paragraph (1) to--
                  ``(A) established nonprofit, nongovernmental tribal 
                coalitions addressing domestic violence and sexual 
                assault against Indian women; and
                  ``(B) individuals or organizations that propose to 
                incorporate as nonprofit, nongovernmental tribal 
                coalitions to address domestic violence and sexual 
                assault against Indian women.
          ``(3) Eligibility for other grants.--Receipt of an award 
        under this subsection by tribal domestic violence and sexual 
        assault coalitions shall not preclude the coalition from 
        receiving additional grants under this title to carry out the 
        purposes described in subsection (b).''.

SEC. 210. EXPANSION OF PAUL COVERDELL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT 
                    GRANT PROGRAM.

  (a) Forensic Backlog Elimination Grants.--Section 2804 of the Omnibus 
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797m) is 
amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``shall use the grant to carry out'' 
                and inserting ``shall use the grant to do any one or 
                more of the following:
          ``(1) To carry out''; and
                  (B) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(2) To eliminate a backlog in the analysis of forensic 
        science evidence, including firearms examination, latent 
        prints, toxicology, controlled substances, forensic pathology, 
        questionable documents, and trace evidence.
          ``(3) To train, assist, and employ forensic laboratory 
        personnel, as needed, to eliminate such a backlog.'';
          (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``under this part'' and 
        inserting ``for the purpose set forth in subsection (a)(1)''; 
        and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(e) Backlog Defined.--For purposes of this section, a backlog in 
the analysis of forensic science evidence exists if such evidence--
          ``(1) has been stored in a laboratory, medical examiner's 
        office, or coroner's office; and
          ``(2) has not been subjected to all appropriate forensic 
        testing because of a lack of resources or personnel.''.
  (b) External Audits.--Section 2802 of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797k) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
          (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(4) a certification that a government entity exists and an 
        appropriate process is in place to conduct independent external 
        investigations into allegations of serious negligence or 
        misconduct substantially affecting the integrity of the 
        forensic results committed by employees or contractors of any 
        forensic laboratory system, medical examiner's office, or 
        coroner's office in the State that will receive a portion of 
        the grant amount.''.
  (c) Three-Year Extension of Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 
1001(a)(24) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 
(42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(24)) is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
          (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(G) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
          ``(H) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
          ``(I) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.''.
  (d) Technical Amendment.--Section 1001(a) of such Act, as amended by 
subsection (c), is further amended by realigning paragraphs (24) and 
(25) so as to be flush with the left margin.

SEC. 211. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

  (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report on 
the implementation of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
  (b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a) shall 
include a description of--
          (1) the progress made by Federal, State, and local entities 
        in--
                  (A) collecting and entering DNA samples from 
                offenders convicted of qualifying offenses for 
                inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (referred to 
                in this subsection as ``CODIS'');
                  (B) analyzing samples from crime scenes, including 
                evidence collected from sexual assaults and other 
                serious violent crimes, and entering such DNA analyses 
                in CODIS; and
                  (C) increasing the capacity of forensic laboratories 
                to conduct DNA analyses;
          (2) the priorities and plan for awarding grants among 
        eligible States and units of local government to ensure that 
        the purposes of this Act are carried out;
          (3) the distribution of grant amounts under this Act among 
        eligible States and local governments, and whether the 
        distribution of such funds has served the purposes of the 
        Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program;
          (4) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible 
        entities for DNA training and education programs for law 
        enforcement, correctional personnel, court officers, medical 
        personnel, victim service providers, and other personnel 
        authorized under sections 203 and 204;
          (5) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible 
        entities to conduct DNA research and development programs to 
        improve forensic DNA technology, and implement demonstration 
        projects under section 205;
          (6) the steps taken to establish the National Forensic 
        Science Commission, and the activities of the Commission under 
        section 205(c);
          (7) the use of funds by the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
        under section 206;
          (8) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible 
        entities to promote the use of forensic DNA technology to 
        identify missing persons and unidentified human remains under 
        section 207;
          (9) grants awarded and the use of such grants by eligible 
        entities to eliminate forensic science backlogs under the 
        amendments made by section 210;
          (10) State compliance with the requirements set forth in 
        section 313; and
          (11) any other matters considered relevant by the Attorney 
        General.

              TITLE III--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

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

        Subtitle A--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing

SEC. 311. FEDERAL POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING.

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

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

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

``Sec. 3600. DNA testing

  ``(a) In General.--Upon a written motion by an individual under a 
sentence of imprisonment or death pursuant to a conviction for a 
Federal offense (referred to in this section as the `applicant'), the 
court that entered the judgment of conviction shall order DNA testing 
of specific evidence if--
          ``(1) the applicant asserts, under penalty of perjury, that 
        the applicant is actually innocent of--
                  ``(A) the Federal offense for which the applicant is 
                under a sentence of imprisonment or death; or
                  ``(B) another Federal or State offense, if--
                          ``(i)(I) such offense was legally necessary 
                        to make the applicant eligible for a sentence 
                        as a career offender under section 3559(e) or 
                        an armed career offender under section 924(e), 
                        and exoneration of such offense would entitle 
                        the applicant to a reduced sentence; or
                          ``(II) evidence of such offense was admitted 
                        during a Federal death sentencing hearing and 
                        exoneration of such offense would entitle the 
                        applicant to a reduced sentence or new 
                        sentencing hearing; and
                          ``(ii) in the case of a State offense--
                                  ``(I) the applicant demonstrates that 
                                there is no adequate remedy under State 
                                law to permit DNA testing of the 
                                specified evidence relating to the 
                                State offense; and
                                  ``(II) to the extent available, the 
                                applicant has exhausted all remedies 
                                available under State law for 
                                requesting DNA testing of specified 
                                evidence relating to the State offense;
          ``(2) the specific evidence to be tested was secured in 
        relation to the investigation or prosecution of the Federal or 
        State offense referenced in the applicant's assertion under 
        paragraph (1);
          ``(3) the specific evidence to be tested--
                  ``(A) was not previously subjected to DNA testing and 
                the applicant did not knowingly and voluntarily waive 
                the right to request DNA testing of that evidence in a 
                court proceeding after the date of enactment of the 
                Innocence Protection Act of 2003; or
                  ``(B) was previously subjected to DNA testing and the 
                applicant is requesting DNA testing using a new method 
                or technology that is substantially more probative than 
                the prior DNA testing;
          ``(4) the specific evidence to be tested is in the possession 
        of the Government and has been subject to a chain of custody 
        and retained under conditions sufficient to ensure that such 
        evidence has not been substituted, contaminated, tampered with, 
        replaced, or altered in any respect material to the proposed 
        DNA testing;
          ``(5) the proposed DNA testing is reasonable in scope, uses 
        scientifically sound methods, and is consistent with accepted 
        forensic practices;
          ``(6) the applicant identifies a theory of defense that--
                  ``(A) is not inconsistent with an affirmative defense 
                presented at trial; and
                  ``(B) would establish the actual innocence of the 
                applicant of the Federal or State offense referenced in 
                the applicant's assertion under paragraph (1);
          ``(7) if the applicant was convicted following a trial, the 
        identity of the perpetrator was at issue in the trial;
          ``(8) the proposed DNA testing of the specific evidence--
                  ``(A) would produce new material evidence to support 
                the theory of defense referenced in paragraph (6); and
                  ``(B) assuming the DNA test result excludes the 
                applicant, would raise a reasonable probability that 
                the applicant did not commit the offense;
          ``(9) the applicant certifies that the applicant will provide 
        a DNA sample for purposes of comparison; and
          ``(10) the applicant's motion is filed for the purpose of 
        demonstrating the applicant's actual innocence of the Federal 
        or State offense, and not to delay the execution of the 
        sentence or the administration of justice.
  ``(b) Notice to the Government; Preservation Order; Appointment of 
Counsel.--
          ``(1) Notice.--Upon the receipt of a motion filed under 
        subsection (a), the court shall--
                  ``(A) notify the Government; and
                  ``(B) allow the Government a reasonable time period 
                to respond to the motion.
          ``(2) Preservation order.--To the extent necessary to carry 
        out proceedings under this section, the court shall direct the 
        Government to preserve the specific evidence relating to a 
        motion under subsection (a).
          ``(3) Appointment of counsel.--The court may appoint counsel 
        for an indigent applicant under this section in the same manner 
        as in a proceeding under section 3006A(a)(2)(B).
  ``(c) Testing Procedures.--
          ``(1) In general.--The court shall direct that any DNA 
        testing ordered under this section be carried out by the 
        Federal Bureau of Investigation.
          ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the court 
        may order DNA testing by another qualified laboratory if the 
        court makes all necessary orders to ensure the integrity of the 
        specific evidence and the reliability of the testing process 
        and test results.
          ``(3) Costs.--The costs of any DNA testing ordered under this 
        section shall be paid--
                  ``(A) by the applicant; or
                  ``(B) in the case of an applicant who is indigent, by 
                the Government.
  ``(d) Time Limitation in Capital Cases.--In any case in which the 
applicant is sentenced to death--
          ``(1) any DNA testing ordered under this section shall be 
        completed not later than 60 days after the date on which the 
        Government responds to the motion filed under subsection (a); 
        and
          ``(2) not later than 120 days after the date on which the DNA 
        testing ordered under this section is completed, the court 
        shall order any post-testing procedures under subsection (f) or 
        (g), as appropriate.
  ``(e) Reporting of Test Results.--
          ``(1) In general.--The results of any DNA testing ordered 
        under this section shall be simultaneously disclosed to the 
        court, the applicant, and the Government.
          ``(2) NDIS.--The Government shall submit any test results 
        relating to the DNA of the applicant to the National DNA Index 
        System (referred to in this subsection as `NDIS').
          ``(3) Retention of dna sample.--
                  ``(A) Entry into ndis.--If the DNA test results 
                obtained under this section are inconclusive or show 
                that the applicant was the source of the DNA evidence, 
                the DNA sample of the applicant may be retained in 
                NDIS.
                  ``(B) Match with other offense.--If the DNA test 
                results obtained under this section exclude the 
                applicant as the source of the DNA evidence, and a 
                comparison of the DNA sample of the applicant results 
                in a match between the DNA sample of the applicant and 
                another offense, the Attorney General shall notify the 
                appropriate agency and preserve the DNA sample of the 
                applicant.
                  ``(C) No match.--If the DNA test results obtained 
                under this section exclude the applicant as the source 
                of the DNA evidence, and a comparison of the DNA sample 
                of the applicant does not result in a match between the 
                DNA sample of the applicant and another offense, the 
                Attorney General shall destroy the DNA sample of the 
                applicant and ensure that such information is not 
                retained in NDIS if there is no other legal authority 
                to retain the DNA sample of the applicant in NDIS.
  ``(f) Post-Testing Procedures; Inconclusive and Inculpatory 
Results.--
          ``(1) Inconclusive results.--If DNA test results obtained 
        under this section are inconclusive, the court may order 
        further testing, if appropriate, or may deny the applicant 
        relief.
          ``(2) Inculpatory results.--If DNA test results obtained 
        under this section show that the applicant was the source of 
        the DNA evidence, the court shall--
                  ``(A) deny the applicant relief; and
                  ``(B) on motion of the Government--
                          ``(i) make a determination whether the 
                        applicant's assertion of actual innocence was 
                        false, and, if the court makes such a finding, 
                        the court may hold the applicant in contempt;
                          ``(ii) assess against the applicant the cost 
                        of any DNA testing carried out under this 
                        section;
                          ``(iii) forward the finding to the Director 
                        of the Bureau of Prisons, who, upon receipt of 
                        such a finding, may deny, wholly or in part, 
                        the good conduct credit authorized under 
                        section 3632 on the basis of that finding;
                          ``(iv) if the applicant is subject to the 
                        jurisdiction of the United States Parole 
                        Commission, forward the finding to the 
                        Commission so that the Commission may deny 
                        parole on the basis of that finding; and
                          ``(v) if the DNA test results relate to a 
                        State offense, forward the finding to any 
                        appropriate State official.
          ``(3) Sentence.--In any prosecution of an applicant under 
        chapter 79 for false assertions or other conduct in proceedings 
        under this section, the court, upon conviction of the 
        applicant, shall sentence the applicant to a term of 
        imprisonment of not less than 3 years, which shall run 
        consecutively to any other term of imprisonment the applicant 
        is serving.
  ``(g) Post-Testing Procedures; Motion for New Trial or 
Resentencing.--
          ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any law that would bar a 
        motion under this paragraph as untimely, if DNA test results 
        obtained under this section exclude the applicant as the source 
        of the DNA evidence, the applicant may file a motion for a new 
        trial or resentencing, as appropriate. The court shall 
        establish a reasonable schedule for the applicant to file such 
        a motion and for the Government to respond to the motion.
          ``(2) Standard for granting motion for new trial or 
        resentencing.--The court shall grant the motion of the 
        applicant for a new trial or resentencing, as appropriate, if 
        the DNA test results, when considered with all other evidence 
        in the case (regardless of whether such evidence was introduced 
        at trial), establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a 
        new trial would result in an acquittal of--
                  ``(A) in the case of a motion for a new trial, the 
                Federal offense for which the applicant is under a 
                sentence of imprisonment or death; and
                  ``(B) in the case of a motion for resentencing, 
                another Federal or State offense, if--
                          ``(i) such offense was legally necessary to 
                        make the applicant eligible for a sentence as a 
                        career offender under section 3559(e) or an 
                        armed career offender under section 924(e), and 
                        exoneration of such offense would entitle the 
                        applicant to a reduced sentence; or
                          ``(ii) evidence of such offense was admitted 
                        during a Federal death sentencing hearing and 
                        exoneration of such offense would entitle the 
                        applicant to a reduced sentence or a new 
                        sentencing proceeding.
  ``(h) Other Laws Unaffected.--
          ``(1) Post-conviction relief.--Nothing in this section shall 
        affect the circumstances under which a person may obtain DNA 
        testing or post-conviction relief under any other law.
          ``(2) Habeas corpus.--Nothing in this section shall provide a 
        basis for relief in any Federal habeas corpus proceeding.
          ``(3) Application not a motion.--An application under this 
        section shall not be considered to be a motion under section 
        2255 for purposes of determining whether the application or any 
        other motion is a second or successive motion under section 
        2255.

``Sec. 3600A. Preservation of biological evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 321. CAPITAL REPRESENTATION IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.

  (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall award grants to States 
for the purpose of improving the quality of legal representation 
provided to indigent defendants in State capital cases.
  (b) Defined Term.--In this section, the term ``legal representation'' 
means legal counsel and investigative, expert, and other services 
necessary for competent representation.
  (c) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under subsection (a)--
          (1) shall be used to establish, implement, or improve an 
        effective system for providing competent legal representation 
        to--
                  (A) indigents charged with an offense subject to 
                capital punishment;
                  (B) indigents who have been sentenced to death and 
                who seek appellate or collateral relief in State court; 
                and
                  (C) indigents who have been sentenced to death and 
                who seek review in the Supreme Court of the United 
                States; and
          (2) shall not be used to fund, directly or indirectly, 
        representation in specific capital cases.
  (d) Effective System.--As used in subsection (c)(1), an effective 
system for providing competent legal representation is a system that--
          (1) invests the responsibility for identifying and appointing 
        qualified attorneys to represent indigents in capital cases 
        in--
                  (A) a public defender program that relies on staff 
                attorneys, members of the private bar, or both, to 
                provide representation in capital cases; or
                  (B) an entity established by statute or by the 
                highest State court with jurisdiction in criminal 
                cases, which is composed of individuals with 
                demonstrated knowledge and expertise in capital 
                representation; and
          (2) requires the entity described in paragraph (1) to--
                  (A) establish qualifications for attorneys who may be 
                appointed to represent indigents in capital cases;
                  (B) establish and maintain a roster of qualified 
                attorneys;
                  (C) assign 2 attorneys from the roster to represent 
                an indigent in a capital case, or provide the trial 
                judge a list of not more than 2 pairs of attorneys from 
                the roster, from which 1 pair shall be assigned, 
                provided that, in any case in which the State elects 
                not to seek the death penalty, a court may find, 
                subject to any requirement of State law, that a second 
                attorney need not remain assigned to represent the 
                indigent to ensure competent representation;
                  (D) conduct, sponsor, or approve specialized training 
                programs for attorneys representing defendants in 
                capital cases;
                  (E) monitor the performance of attorneys who are 
                appointed and their attendance at training programs, 
                and remove from the roster attorneys who fail to 
                deliver effective representation or who fail to comply 
                with such requirements as the entity may establish 
                regarding participation in training programs; and
                  (F) ensure funding for the full cost of competent 
                legal representation by the defense team and outside 
                experts selected by counsel, who shall be compensated 
                as follows:
                          (i) Attorneys employed by a public defender 
                        program shall be compensated according to a 
                        salary scale that is commensurate with the 
                        salary scale of the prosecutor's office in the 
                        jurisdiction.
                          (ii) Appointed attorneys shall be compensated 
                        for actual time and service, computed on an 
                        hourly basis and at a reasonable hourly rate in 
                        light of the qualifications and experience of 
                        the attorney and the local market for legal 
                        representation in cases reflecting the 
                        complexity and responsibility of capital cases.
                          (iii) Non-attorney members of the defense 
                        team, including investigators, mitigation 
                        specialists, and experts, shall be compensated 
                        at a rate that reflects the specialized skills 
                        needed by those who assist counsel with the 
                        litigation of death penalty cases.
                          (iv) Attorney and non-attorney members of the 
                        defense team shall be reimbursed for reasonable 
                        incidental expenses.

SEC. 322. CAPITAL PROSECUTION IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.

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

SEC. 323. APPLICATIONS.

  (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a process 
through which a State may apply for a grant under this subtitle.
  (b) Application.--
          (1) In general.--A State desiring a grant under this subtitle 
        shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such 
        time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
        Attorney General may reasonably require.
          (2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph (1) 
        shall contain--
                  (A) a certification by an appropriate officer of the 
                State that the State authorizes capital punishment 
                under its laws and conducts, or will conduct, 
                prosecutions in which capital punishment is sought;
                  (B) a description of the communities to be served by 
                the grant, including the nature of existing capital 
                defender services and capital prosecution programs 
                within such communities;
                  (C) a long-term statewide strategy and detailed 
                implementation plan that--
                          (i) reflects consultation with the judiciary, 
                        the organized bar, and State and local 
                        prosecutor and defender organizations; and
                          (ii) establishes as a priority improvement in 
                        the quality of trial-level representation of 
                        indigents charged with capital crimes and 
                        trial-level prosecution of capital crimes; and
                  (D) assurances that Federal funds received under this 
                subtitle shall be--
                          (i) used to supplement and not supplant non-
                        Federal funds that would otherwise be available 
                        for activities funded under this subtitle; and
                          (ii) allocated equally between the uses 
                        described in section 321 and the uses described 
                        in section 322.

SEC. 324. STATE REPORTS.

  (a) In General.--Each State receiving funds under this subtitle shall 
submit an annual report to the Attorney General that--
          (1) identifies the activities carried out with such funds; 
        and
          (2) explains how each activity complies with the terms and 
        conditions of the grant.
  (b) Capital Representation Improvement Grants.--With respect to the 
funds provided under section 321, a report under subsection (a) shall 
include--
          (1) an accounting of all amounts expended;
          (2) an explanation of the means by which the State--
                  (A) invests the responsibility for identifying and 
                appointing qualified attorneys to represent indigents 
                in capital cases in an entity described in section 
                321(d)(1); and
                  (B) requires the entity described in section 
                321(d)(1) to--
                          (i) establish qualifications for attorneys 
                        who may be appointed to represent indigents in 
                        capital cases in accordance with section 
                        321(d)(2)(A);
                          (ii) establish and maintain a roster of 
                        qualified attorneys in accordance with section 
                        321(d)(2)(B);
                          (iii) assign attorneys from the roster in 
                        accordance with section 321(d)(2)(C);
                          (iv) conduct, sponsor, or approve specialized 
                        training programs for attorneys representing 
                        defendants in capital cases in accordance with 
                        section 321(d)(2)(D);
                          (v) monitor the performance and training 
                        program attendance of appointed attorneys, and 
                        remove from the roster attorneys who fail to 
                        deliver effective representation or fail to 
                        comply with such requirements as the entity may 
                        establish regarding participation in training 
                        programs, in accordance with section 
                        321(d)(2)(E); and
                          (vi) ensure funding for the full cost of 
                        competent legal representation by the defense 
                        team and outside experts selected by counsel, 
                        in accordance with section 321(d)(2)(F), 
                        including a statement setting forth--
                                  (I) if the State employs a public 
                                defender program under section 
                                321(d)(1)(A), the salaries received by 
                                the attorneys employed by such program 
                                and the salaries received by attorneys 
                                in the prosecutor's office in the 
                                jurisdiction;
                                  (II) if the State employs appointed 
                                attorneys under section 321(d)(1)(B), 
                                the hourly fees received by such 
                                attorneys for actual time and service 
                                and the basis on which the hourly rate 
                                was calculated;
                                  (III) the amounts paid to non-
                                attorney members of the defense team, 
                                and the basis on which such amounts 
                                were determined; and
                                  (IV) the amounts for which attorney 
                                and non-attorney members of the defense 
                                team were reimbursed for reasonable 
                                incidental expenses; and
          (3) a statement confirming that the funds have not been used 
        to fund representation in specific capital cases or to supplant 
        non-Federal funds.
  (c) Capital Prosecution Improvement Grants.--With respect to the 
funds provided under section 322, a report under subsection (a) shall 
include--
          (1) an accounting of all amounts expended;
          (2) a description of the means by which the State has--
                  (A) designed and established training programs for 
                State and local prosecutors to ensure effective 
                representation in State capital cases in accordance 
                with section 322(b)(1)(A);
                  (B) developed and implemented appropriate standards 
                and qualifications for State and local prosecutors who 
                litigate State capital cases in accordance with section 
                322(b)(1)(B);
                  (C) assessed the performance of State and local 
                prosecutors who litigate State capital cases in 
                accordance with section 322(b)(1)(C);
                  (D) identified and implemented any potential legal 
                reforms that may be appropriate to minimize the 
                potential for error in the trial of capital cases in 
                accordance with section 322(b)(1)(D);
                  (E) established a program under which State and local 
                prosecutors conduct a systematic review of cases in 
                which a death sentence was imposed in order to identify 
                cases in which post-conviction DNA testing may be 
                appropriate in accordance with section 322(b)(1)(E); 
                and
                  (F) provided support and assistance to the families 
                of murder victims; and
          (3) a statement confirming that the funds have not been used 
        to fund the prosecution of specific capital cases or to 
        supplant non-Federal funds.
  (d) Public Disclosure of Annual State Reports.--The annual reports to 
the Attorney General submitted by any State under this section shall be 
made available to the public.

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

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

SEC. 326. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

         Subtitle C--Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted

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

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

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

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

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 3214 addresses three interrelated problems: the 
elimination of backlogs of DNA evidence that has not been 
analyzed, the lack of training, equipment, technology, and 
standards for handling DNA and other forensic evidence, and the 
conviction of innocent persons. Title I addresses the backlogs 
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 five years. Title II authorizes 
funding for training for law enforcement, correctional, court, 
and medical personnel on the use of DNA evidence. Title II 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. Title II provides 
funds to the FBI for the administration of its DNA programs.
    Title III 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. The legislation 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


                             A. BACKGROUND

    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 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 is generally used to solve crimes in one of two ways. 
In cases where 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. In cases where a suspect has not 
yet been identified, biological evidence from the crime scene 
can be analyzed and compared to offender profiles in DNA 
databases to help identify the perpetrator.
    Crime scene evidence can also be linked to other crime 
scenes through the use of DNA databases. In the late 1980s, the 
federal government laid the groundwork for a system of 
national, state, and local DNA databases for the storage and 
exchange of DNA profiles. This system, called the Combined DNA 
Index System (CODIS), 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 1980s and early 1990s, 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 national 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.

                      B. NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

    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 in order to ensure the 
optimal use of DNA evidence to solve crimes and assist victims. 
The criminal justice system needs the means to provide DNA 
testing in appropriate circumstances for individuals who assert 
that they have been wrongly convicted.
    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 also revealed wrongful convictions around the 
country; however, DNA alone will not eliminate wrongful 
convictions. However, greater access to DNA testing is 
essential. 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

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and 
Homeland Security held one day of hearings on DNA issues on 
July 17, 2003. Testimony was received from four witnesses, 
representing three organizations, with additional material 
submitted by several other individuals and organizations. In 
the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
912, the ``Innocence Protection Act of 2001'' on June 18, 2002. 
This hearing addressed many of the issues addressed in Title 
III of H.R. 3214. Testimony was received from four witnesses.

                        Committee Consideration

    On October 8, 2003, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3214 with an amendment 
by a recorded vote of 28 to 1, 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 the 
following rollcall vote occurred during the committee's 
consideration of H.R. 3214. The motion to report H.R. 3214 
favorably as amended passed by a rollcall vote of 28 to 1:


                      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

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because H.R. 3214 does not 
provide new budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures.

               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. 3214, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                                  October 16, 2003.
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. 3214, the 
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3214--Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003

    Summary: H.R. 3214 would authorize the appropriation of 
$1.85 billion over the 2005-2009 period to expand the use of 
DNA analysis in the criminal justice system. The bill would 
establish six new grant programs and extend 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 also 
would authorize appropriations for the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation to carry out its DNA programs, including the 
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), and would require the 
collection of DNA samples from persons convicted of felonies.
    Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 3214 would cost about $1.1 
billion over the 2005-2008 period (with additional amounts 
spent after 2008). This legislation could affect direct 
spending, but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be 
significant.
    H.R. 3214 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would benefit state, local, and tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 3214 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--
                               -----------------------------------------
                                 2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION \1\

Spending under current law for
 the programs that would be
 authorized by H.R. 3214:
    Budget authority/              82    153     57     42      0      0
     authorization level \2\..
    Estimated outlays.........     78    113     92     74     27     11
Proposed changes:
    Estimated authorization         0     10    360    360    380    380
     level....................
    Estimated outlays.........      0      9    106    234    349    372
Spending under H.R. 3214:
    Estimated authorization        82    163    417    402    380    380
     level....................
    Estimated outlays.........     78    122    198    308    376   383
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to the discretionary costs, enacting H.R. 3214 could
  affect direct spending, but CBO estimates that any such effects would
  be less than $500,000 annually.
\2\ The 2003 level is the total amount appropriated for that year for
  the programs that would be authorized by H.R. 3214. The 2004 through
  2006 levels are the total amounts authorized in current law for those
  programs. (A full-year appropriation for fiscal year 2004 for those
  programs has not yet been enacted.)

    Basis of estimate: Assuming appropriations of the necessary 
amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3214 would cost 
$1.1 billion over the 2005-2008 period. This legislation could 
affect direct spending, but CBO estimates that any such effects 
would not be significant.

Spending subject to appropriation

    H.R. 3214 would authorize the appropriation of $358 million 
for 2005 and for 2006, and $378 million for each of 2007, 2008, 
and 2009. For this estimate, CBO assumes that the authorized 
amounts 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. 3214 would require the 
federal gvernment to collect DNA samples from each person in 
federal custody or on federally supervised release who has been 
convicted of a felony. 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. 
3214 would require the collection of roughly 160,000 additional 
samples in 2004 and about 40,000 samples in each subsequent 
year. We expect that it would cost about $60 to take each DNA 
sample, so collection costs would total $10 million in fiscal 
year 2004 and nearly $3 million a year for the 2005-2008 
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.

Direct spending

    Enacting H.R. 3214 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. CBO does not expect 
the number of such cases or any increase in payments for this 
purpose to be significant.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3214 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would benefit state, local, and tribal 
governments by authorizing the appropriation of over $1.5 
billion in grants to those governments over fiscal years 2005-
2009. It would create six new grant programs and reauthorize 
and expand two existing grants under the DNA Analysis Backlog 
Elimination Act of 2000. Any costs to grant recipients would be 
incurred voluntarily as conditions of receiving federal aid.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz. Impact 
on State, Local and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell. Impact 
on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
    Estimated approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    H.R. 3214 authorizes a variety of grants to State and local 
governments to combat crimes with DNA and other forensic 
technology and provides safeguards to prevent wrongful 
convictions and executions.
    Titles I and II of the bill include the Debbie Smith DNA 
Backlog Grant Program, which authorizes $755 million over five 
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 III 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 five 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, section 8, of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion


      TITLE I--RAPE KITS AND DNA EVIDENCE BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT


Sec. 101. Short title

    Section 101 provides that this title may be cited as the 
``Rape Kits and DNA Evidence Backlog Elimination Act of 2003.''

Sec. 102. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant program

    Section 102 renames the Backlog Elimination Act grant 
program in honor of Debbie Smith, a rape survivor and leader in 
promoting the use of the DNA technology to solve crimes. It 
amends and expands the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 in a 
variety of ways. It expands the program to allow grants to 
units of local governments as well as states. It clarifies that 
grants should go toward timely analyses of DNA samples 
including samples from rape kits, samples from other sexual 
assault evidence and samples taken in cases without an 
identified suspect.
    This section also converts the DNA Backlog Elimination 
grant program to a formula grant program. The Attorney General 
will develop a formula that maximizes the effective use of DNA 
technology to solve crimes and protect public safety and that 
addresses areas where significant backlogs exist. A minimum 
grant amount of 0.50 percent is to be awarded to each State, 
and a specified percentage of funds will be awarded to conduct 
DNA analyses of samples from casework or victims of crime.
    Conversion of the program into a formula grant program will 
ensure that funds will be fairly distributed among all eligible 
jurisdictions. The Committee expects that the formula will 
consider the following factors: the magnitude and nature of the 
DNA backlogs and current DNA work demands in the jurisdiction; 
deficits in public laboratory capacity for the analysis of DNA 
samples in the jurisdiction and cost requirements for remedying 
these deficits; and the ability of the jurisdiction to use the 
funds to increase DNA analysis and public laboratory capacity 
for such analysis. The Committee further expects that the 
formula will direct funding to solve the most serious violent 
crimes, including rapes and murders, thereby getting the 
greatest return in promoting public safety.
    This section 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 
laboratories.Additionally, recognizing the importance of 
obtaining quality DNA samples and the requirement for auditing and 
accreditation in section 202 of this Act, this section allows 1% of the 
funds to be used by 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 for these purposes for 
each year from FY 2005 through FY 2009.

Sec. 103. Expansion of Combined DNA Index System

    Section 103 amends the statute governing the Combined DNA 
Index System (CODIS) to allow states to include in CODIS the 
DNA profiles of all persons whose DNA samples have been 
collected under applicable legal authorities, including those 
authorized by State law, all felons convicted of Federal 
crimes, and all persons convicted of qualifying military 
offenses.
    An amendment to this section was adopted at markup. This 
provision would allow a State or the Federal government to 
search the National DNA Index System (NDIS) for a match to any 
DNA sample that was lawfully obtained by the State. Currently, 
a search can be made only when the sample can be lawfully 
loaded into NDIS. However, some States allow lawful collection 
of a broader group of samples, which should be able to be 
searched for matches. This amendment would not change the rules 
for loading samples into NDIS, and when a search is conducted, 
the sample will only be loaded into NDIS if it otherwise 
qualifies under the NDIS rules.

Sec. 104. Tolling of statute of limitations

    Section 104 provides that, in a case where 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 limitations period has elapsed from 
the date of identification of the perpetrator.

Sec. 105. Legal assistance for victims of violence

    Section 105 expands the Violence Against Women Act to allow 
the grant programs to be used to provide legal assistance for 
victims of dating violence. ``Dating violence,'' is defined as 
violence committed by a person: (1) Who is or has been in a 
romantic or intimate relationship with the victim; and (2) 
where the existence of such relationship is determined based 
upon consideration of the length of the relationship, the type 
of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the 
persons involved.

Sec. 106. Ensuring private laboratory assistance in eliminating DNA 
        backlog

    Section 106 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 or non-
profit companies to expedite DNA collection, analyses of DNA 
from crime scenes, and elimination of any backlog.

            TITLE II--DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2003


Sec. 201. Short title

    Section 201 provides that this title may be cited as the 
``DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003.''

Sec. 202. Ensuring public crime laboratory compliance with federal 
        standards

    Section 202 requires that State and local government crime 
laboratories undergo accreditation within two years after 
enactment. It further requires that laboratories undergo 
auditing at least every two years to ensure compliance with 
federal standards that will be established by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation.

Sec. 203. DNA training and education for law enforcement, correctional 
        personnel, and court officers

    Section 203 authorizes $12.5 million per year for five 
years to provide grants for training and education relating to 
DNA evidence for law enforcement personnel; correctional 
personnel; court officers, including prosecutors, defense 
lawyers and judges; and forensic scientists.

Sec. 204. Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program grants

    Section 204 authorizes $30 million per year for five years 
to create a grant program to provide training, technical 
assistance, education, equipment, and information to medical 
personnel including doctors, medical examiners, coroners, 
nurses, victim service providers, and other medical 
professionals, including existing sexual assault and sexual 
assault examination programs (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner or 
SANE, Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner orSAFE, and Sexual 
Assault Response Team or SART) relating to the identification, 
collection, preservation, analysis, and use of DNA samples and 
evidence.

Sec. 205. DNA research and development

    Section 205 authorizes $15 million per year for five years 
for grants for research and development to improve forensic DNA 
technology, including funding of demonstration projects 
involving law enforcement agencies and criminal justice 
participants to evaluate the use of forensic DNA technology. 
The section also authorizes the Attorney General to establish a 
new Forensic Science Commission, composed of members from the 
forensic science and criminal justice communities, which will 
be responsible for examining various issues, including: (1) Use 
of forensic sciences to solve crimes and protect public safety; 
(2) increasing the number of qualified forensic scientists; (3) 
disseminating best practices concerning the collection and 
analyses of forensic evidence; and (4) assessing Federal, State 
and local privacy protection statutes, regulations and 
practices relating to DNA samples and DNA analyses.

Sec. 206. FBI DNA programs

    Section 206 authorizes $42.1 million per year for five 
years 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.

Sec. 207. DNA identification of missing persons

    Section 207 authorizes $2 million per year for five years 
for grants to State and local governments for DNA 
identification of missing persons and unidentified human 
remains.

Sec. 208. Enhanced criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure or 
        use of DNA information

    Section 208 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.

Sec. 209. Tribal coalition grants

    Section 209 authorizes grants to nonprofit, nongovernmental 
tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions in 
Indian country for domestic violence and sexual assault 
awareness programs under the Violence Against Women Act.

Sec. 210. Expansion of Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement 
        Grant Program

    Section 210 extends the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science 
Improvement Grant Program by authorizing $20 million per year 
for fiscal years 2007-09. This money will be used for grants to 
states, units of local governments, and tribal governments to 
eliminate forensic science backlogs including backlogs in the 
analysis of firearms examinations, latent prints, toxicology, 
controlled substances, forensic pathology, questionable 
documents, and trace evidence. It also requires that the 
laboratories have a process for investigating serious 
negligence or misconduct affecting the integrity of forensic 
results.

Sec. 211. Report to Congress

    Section 211 requires the Attorney General to provide a 
report to Congress within two years of the date of enactment on 
the implementation of this Act.

                  TITLE III--INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT


Sec. 301. Short title

    Section 301 provides that this title may be cited as the 
``Innocence Protection Act of 2003.''

        Subtitle A--Exonerating the Innocent Through DNA Testing


Sec. 311. Federal post conviction DNA testing

    Section 311 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 an applicant 
for testing asserts that he or she is actually innocent of a 
qualifying offense, that the proposed DNA testing would produce 
new material evidence that would support such an assertion and 
create a reasonable probability that the applicant did not 
commit the offense, and meets various other requirements. 
Criminal penalties are established in the event that testing 
inculpates the applicant. If 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 prohibits the destruction of 
biological evidence in a federalcriminal case while a defendant 
remains incarcerated, without a waiver by the defendant or prior 
notification to the defendant that the evidence may be destroyed. 
Knowing and intentional violations of this section to prevent evidence 
from being tested or used in court are subject to criminal penalties.
    This section further requires the Attorney General to 
establish a system for reporting and tracking motions under 
this section and to report to Congress on their use within two 
years. Finally, this section specifies that it applies to any 
offense committed, or judgment entered, before, on, or after 
the date of enactment.

Sec. 312. The Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant 
        Program

    Section 312 authorizes $5 million per year for five years 
to provide grants to states for post conviction DNA testing.

Sec. 313. Incentive grants to states to ensure consideration of claims 
        of actual innocence

    This section reserves the grant funds in sections 203, 205, 
207, and 303 of this bill for States that do the following: (1) 
Make post-conviction DNA testing available to persons convicted 
of a State crime; (2) allow post conviction relief if DNA 
testing excludes the defendant; and (3) preserve biological 
evidence in relation to State criminal cases.

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


Sec. 321. Capital representation improvement grants

    Section 321 establishes a grant program to ensure effective 
representation in state capital cases. Grants under this 
section shall be used to establish, implement, or improve an 
effective system for providing competent legal representation 
in capital cases. An effective system is one in which a public 
defender program or other entity establishes qualifications for 
attorneys who may be appointed to represent indigents; 
establishes and maintains a roster of qualified attorneys and 
assigns such attorneys in cases (or provides the trial judge 
with a choice of such attorneys to assign); trains and monitors 
the performance of such attorneys; and ensures funding for the 
full cost of competent legal representation by the defense team 
and any outside experts that may be employed.
    Grants provided under this program may not be used to fund 
representation in specific cases. The Committee further intends 
that they should not be used to create or fund death penalty 
resource centers or to fund public advocacy.

Sec. 322. Capital prosecution improvement grants

    Section 322 authorizes grants to improve the representation 
of the public by prosecutors in state capital cases by 
establishing training programs for capital prosecutors; 
developing, implementing, and enforcing appropriate standards 
and qualifications for such prosecutors and assessing their 
performance; establishing 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 assisting the 
families of murder victims. Grants provided under this program 
may not be used for individual cases. The Committee further 
intends that they should not be used to fund public advocacy.

Sec. 323. Applications

    Section 323 requires States applying for grants under this 
subtitle, to provide a long-term strategy and detailed 
implementation plan that reflects consultation with the 
judiciary, the organized bar, and State and local prosecutor 
and defender organizations. It further establishes as a 
priority improvement in the quality of trial-level 
representation of indigents charged with capital crimes and 
trial-level prosecution of capital crimes in order 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.

Sec. 324. State reports

    Section 324 requires states receiving funds under this 
subtitle to provide an annual report to the Attorney General 
explaining the activities funded under the grant and their 
relationship to the grant program.

Sec. 325. Evaluations by Inspector General and administrative remedies

    Section 325 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.

Sec. 326. Authorization of appropriations

    Section 326 authorizes $100 million per year for five years 
to provide grants under this subsection.

         Subtitle C--Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted


Sec. 331. Increased compensation in federal cases for the wrongfully 
        convicted

    Section 331 increases the maximum amount of damages an 
individual may be awarded for being wrongfully imprisoned by 
the Federal Government from $5,000 to $50,000 per year in non-
capital cases and $100,000 per year in capital cases.

Sec. 332. Sense of Congress regarding compensation in State death 
        penalty cases

    Section 332 states that it is the sense of Congress that 
States should provide reasonable compensation to any person 
found to have been unjustly convicted of an offense against the 
State and sentenced to death.

         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 italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

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; and
                  (B) other persons whose DNA samples are 
                collected under applicable legal authorities, 
                provided that DNA profiles from 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 2003, have been accredited by a nonprofit 
                professional association of persons actively 
                involved in forensic science that is nationally 
                recognized within the forensic science 
                community; and
                  (B) undergo external audits, not less than 
                once every 2 years, that demonstrate compliance 
                with standards established by the Director of 
                the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (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 keyboard search.
          (2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
        term ``keyboard search'' means a search under which 
        information held by a person is compared with 
        information in the index without resulting in the 
        information held by the person 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))).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                      PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Chap.                                                               Sec.
201.  General provisions..........................................  3001
     * * * * * * *
3600 Post-conviction DNA testing................................

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        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, except for a felony 
offense under chapter 109A, 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 2003; or
                  (B) was previously subjected to DNA testing 
                and the applicant is requesting DNA testing 
                using a new method or technology that is 
                substantially more probative than the prior DNA 
                testing;
          (4) the specific evidence to be tested is in the 
        possession of the Government and has been subject to a 
        chain of custody and retained under conditions 
        sufficient to ensure that such evidence has not been 
        substituted, contaminated, tampered with, replaced, or 
        altered in any respect material to the proposed DNA 
        testing;
          (5) the proposed DNA testing is reasonable in scope, 
        uses scientifically sound methods, and is consistent 
        with accepted forensic practices;
          (6) the applicant identifies a theory of defense 
        that--
                  (A) is not inconsistent with an affirmative 
                defense presented at trial; and
                  (B) would establish the actual innocence of 
                the applicant of the Federal or State offense 
                referenced in the applicant's assertion under 
                paragraph (1);
          (7) if the applicant was convicted following a trial, 
        the identity of the perpetrator was at issue in the 
        trial;
          (8) the proposed DNA testing of the specific 
        evidence--
                  (A) would produce new material evidence to 
                support the theory of defense referenced in 
                paragraph (6); and
                  (B) assuming the DNA test result excludes the 
                applicant, would raise a reasonable probability 
                that the applicant did not commit the offense;
          (9) the applicant certifies that the applicant will 
        provide a DNA sample for purposes of comparison; and
          (10) the applicant's motion is filed for the purpose 
        of demonstrating the applicant's actual innocence of 
        the Federal or State offense, and not to delay the 
        execution of the sentence or the administration of 
        justice.
  (b) Notice to the Government; Preservation Order; Appointment 
of Counsel.--
          (1) Notice.--Upon the receipt of a motion filed under 
        subsection (a), the court shall--
                  (A) notify the Government; and
                  (B) allow the Government a reasonable time 
                period to respond to the motion.
          (2) Preservation order.--To the extent necessary to 
        carry out proceedings under this section, the court 
        shall direct the Government to preserve the specific 
        evidence relating to a motion under subsection (a).
          (3) Appointment of counsel.--The court may appoint 
        counsel for an indigent applicant under this section in 
        the same manner as in a proceeding under section 
        3006A(a)(2)(B).
  (c) Testing Procedures.--
          (1) In general.--The court shall direct that any DNA 
        testing ordered under this section be carried out by 
        the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
          (2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
        court may order DNA testing by another qualified 
        laboratory if the court makes all necessary orders to 
        ensure the integrity of the specific evidence and the 
        reliability of the testing process and test results.
          (3) Costs.--The costs of any DNA testing ordered 
        under this section shall be paid--
                  (A) by the applicant; or
                  (B) in the case of an applicant who is 
                indigent, by the Government.
  (d) Time Limitation in Capital Cases.--In any case in which 
the applicant is sentenced to death--
          (1) any DNA testing ordered under this section shall 
        be completed not later than 60 days after the date on 
        which the Government responds to the motion filed under 
        subsection (a); and
          (2) not later than 120 days after the date on which 
        the DNA testing ordered under this section is 
        completed, the court shall order any post-testing 
        procedures under subsection (f) or (g), as appropriate.
  (e) Reporting of Test Results.--
          (1) In general.--The results of any DNA testing 
        ordered under this section shall be simultaneously 
        disclosed to the court, the applicant, and the 
        Government.
          (2) NDIS.--The Government shall submit any test 
        results relating to the DNA of the applicant to the 
        National DNA Index System (referred to in this 
        subsection as ``NDIS'').
          (3) Retention of dna sample.--
                  (A) Entry into ndis.--If the DNA test results 
                obtained under this section are inconclusive or 
                show that the applicant was the source of the 
                DNA evidence, the DNA sample of the applicant 
                may be retained in NDIS.
                  (B) Match with other offense.--If the DNA 
                test results obtained under this section 
                exclude the applicant as the source of the DNA 
                evidence, and a comparison of the DNA sample of 
                the applicant results in a match between the 
                DNA sample of the applicant and another 
                offense, the Attorney General shall notify the 
                appropriate agency and preserve the DNA sample 
                of the applicant.
                  (C) No match.--If the DNA test results 
                obtained under this section exclude the 
                applicant as the source of the DNA evidence, 
                and a comparison of the DNA sample of the 
                applicant does not result in a match between 
                the DNA sample of the applicant and another 
                offense, the Attorney General shall destroy the 
                DNA sample of the applicant and ensure that 
                such information is not retained in NDIS if 
                there is no other legal authority to retain the 
                DNA sample of the applicant in NDIS.
  (f) Post-Testing Procedures; Inconclusive and Inculpatory 
Results.--
          (1) Inconclusive results.--If DNA test results 
        obtained under this section are inconclusive, the court 
        may order further testing, if appropriate, or may deny 
        the applicant relief.
          (2) Inculpatory results.--If DNA test results 
        obtained under this section show that the applicant was 
        the source of the DNA evidence, the court shall--
                  (A) deny the applicant relief; and
                  (B) on motion of the Government--
                          (i) make a determination whether the 
                        applicant's assertion of actual 
                        innocence was false, and, if the court 
                        makes such a finding, the court may 
                        hold the applicant in contempt;
                          (ii) assess against the applicant the 
                        cost of any DNA testing carried out 
                        under this section;
                          (iii) forward the finding to the 
                        Director of the Bureau of Prisons, who, 
                        upon receipt of such a finding, may 
                        deny, wholly or in part, the good 
                        conduct credit authorized under section 
                        3632 on the basis of that finding;
                          (iv) if the applicant is subject to 
                        the jurisdiction of the United States 
                        Parole Commission, forward the finding 
                        to the Commission so that the 
                        Commission may deny parole on the basis 
                        of that finding; and
                          (v) if the DNA test results relate to 
                        a State offense, forward the finding to 
                        any appropriate State official.
          (3) Sentence.--In any prosecution of an applicant 
        under chapter 79 for false assertions or other conduct 
        in proceedings under this section, the court, upon 
        conviction of the applicant, shall sentence the 
        applicant to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 
        years, which shall run consecutively to any other term 
        of imprisonment the applicant is serving.
  (g) Post-Testing Procedures; Motion for New Trial or 
Resentencing.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any law that would 
        bar a motion under this paragraph as untimely, if DNA 
        test results obtained under this section exclude the 
        applicant as the source of the DNA evidence, the 
        applicant may file a motion for a new trial or 
        resentencing, as appropriate. The court shall establish 
        a reasonable schedule for the applicant to file such a 
        motion and for the Government to respond to the motion.
          (2) Standard for granting motion for new trial or 
        resentencing.--The court shall grant the motion of the 
        applicant for a new trial or resentencing, as 
        appropriate, if the DNA test results, when considered 
        with all other evidence in the case (regardless of 
        whether such evidence was introduced at trial), 
        establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a new 
        trial would result in an acquittal of--
                  (A) in the case of a motion for a new trial, 
                the Federal offense for which the applicant is 
                under a sentence of imprisonment or death; and
                  (B) in the case of a motion for resentencing, 
                another Federal or State offense, if--
                          (i) such offense was legally 
                        necessary to make the applicant 
                        eligible for a sentence as a career 
                        offender under section 3559(e) or an 
                        armed career offender under section 
                        924(e), and exoneration of such offense 
                        would entitle the applicant to a 
                        reduced sentence; or
                          (ii) evidence of such offense was 
                        admitted during a Federal death 
                        sentencing hearing and exoneration of 
                        such offense would entitle the 
                        applicant to a reduced sentence or a 
                        new sentencing proceeding.
  (h) Other Laws Unaffected.--
          (1) Post-conviction relief.--Nothing in this section 
        shall affect the circumstances under which a person may 
        obtain DNA testing or post-conviction relief under any 
        other law.
          (2) Habeas corpus.--Nothing in this section shall 
        provide a basis for relief in any Federal habeas corpus 
        proceeding.
          (3) Application not a motion.--An application under 
        this section shall not be considered to be a motion 
        under section 2255 for purposes of determining whether 
        the application or any other motion is a second or 
        successive motion under section 2255.

Sec. 3600A. Preservation of biological evidence

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


         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).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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, or 
        coroner's office 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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (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, or coroner's office; and
          (2) has not been subjected to all appropriate 
        forensic testing because of a lack of resources or 
        personnel.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


              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.

                    Committee Jurisdictional Letters

                       Committee on Armed Services,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                  Washington, DC, October 15, 2003.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee,
Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: I am writing to you concerning 
the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Armed Services 
in matters being considered in H.R. 3214, Advancing Justice 
through the DNA Technology Act of 2003. Section 103(c) of H.R. 
3214, as ordered reported by your committee amends section 1565 
of title 10, United States Code. This amendment to title 10, 
United States Code, addresses military criminal offenses, and 
thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
    Under current law, a DNA sample must be collected from each 
member of the armed forces who is or has been convicted of a 
qualifying military offense (QMO). At the present time, the 
Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Attorney General 
determines those felony and sexual offenses under the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that are to be treated as 
qualifying military offense. In making that determination, 
``comparable'' federal offenses are considered as qualifying 
military offenses under the UCMJ.
    The amendment made by your committee in section 103 of H.R. 
3214 would expand the Department of Defense qualifying military 
offense list by requiring the Department to include all 
offenses with maximum confinement over a year without regard to 
comparability with a federal QMO. I have reviewed the provision 
as ordered reported by your committee on October 8, 2003 and 
find it acceptable.
    I recognize the importance of H.R. 3214 and the need for 
this legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, at this time 
I will waive further consideration of this provision by the 
Committee on Armed Services. However, the Committee on Armed 
Services asks that you support our request to be conferees on 
the provision over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference. Additionally, I request that you include 
this letter as part of your committee's report on H.R. 3214.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
    With best wishes.
            Sincerely,
                                             Duncan Hunter,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                  Washington, DC, October 15, 2003.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Hunter: This letter responds to your letter 
concerning H.R. 3214, the ``Advancing Justice through DNA 
Technology Act of 2001.''
    I agree that the bill contains matters within the Armed 
Services Committee's jurisdiction and appreciate your 
willingness to be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 
3214 so we may proceed to the floor. I acknowledge that by 
being discharged, your committee in no way waives its 
jurisdiction over these matters. I will also support your 
request for conferees on the parts of the bill over which the 
Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction should this matter 
go to conference.
    Pursuant to your request, a copy of your letter and this 
letter will be included in the Committee on the Judiciary's 
report on H.R. 3214 and in the Congressional Record during 
House floor consideration of the bill. I appreciate your 
attention to this matter.
            Sincerely,
                               F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
                                                          Chairman.

                           Markup Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A 
working quorum is present.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill H.R. 3214, the 
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003 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 five minutes to explain the bill.
    Through my years in Congress on the Judiciary and Science 
Committees I have seen the potential for DNA testing to improve 
our criminal justice system. DNA can identify criminals with 
pinpoint accuracy. It can clear suspects and exonerate persons 
mistakenly convicted of crime. DNA technology ensures accuracy 
and fairness in the criminal justice system. However, if DNA 
samples are not tested that potential is wasted. Sadly, the 
reality is that many samples are not being tested. To have this 
tool available and not to fully use it is tragic. Many crimes 
could be solved, many guilty people could be taken off the 
streets, and many victims could be spared from future crimes.
    The current Federal and State DNA collection and analysis 
systems need improvement. Public crime labs are overwhelmed by 
backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples that could solve violent 
crimes if the States had the funds to process them. Experts 
have estimated that DNA evidence from more than 180,000 rape 
crime scenes have been collected but never analyzed.
    In addition, many of the labs are ill-equipped. Backlogs 
and the lack of equipment significantly delay the 
administration of justice. Faster methods for analyzing DNA 
evidence are needed. Criminal justice professionals need 
additional training and assistance to ensure the optimal use of 
DNA evidence. In appropriate circumstances, individuals who may 
have been wrongly convicted need the means to get DNA tests.
    This bill, which 31 members of this Committee have co-
sponsored will help fix these problems. This bipartisan, 
bicameral legislation authorizes $755 million over five years 
to eliminate the current backlog of rape kits and other crime 
scene evidence awaiting DNA analysis in crime labs. It 
authorizes funding for training for law enforcement, 
correctional, court, and medical personnel on the use of DNA 
evidence. The bill funds research to improve forensic 
technology and authorizes $10 million per year in grants to 
States, local governments and tribal governments to eliminate 
forensic backlogs.
    It also authorizes funding for the use of forensic DNA 
technology to identify missing persons and unidentified human 
remains. Most of these provisions are part of the President's 
DNA initiative.
    H.R. 3214 also addresses those who may wrongly be 
convicted. The Innocents Protection Act provisions of H.R. 
3214, which are also the result of bipartisan and bicameral 
negotiations, will ensure that our justice system is working. 
They establish rules for post-conviction DNA testing of Federal 
prison inmates and require the preservation of biological 
evidence in Federal criminal cases while the defendant remains 
incarcerated. The Innocents Protection Act provisions authorize 
funding to help States provide competent legal services for 
both the prosecution and defense in capital cases, and they 
provide funds for post-conviction DNA testing.
    Additionally, the provisions provide bonus grants to States 
that adopt adequate procedures for providing post-conviction 
DNA testing and preserving biological evidence.
    I also wish to note that I will be offering a manager's 
amendment which has been worked out on both sides of the aisle 
in both Houses which I will describe when I offer it. I am 
pleased that so many of my colleagues on this Committee have 
recognized the benefits of this legislation and are co-
sponsors, and I urge the Committee to pass the manager's 
amendment and to pass the bill.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is the ranking 
member on the subcommittee. Do you have an opening statement?


    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the reasons you 
have outlined, and to help convict the guilty and exonerate the 
innocent, I would hope we would pass the bill. I will yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Delahunt. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I will 
be very brief.
    I just want to note that this particular proposal before us 
is really the culmination of many months, actually years now, 
of discussion, negotiations, as the Chairman indicated, on a 
bipartisan, bicameral basis. I particularly want to acknowledge 
the efforts of Chairman Coble, my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Green, Mr. Weiner. Also I want to acknowledge the ranking 
member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, for allowing me to 
represent the minority in those discussions.
    But it would be remiss if I did not note the efforts, and 
time and patience of the staff on both sides, particularly on 
our side my own legislative director. I am looking for him now. 
I do not see him here--but Mark Agrast. And in terms of the 
majority side, the chief of staff, chief counsel, et cetera, 
Phil Kiko, is an extraordinary example of what can happen when 
folks sit down with good intentions to come up with a product 
that I believe we can all be extremely proud of and look back 
upon as one of the best efforts that this Committee has put 
forth.
    Again, I would be remiss not to acknowledge that we clearly 
would not have this bill before us today without the leadership 
of Jim Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I believe that anyone 
interested in the integrity of the justice system of the United 
States owes you a debt of gratitude. With that I will yield 
back.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I would like 
to ask unanimous consent that my full statement be inserted in 
the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection. And without 
objection, all members, opening statements will be placed in 
the record, as well as any extraneous material. Hearing none, 
so ordered.

                  Statement of Hon. John Conyers, Jr.

    I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Representative Delahunt and 
Members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in developing 
this bipartisan, bicameral compromise. H.R. 3214 takes the first of 
hopefully many steps towards improving the integrity of our criminal 
justice system.
    First and foremost, the bill provides federal inmates with access 
to DNA testing, thereby enabling them to establish their innocence 
after being subjected to a wrongful conviction. As many of you know, 
over the past few years, more than 110 innocent Americans have already 
been exonerated thanks to post-conviction DNA testing. This provision 
will ensure that others wrongfully convicted will also have an equal 
chance at obtaining justice.
    Second, the bill authorizes grants to be awarded to States with the 
express purpose of improving the quality of legal representation 
afforded indigent defendants in capital cases. Experts have indicated 
that many of the most egregious cases in which an innocent person was 
wrongfully convicted involved attorneys who were incompetent, ill-
trained or simply ineffective. These grants will dramatically alter 
this situation by providing defendants with defense counsel that meet a 
minimum standard of competency.
    Finally, the bill contains a provision--not often mentioned--but of 
extreme importance to those that have been subjected to a wrongful 
conviction. I'm speaking of the provision in the bill that increases 
the maximum amount of damages an individual may be awarded for being 
wrongfully imprisoned from $5,000 to $50,000 per year in non-capital 
cases and up to $100,000 per year in capital cases.
    Having pointed out the many virtues of the bill, I must admit this 
bill remains far from perfect. I would prefer the legislation 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 worthy 
initiative, so that we can move this legislation to the House floor for 
its ultimate passage.
                                 ______
                                 

                     Statement of Hon. Lamar Smith

    I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 3214, the ``Advancing Justice 
Through DNA Technology Act of 2003.''
    In recent years, we have seen the vital role that DNA testing can 
play in criminal justice. DNA offers us more certainty in convicting 
the guilty and acquitting the innocent.
    This bill would increase the availability of DNA testing both in 
the state and federal criminal justice systems. It would also help 
crime labs reduce the backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples, and provide 
enhancements in the way that DNA data is shared in the law enforcement 
community.
    This Committee has worked for several years on passing a bill that 
would improve the use of DNA technology in the criminal justice system. 
I was a part of those negotiations during the last Congress and am 
pleased that we have a bill that many of us can support.
                                 ______
                                 

                    Statement of Hon. Jerrold Nadler

    Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation, and this 
amendment.
    I want particularly to congratulate Mr. Delahunt who first 
introduced the Innocence Protection Act several years ago, and has 
worked tirelessly on this matter ever since. I want to thank the 
Chairman and the Members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle 
for working together to put politics and sound bites aside and to pass 
meaningful legislation to fight crime and advance the cause of justice.
    I am pleased that this bill includes the modified Innocence 
Protection Act that aims to reduce the possibility that innocent people 
will be put to death. I understand this is a delicate compromise, but I 
must say that this bill is only a first step, not a final step, in our 
efforts to reform our nation's capital punishment laws. These laws are 
broken and major reform and full funding of this legislation is 
necessary to prevent the innocent from being wrongfully convicted and 
executed.
    It is imperative that we eliminate the shameful backlog of untested 
rape kits, and this bill will go a long way towards that goal. On the 
issue of rape kits, again, let me say, ``It's about time.'' Many 
Members have been personally involved in the fight to test rape kits 
for the past 19 months. I have worked with NOW, RAINN, and Lifetime 
Television to raise awareness of this issue and to build consensus for 
decisive action. Together, we have pushed, prodded, and demanded that 
federal funding be provided to test these kits right away. Today, we 
are one step closer to our goal.
    But we are not there yet. These programs will need to be funded, 
and I am hopeful that the members of this Committee who support this 
bill now, will join me in asking that the bill be fully funded by the 
Appropriations Committee.
    It is too important an issue to ignore. Police Departments must 
have the resources they need to solve crimes and put criminals behind 
bars.
    I am pleased that this bill includes a provision similar to the 
``Rape Kit DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act'' which I introduced 
back in March of 2002, which would have provided $250 million to 
eliminate the rape kit backlog two years ago. The bill before us today 
acknowledges that we were right back then when we requested major 
increases in funding, since this bill offers even more funding for this 
task. In addition, I am pleased to see that the phrase ``rape kits'' 
has been specifically added to our current law to further underscore 
the need for this funding to address rape crimes in particular. These 
heinous crimes deserve our full attention and the victims of these 
crimes deserve the certainty that DNA evidence can bring to them.
    Once again, I am pleased to support this bill because it represents 
a serious effort to combat crime, locate and apprehend rapists, and use 
powerful evidence to put them in prison.
    I am for unanimous consent to insert extraneous material into the 
record.
                                 ______
                                 

  Timeline of Actions Taken by Representative Nadler To Promote This 
                              Legislation

    In February of 2002, Representative Nadler fought for an amendment 
that was adopted to the Judiciary Committee's Budget Views and 
Estimates that put the Committee on the record of fully supporting 
funding to eliminate the backlog of DNA evidence that have not yet been 
analyzed.
    In March of 2002, Nadler introduced the Rape Kit DNA Analysis 
Backlog Elimination Act, which would provide $250 million in funding to 
eliminate the backlog of rape kits that have not been analyzed by 
police departments nationwide. The announcement was made at a Capitol 
Hill press conference, where the Congressman was joined by Kim Gandy, 
President of the National Organization for Women and Scott Berkowitz of 
the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.
    In April of 2002, shortly after Representative Nadler introduced 
the legislation in the House, Senator Hillary Clinton introduced the 
Senate version of the bill and the bill earned the endorsement of the 
New York Times and Lifetime television.
    In May of 2002, with pressure mounting for action to be taken, the 
Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Crime and Drugs, Senator 
Biden, held hearings on DNA evidence and rape kits. The House, which 
was still controlled by the Republicans, did not hold hearings on the 
rape kit issue. Senator Biden then pushed comprehensive sexual assault 
legislation forward, and he was able to get the bill to pass the Senate 
by unanimous consent in September.
    Representative Nadler immediately seized the opportunity to urge 
Majority Leader Armey to bring up the Senate passed bill for 
consideration in the House. He organized a dear colleague letter to the 
entire House urging them to join him in pushing for the bill and got 
more than 20 Members of Congress to sign on to his letter to Armey. 
Armey never acted on the legislation. Congress failed to act before the 
end of 2002.
    In 2003, with Republican majorities in both the House and the 
Senate, Representative Nadler joined forces with his House colleagues 
to push for a bipartisan solution to the problem. In March, 
Representative Nadler was an original cosponsor of H.R. 1046, ``To 
assess the extent of the backlog in DNA analysis of rape kit samples, 
and to improve investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases 
with DNA evidence,'' which was similar to the Biden bill passed by the 
Senate the year before. In October, Representative Nadler joined his 
colleagues to introduce the latest version of the bill, which has the 
greatest chance of becoming law.
    ``This issue is too important not to pursue, because everyone knows 
that DNA evidence is essential to solving crimes. It can lead to 
punishment of the guilty and the freeing of the innocent. We must 
commit the necessary resources to empower law enforcement to analyze 
all of the DNA evidence they collect, so that they can solve cases and 
bring justice to American families,'' concluded Representative Nadler.
                                 ______
                                 

                  Statement of Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee

    Mr. Chairman and Ranking member, I do support of H.R. 3214, 
``Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act,'' of which I am a co-
sponsor. We of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security had the opportunity to examine this 
bill in an Oversight Hearing in July of this year. As I expressed at 
that time, once this technological tool is improved as to the areas 
that I discuss below, it will play such a key role in streamlining and 
expediting our criminal justice system. As evidenced by the testimony 
given at the oversight hearing, our law enforcement agencies are 
becoming increasingly more adept at analyzing deoxyribonucleic acid 
(DNA) to verify or rule out the identity of a suspect or a charged 
individual in processing a criminal case. The more adept we become, the 
closer we get to having a fair and accurate system. We must, however, 
significantly raise the bar of our standards of review for DNA and 
ballistics crime lab accreditation.
                        crime lab accreditation
    The certification of our crime labs for conformance to our accepted 
standards is done by groups such as the American Society of Crime 
Laboratory Directors (ASCLD). The Crime Laboratory Accreditation 
Program of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/
Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) is a voluntary program in 
which any crime laboratory may participate to demonstrate that its 
management, operations, personnel, procedures, equipment, physical 
plant, security, and personnel safety procedures meet established 
standards. The accreditation process is part of a laboratory's quality 
assurance program that should also include proficiency testing, 
continuing education and other programs to help the laboratory give 
better overall service to the criminal justice system. Certification 
and accreditation are done via a process of self-evaluation led by 
individual crime laboratory directors. Our labs are not functioning at 
optimum levels, and this sub-par performance translates to the 
potential miscarriage of justice and prosecution of innocent people. 
Improvement of lab performance begins with tighter employment policies 
for the lab staff. For example, the ASCLD's Credential Review Committee 
has a DNA Advisory Board and codified standards for its technical 
staff. The following was taken from its website:
    ``DNA Advisory Board Standard 5.2.1.1 provides a mechanism for 
waiving the educational requirements for current technical leaders/
technical managers who do not meet the degree requirements of section 
5.2.1 but who otherwise qualify based on knowledge and experience. 
Consequently ASCLD has established this procedure for obtaining a 
waiver.
    ``One waiver is available per laboratory if the current technical 
leader/technical manager does not meet the degree requirements of DAB 
Standard 5.2.1. Waivers are available only to current technical 
leaders/technical managers. Waivers are permanent and portable for the 
recipient individual. A laboratory may request a second waiver if the 
first recipient leaves the employ of the laboratory.''
    Although experience is quite important in selecting staff, formal 
education is vital when it comes to technical performance and the legal 
implications of that performance. We are in desperate need of 
appropriate legislation to set forth and maintain the standards of DNA/
ballistics lab accreditation.
                 texas law and crime lab accreditation
    In 2001, Texas passed a law formalizing a process for post-
conviction access to DNA testing. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 
however, has not applied the law as it was designed to work and has 
denied access to testing in a number of cases. The version of this bill 
that passed is HB 1011 by Scott Hochberg (D-Houston).
    The Texas House passed a bill in April of this year requiring crime 
laboratories that test DNA to meet accreditation standards, a law 
designed to prevent future scandals like the one that recently plagued 
the Houston Police Department. State Rep. Kevin Bailey and other 
members of the House Committee on General Investigating wrote State HB 
2703, which will require the Department of Public Safety to develop 
accreditation standards and a timetable for police labs to meet them. 
It will also ban the use of forensic evidence from unaccredited 
laboratories. Our work ethic in establishing and maintaining high 
standards of performance in the labs must be as technical and tenacious 
as we would like the overall performance.
    In Texas, polls have shown strong public support for DNA testing. 
In June a 2000 Scripps-Howard Texas Poll, 87 percent of Texans surveyed 
supported giving inmates the right to free DNA testing to try to prove 
their innocence if the genetic evidence exists,and 76 percent supported 
a moratorium on death sentences for inmates whose cases might be 
affected by DNA testing. Ninety-two percent of Americans surveyed for a 
March 2000 Gallup Poll said that prisoners convicted before the 
availability of DNA tests should be allowed to obtain the tests now if 
they were innocent.
    However, oftentimes the hoopla of new technology causes our work 
ethic and our sense of duty to fall by the wayside to the detriment of 
innocent individuals. In fact, one of the panelists featured in today's 
Oversight Hearing, Peter Neufeld, Esquire of Innocent Project at the 
Cardozo School of Law, spoke out regarding the case of Josiah Sutton in 
my Houston District, Harris County. The Houston Court convicted Sutton 
in 1998 for the rape of a woman whose body was dumped in a Fort Bend 
County field. But the Court eventually granted him bail in March after 
an independent lab determined that he was sentenced to 25 years in 
prison for a rape he didn't commit. An audit and an ongoing series of 
retesting of DNA samples by the Texas Department of Public Safety and a 
crime lab professional from Tarrant County revealed potential 
contamination problems at the subject lab as well as poor working 
conditions and inadequate training. Attorney Neufeld remarked that 
``[t]he most important question for the people of Houston and the 
people of Texas is, `What went wrong that allowed this young man to be 
convicted for a crime he didn't commit? And it is absolutely clear that 
what you have going on is a system of malpractice by the Houston crime 
laboratory that allows its criminalists to distort and conceal 
evidence.' '' What I fear about the dangers of poor training and 
placement of checks may be summed up by what Neufeld added, ``One of 
the biggest problems of * * * [crime labs] is that they [are] much more 
concerned with being a servant to the police and prosecutors than they 
[are] to science * * * [a]nd if people want to pursue a career in 
science, the word science has to come before law enforcement.'' The 
objectivity that is required to make forensic science effective must be 
divorced from the latitude exercised by some of our law enforcement 
personnel. Therefore, in fashioning and considering a bill that 
proposes the implementation of a comprehensive and aggressive DNA 
forensic criminal justice plan, we must includeadequate control 
mechanisms to prevent injustice and the ruination of young lives like 
the young Houston man, Josiah Sutton.
    Furthermore, other problems with DNA testing in criminal cases 
affect the inmate directly. The discretion with which the decision 
whether to use DNA testing leaves room for inconsistent adjudication 
and differential treatment of convicted persons. Statutory guidelines 
regarding when to order the test would exclude some cases that might 
not meet the standards but still might deserve testing. Moreover, some 
inmates who seek exoneration may request executive clemency. In 
addition to requiring very difficult measures to achieve justice, some 
argue that the tests administered are inadequate because they do not 
provide specific, clear, and fair procedures for inmates to bring claim 
of innocence.
    In addition to negligent handling or unskilled analysis of DNA 
evidence, the backlog of cases causes our criminal justice system to 
crumble despite the level of sophistication of our technology. Houston 
police have turned over about 525 case files involving DNA testing to 
the Harris County district attorney's office, which has said that at 
least 25 cases warrant re-testing, including those of seven people on 
Death Row. The numbers will grow significantly as more files are 
collected and analyzed, according to the assistant district attorney 
supervising the project.
    The Fort Worth police crime lab's serology/DNA unit has been 
criticized recently for a backlog that was slowing down court cases. 
The unit's performance suffers from understaffing and overworking.
    I commend the Committee on its work to include the important 
provisions of the Innocence Protection Act of 2003 in Title III of this 
bill. It will protect the rights of an incarcerated defendant who 
maintains his/her innocence. This provision is extremely important in 
terms of preserving individual's due process rights.
    Overall, my concern as to the prospect of using these DNA tests is 
that the inmates' civil liberties and rights to due process will be in 
jeopardy or subject to excessive law enforcement and judicial 
discretion. Furthermore, our own human error threatens to undermine the 
boons of technology. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I advocate the 
use of DNA tests in criminal procedure; however, the use of these tests 
must achieve justice for all. I do support H.R. 3214.

                  Opening Statement of Hon. Steve King

    Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you and your staff for the 
work you have done to negotiate a bipartisan compromise in the 
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, H.R. 3214. I am 
pleased to be able to cosponsor this legislation.
    As a State Senator in Iowa, I helped to improve Iowa's DNA data 
collection and database capability. I firmly believe that the use of 
technology and information sharing in this legislation will help us 
find criminals and bring them to justice. Science can also exonerate 
the innocent once and for all. Every criminal that is taken off the 
street as a result of DNA evidence will make our communities safer. 
Crime imposes significant personal, emotional and financial costs on 
victims. We must do all we can to give law enforcement the tools they 
need to solve these crimes and bring criminals to justice. I believe 
the information sharing encouraged by H.R. 3214 will help law 
enforcement to track down serial criminals. We must all work together 
to fight crime and secure justice for victims.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                   Statement of Hon. Linda T. Sanchez

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member for convening this 
markup today and for your collaborative efforts, as well as the efforts 
of Mr. Delahunt, to bring this important legislation before the 
Committee.
    We cannot overstate the importance of improving the use of DNA 
technology in our criminal justice system. High rates of crime continue 
to be a problem nationally, as well as in my district of Southeast Los 
Angeles County. While we all want to see a national reduction in crime, 
it doesn't help if the wrong person is convicted and jailed. DNA 
technology is crucial to ensuring that criminal cases are processed 
accurately, and that innocent citizens are not prosecuted and 
incarcerated for crimes they did not commit.
    This is particularly true in capital cases where there continues to 
be debate on how fairly our capital punishment system is applied. In 
September of 2000, the Department of Justice reported that African 
Americans, Hispanics and other minorities were considered for the 
federal death penalty more often than whites. At the time of the study, 
of 682 defendants charged with federal capital offenses between 1995 
and 2000, 80 percent were minorities and 20 percent were white. During 
the same period of time, 20 federal defendants were sentenced to death, 
of which again, 80 percent were minorities and 20 percent were white.
    This bill is an important first step in improving the accuracy and 
reliability of our criminal justice system, and reducing the impact of 
racial bias, unreliable witnesses, or poor legal representation that 
cause innocent people to be convicted. DNA evidence has been used over 
100 times to exonerate innocent Americans wrongly accused of crimes, 
and will no doubt be used to exonerate many more.
    Once again, I than the Chairman, Ranking Member, and Mr. Delahunt, 
for their efforts to introduce the very important bill that will make 
significant improvements to our criminal justice system.
                                 ______
                                 

                 [For Immediate Release, Oct. 8, 2003]

    Washington, DC.--Today, The National Center for Victims of Crime, 
The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), and Lifetime 
Television released the following statement on the mark-up of H.R. 
3214, ``The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003,'' in 
the House Judiciary Committee: ``For more than a year, we have been 
working together, along with rape survivor Debbie Smith, to raise 
awareness about the staggering number of rape kits in this country 
waiting to be tested. We are honored to stand with you as you work to 
pass this critical legislation that will provide $1 billion in funding 
to eliminate the DNA backlog and significantly improve the collection 
and processing of DNA evidence, bringing relief to countless victims of 
sexual assault and putting more rapists behind bars where they belong. 
On behalf of our organizations, our members and on behalf of the nearly 
100,000 Lifetime Television viewers who have signed an online petition 
in support of this legislation, we commend you for your commitment to 
this new bill and urge swift passage.''
    The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network is the nation's largest 
anti-sexual assault organization, RAINN operates the National Sexual 
Assault Hotline. At 1.800.656.HOPE, the hotline has helped more than 
half a million victims of sexual assault since 1994. RAINN also carries 
out extensive education and outreach programs to ensure that more than 
100 million Americans each year receive vital information about sexual 
assault prevention, prosecution and recovery. After researching the 
nation's 819,000 charities, Worth Magazine selected RAINN as one of 
``America's 100 Best Charities.'' Additional information is at 
www.rainn.org.
    The National Center is the nation's leading resource and advocacy 
organization for victims of crime. Since its founding in 1985, the 
National Center has worked with local, state, and federal organizations 
and agencies across the country, and provided information, support, and 
assistance to hundreds of thousands of victims, victim service 
providers, allied professionals, and advocates. The National Center's 
toll-free helpline, 1-800-FYI-CALL, offers supportive counseling, 
practical information about crime and victimization, referrals to local 
community resources, as well as skilled advocacy in the criminal 
justice and social service systems.
    LIFETIME is the leader in women's television and has been the #1 
cable television network in primetime for the last two years. LIFETIME 
is committed to offering the highest quality entertainment and 
information programming, and advocating a wide range of issues 
affecting women and their families. Launched in 1984, LIFETIME serves 
over 86 million households nationwide. In 1998 LIFETIME launched a 24-
hour sister service, the Lifetime Movie Network, now in 37 million 
homes, and a second sister service, Lifetime Real Women, launched in 
August 2001. On the web, Lifetime Online (www.lifetimetv.com) features 
informational resources and interactive entertainment. Lifetime 
magazine, a new women's lifestyle title, launched in April 2003. 
LIFETIME Television, Lifetime Movie Network, Lifetime Real Women and 
Lifetime Online, are part of LIFETIME Entertainment Services, a 50/50 
joint venture of The Hearst Corporation and The Walt Disney Company, as 
is Lifetime magazine.

    Mr. Scott. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair has a manager's amendment 
at the desk and the clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3214 offered by Chairman 
Sensenbrenner.

          Amendment to H.R. 3214 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Page 8, line 14, strike ``areas where'' and insert ``jurisdictions in 
which''.
  Page 8, lines 21-22, strike ``part I violent crimes'' and insert 
``part 1 violent crimes''.
  Page 11, line 10, strike ``are participating'' and insert 
``participates''.
  Page 11, line 11, insert a comma after ``System''.
  Page 12, line 7, strike the comma.
  Page 12, lines 7-8, strike ``in order to demonstrate compliance'' and 
insert ``to determine whether the laboratory is in compliance''.
  Page 14, line 8, insert another close parentheses after ``(d))''.
  Page 14, after line 8, insert the following:
  (d) Keyboard Searches.--Section 210304 of the DNA Identification Act 
of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132), as amended by subsection (a), is further 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(e) Authority for Keyboard Searches.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Director shall ensure that any person 
        who is authorized to access the index described in subsection 
        (a) for purposes of including information on DNA identification 
        records or DNA analyses in that index may also access that 
        index for purposes of carrying out a keyboard search.
          ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term 
        `keyboard search' means a search under which information held 
        by a person is compared with information in the index without 
        resulting in the information held by the person being included 
        in the index.
          ``(3) No preemption.--This subsection shall not be construed 
        to preempt State law.''.
  Page 17, line 18, strike ``on a for-profit basis''.
  Page 17, line 25, strike ``for the collection'' and all that follows 
through ``casework'' on page 18, line 2.
  Page 18, line 11, strike the comma.
  Page 19, line 21, strike ``the''.
  Page 20, line 22, strike ``and''.
  Page 20, line 23, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
  Page 20, after line 23, insert the following:
                  (E) medical personnel, including doctors, medical 
                examiners, coroners, and nurses, involved in treating 
                victims of sexual assault; and
                  (F) victim service providers involved in treating 
                victims of sexual assault.
  Page 21, line 1, strike ``the''.
  Page 21, lines 5-6, strike ``to States and units of local 
government''.
  Page 21, line 11, strike ``conduct research through grants for'' and 
insert ``make grants to appropriate entities under which research is 
carried out through''.
  Page 24, line 12, strike ``the''.
  Page 24, line 17, strike ``the''.
  Page 25, line 12, strike ``the''.
  Page 27, strike lines 21 through 25 and insert the following:
to do any one or more of the following:
          ``(1) To carry out''; and
                  (B) by adding at the end the following:
  Page 28, line 1, insert ``To'' before ``eliminate''.
  Page 28, line 5, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
  Page 28, line 6, insert ``To'' before ``train''.
  Page 28, lines 7-8, strike ``a forensic evidence backlog'' and insert 
``such a backlog''.
  Page 28, strike lines 13-15 and insert the following:
  ``(e) Backlog Defined.--For purposes of this section, a backlog in 
the analysis of forensic science evidence exists if such evidence--
  Page 29, line 17, strike ``the''.
  Page 29, after line 24, insert the following:
  (d) Technical Amendment.--Section 1001(a) of such Act, as amended by 
subsection (c), is further amended by realigning paragraphs (24) and 
(25) so as to be flush with the left margin.
  Page 30, line 5, insert before the period at the end ``and the 
amendments made by this Act''.
  Page 32, line 3, insert ``the amendments made by'' before ``section 
210''.
  Page 32, after line 21, in the item relating to section 3600A, strike 
``Prohibition on destruction'' and insert ``Preservation''.
  Page 34, lines 20-23, realign the indentation so as to conform with 
lines 14-19.
  Page 38, line 11, strike ``CODIS'' and insert ``NDIS''.
  Page 38, line 13, strike ``Combined'' and insert ``National''.
  Page 38, line 14, strike ``CODIS'' and insert ``NDIS''.
  Page 38, line 16, strike ``codis'' and insert ``ndis''.
  Page 38, line 20, strike ``CODIS'' and insert ``NDIS''.
  Page 39, line 13, strike ``CODIS'' and insert ``NDIS''.
  Page 39, line 15, strike ``CODIS'' and insert ``NDIS''.
  Page 42, line 5, insert ``a'' before ``sentence''.
  Page 43, line 10, strike ``Prohibition on destruction'' and insert 
``Preservation''.
  Page 43, line 13, strike ``not destroy'' and insert ``preserve''.
  Page 43, line 18, strike ``means'' and all that follows through the 
end of line 21 and insert ``means--''.
  Page 44, line 1, strike ``The prohibition'' and all that follows 
through ``subsection (a)'' on line 2 and insert ``Subsection (a)''.
  Page 45, line 3, strike ``The Attorney General'' and insert ``Not 
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Innocence 
Protection Act of 2003, the Attorney General''.
  Page 45, line 14, strike the close quotation mark and period and 
insert the following:
  ``(g) Habeas Corpus.--Nothing in this section shall provide a basis 
for relief in any Federal habeas corpus proceeding.''.
  Page 45, line 25, insert ``Federal'' before ``courts''.
  Page 47, line 17, strike ``the''.
  Page 47, line 19, strike ``States'' and insert ``State Defined''.
  Page 47, line 20, strike ```States' means the States'' and insert 
```State' means a State''.
  Page 48, line 4, strike ``(a) Funding.--''.
  Page 48, line 4, strike ``the''.
  Page 48, line 6, insert ``to'' after ``grants''.
  Page 50, strike lines 12 through 17.
  Page 51, line 20, insert ``, directly or indirectly,'' after 
``fund''.
  Page 54, line 23, strike ``to--'' and insert ``for one or more of the 
following:''.
  Page 55, lines 1, 4, 7, 12, 16, and 22, capitalize the initial letter 
of the first word.
  Page 55, lines 3, 6, 11, and 15, strike the semicolon and insert a 
period.
  Page 55, lines 20-21, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
  Page 56, line 2, insert ``, directly or indirectly,'' after ``fund''.
  Page 65, line 1, strike ``the''.
  Page 65, line 7, strike ``the''.
  Page 65, line 23, strike the period after ``plaintiff'' within the 
quoted matter.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the Chair recognizes himself for five 
minutes to explain it.
    As I have already noted, this bill is the product of 
bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. The manager's amendment is 
also the product of these negotiations. The vast majority of 
this amendment is technical, clarifying, or stylistic in nature 
and I will not take the time to describe all of those changes 
now.
    However, it does include one substantive provision that has 
been worked out with the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, 
to address concerns that he has raised. This provision would 
allow a State or the Federal Government to search the national 
DNA index system for a match to any DNA sample that was 
lawfully obtained by the State. Currently, a search can be made 
only when the sample can be lawfully loaded into the NDIS. 
However, some States allow the lawful collection of a broader 
group of samples and they should be able to search for matches 
to that broader group. This amendment would not change the 
rules for loading samples into the NDIS, and when a search is 
conducted the sample will only be loaded into NDIS if it 
otherwise qualifies under the NDIS rules.
    I understand that there may still be concerns about this 
language and I will work with interested members to reach a 
consensus on it before we go to the floor. I urge the adoption 
of the manager's amendment. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this 
legislation and this amendment. I want to thank the Chairman 
and the members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle 
for working together to put politics and sound bites aside and 
to pass meaningful legislation to advance the cause of justice. 
I want particularly to congratulate Mr. Delahunt who first 
introduced the Innocents Protection Act several years ago and 
has worked tirelessly on this matter ever since.
    I am pleased that this bill includes the modified Innocents 
Protection Act that aims to reduce the possibility that 
innocent people will be put to death. I understand this is a 
delicate compromise, but I must say that this bill is only a 
first step, not a final step, in our efforts to reform our 
Nation's capital punishment laws. These laws are broken and 
major reform, and in particular, full funding of this 
legislation, is necessary to protect the innocent from being 
wrongfully convicted and executed. It is also necessary to 
watch to see how many States sign up for this since this bill 
is all carrot, not stick. Hopefully all the States will sign up 
for it.
    It is imperative, in addition, that we eliminate the 
shameful backlog of untested rape kits, and this bill will go a 
long way towards that goal. Let me say that on this issue it is 
about time. I have personally been involved in the fight to 
test rape kits for the past 19 months. Many members have worked 
with NOW, RAIN, and Lifetime Television to raise awareness of 
this issue and to build consensus for decisive action. Together 
we have pushed private and demanded that Federal funding be 
provided to test these kits right away.
    Today we are one step closer to our goal. But we are not 
there yet. These programs still need to be funded and I am 
hopeful that the members of this Committee who support this 
bill now will join in asking that the bill be fully funded by 
the Appropriations Committee. It is too important an issue to 
ignore. Police departments must have the resources they need to 
solve crimes and put criminals behind bars.
    I am pleased that this bill includes a provision similar to 
the Rape Kit DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act which I 
introduced in March of last year which would have provided $250 
million to eliminate the rape kit backlog two years ago. The 
bill before us today acknowledges that we were right back then 
when we requested major increases in funding because it 
authorizes even more funding for this task. I am pleased also 
to see that the phrase rape kits has been specifically added to 
our current law to further underscorethe need for this funding 
to address rape crimes in particular. These heinous crimes deserve our 
full attention, and the victims of these crimes deserve the certaintly 
that DNA evidence can bring to them.
    Once again, I am pleased to support this bill because it 
represents a serious effort to combat crime, locate and 
apprehend rapists, and use powerful evidence to put them in 
prison, as well as, of course, to protect the innocent. Mr. 
Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to insert the full 
statement and extraneous material into the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection. The other 
gentleman from--the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
    Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to voice 
concerns that I have about the bill. I am opposed in its 
current form. I would love to be able to vote for this. There 
are a lot of good parts of it. We certainly want those who are 
innocent to be protected, and there are a lot of things in this 
bill which it will help. But unfortunately, there are some 
things that should concern all of us. They concern the Senate 
Republicans so much that they opposed the bill last year, and 
this form from now is not much changed from that.
    Of particular concern to me is the granting or the 
authorization of $100 million in Federal funds to operate State 
programs. This is a departure from the principle of Federalism 
that we try to adhere to in this Committee and elsewhere. We 
earlier in the 1990s actually got rid of some of these capital 
resource centers. They were de-funded by Congress in 1996 
because we know that some of the hard-core death penalty 
opponents gravitate toward these jobs and it makes it far more 
difficult to move necessary cases through. We should not force 
States to turn over their capital defender systems to a new 
version of these resource centers, and that is what I fear 
happening with this bill in its current form.
    So I just wanted to raise those concerns. I know that it is 
unlikely to stop this bill but I hope that these concerns get a 
full airing as this moves through the process.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for promptly 
scheduling today's markup and I would like to take a few 
moments to put today's bill in context.
    In 1999, I took a tour of a refrigerated warehouse in Long 
Island City in New York. What I saw there I will neverforget. 
What I saw there I will never forget. In this warehouse was row after 
row of small boxes, roughly the size of shoeboxes, 16,000 in total. 
Each and every one was filled with a rape kit, which is a collection, 
as you know, of semen, hair, saliva, or any other crime scene evidence 
that could potentially identify the assailant.
    As I stood there I quickly realized this was not just 
16,000 boxes. It was not just 16,000 rape kits. It was 16,000 
people's lives. It was 16,000 women who were still living in 
doubt, not knowing if their assailant were still on the loose. 
It was 16,0000 people like Debbie Smith who were so paralyzed 
with fear that they found it difficult at times to get out of 
their car and go inside their house after work. It was 16,000 
women who were being denied justice because of a system that 
was broken.
    As anyone familiar with this issue knows, the process for 
collecting these rape kits is not a pleasant one. But it is one 
that women are willing to endure because they are willing to do 
whatever it takes to see that their rapist is brought to 
justice, and they rightfully assume that this evidence will be 
analyzed.
    But too often this evidence simply sat on a shelf. The 
primary reason this evidence was neglected was simple. It was 
money. The more I studied this issue, the more I realized that 
the New York example I witnessed was not an isolated one. 
Consequently, I introduced legislation to provide Federal 
funding to eliminate the backlog and eventually worked with 
former Crime Subcommittee chairman McCollum and other members 
of this Committee to pass the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 
Act. To date, more than $100 million has been provided under 
the 2000 law to analyze backlog DNA evidence and convicted 
offender samples. With the help of this funding more than 
470,000 offender samples have been analyzed and more than 
24,000 casework samples have also been tested.
    But this was just a first step. To really address this 
problem once and for all we needed an accurate assessment of 
how bad it was. Remarkably, in 2002, all we had was best 
guesses. Some people thought it might be as many as 180,000 
untested DNA rape kits around the country. But no one really 
knew for certain because we had never bothered to conduct a 
nationwide survey of all the Nation's law enforcement agencies.
    Further compounding the problem is that many of the 
agencies that held this evidence were reluctant to share the 
backlog with Federal authorities. That is why we included a 
provision in last year's DOJ authorization bill requiring 
Justice to conduct the first-ever nationwide survey of the 
backlog of DNA evidence. This March the preliminary results 
came back putting the backlog in early 2003 at roughly350,000 
untested rape kits and other casework samples around the country. This 
survey gave us the hard data we needed not only to justify 
reauthorizing our 2000 law but significantly expanding it. I introduced 
legislation with Representative Green to do so earlier this Congress 
and shortly thereafter the Bush Administration released its own DNA 
initiative, which took a number of the proposals in our legislation and 
built upon them.
    Today, we are marking up legislation that contains the best 
elements of these proposals. In particular, the bill would 
reauthorize the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 and triple 
the annual funding for casework to $75 million a year. It would 
provide an additional $75 million a year over the next five 
years to analyze convicted offender samples and enhance the 
capacity of labs to analyze the DNA evidence. By expanding this 
lab capacity we hopefully will drive down the price of testing 
each of these kits, making it easier to test them all.
    The bill would also allow cities to receive DNA grant 
funding directly rather than having to go through their States, 
expend the Federal DNA offender database to include all 
lawfully collected samples. It would waive the statute of 
limitation in cases involving DNA identification. When I stood 
in that warehouse looking at the 16,000 samples in 1999, it was 
within 12 months after 4,000 of them would have reached the 
statute of limitation rendering the information therein moot.
    It would provide $30 million a year for five years to 
support sexual assault nurse examiner programs. These are 
programs which train nurses in hospital emergency rooms with 
the special care dealing with those who have been victims of 
sexual assault and rape. It would amend the Coverdell Forensic 
Improvement Program to allow funding to be used to clear out 
the backlog of other forensic evidence like firearms, 
fingerprints, toxicology and other controlled substances. And 
of course, the bill includes a version of Mr. Delahunt's 
Innocents Protection Act.
    Mr. Chairman, I contend that this piece of legislation we 
will pass today is the most important that this panel will 
approve all year, because it will not only save lives by 
getting criminals off the street but help thousands of crime 
victims reclaim theirs. A lot of people deserve credit for 
making this bill possible. Mr. Coble and Mr. Scott should be 
commended for making DNA legislation a priority of their 
subcommittee. Mr. Green has been a true leader and a great 
partner on this issue. And of course, Mr. Delahunt has worked 
for years for the rights of the innocent and this bill is a 
testimony to his dedication.
    The Bush Administration also deserves great praise for 
proposing an aggressive proposal that will not only 
eliminatethe DNA backlog but will put us in a better position to 
utilize DNA evidence in the future.
    Finally, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
understanding that we must not only use DNA evidence to put the 
right people behind bars, but we also need to make sure the 
wrong people are not incarcerated. I think that your decision 
to link the DNA backlog elimination legislation to the 
Innocents Protection Act was wise and necessary to ensure that 
we will realize the full potential of DNA to solve crimes. I 
look forward to moving this bill quickly through Committee 
today and hopefully onto the floor next week, and to the 
President's desk before the year is out. Thousands of crime 
victims have waited for too long for justice and with today's 
action we are one step closer to bringing that wait to an end.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Texas seek recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me echo, I think, what has been the general sense of 
this Committee, and the way that we have proceeded, is to again 
emphasize that this is a very monumental occasion. It 
culminates a number of incidents that have occurred over the 
last couple of years as is related to the death penalty, and a 
number of them have occurred in the State of Texas. I think 
Texas has been on the map for a case that involved inefficient 
counsel, and thereby resulted in the death penalty being given 
to that individual. Texas has been on the map in the case of 
Gary Graham when sufficient evidence suggested that there was a 
necessity for a new trial. And certainly, Texas is on the map 
for having the largest number of individuals on death row.
    I am gratified that in the course of the discussions we had 
the kind of focus that the former Governor of Illinois gave to 
the number of individuals on death row that may be there by way 
of incorrect evidence or insufficient evidence or lack of being 
able to provide counter-evidence. This legislation that has 
been brought forward by the Subcommittee on Crime, both in 
terms of Mr. Scott and Mr. Coble's work, I want to applaud 
them, as I do Mr. Delahunt's work and leadership, and of 
course, his co-sponsor as well.
    It is important to note that the work of this legislation 
will cover more than just finding out whether or not you have 
been erroneously convicted on death row. To know that women who 
have suffered the greatest injustice and heinous crime ofrape 
no longer have to wait years and years and years for the determination 
and/or the prosecution of such is a step in the right direction.
    Coming from Houston, Texas, I believe the provision that 
deals with DNA research and development, that set up a 
commission of standards--and I wish to review this further--but 
I support the idea of having compulsory standards for DNA labs 
across the Nation, particularly those that are governed by 
local and State jurisdictions. What we faced in Houston, which 
I think can be indicative of jurisdictions around the Nation, 
is a lab that was crumbling under its own weight, lack of 
qualified persons in the lab, and hundreds of cases that had to 
be reviewed by our prosecutor as to whether or not those 
convictions were in actuality fair convictions. We saw the 
release of individuals who had been in prison for six to 10 
years who were wrongly convicted.
    If anything occurs out of this Committee, I believe that we 
should be a Committee that has as its highest priority, justice 
for all. That means justice for the victims, but also justice 
for those who are ultimately charged. This particular 
legislation, I think, balances its role by recognizing that 
there are people who are convicted falsely, but also 
recognizing that victims can be victimized by not having their 
cases brought to justice. I cannot say how important it is in a 
capital prosecution case to have fairness. Nor can I say how 
important it is to be able to have a DNA lab that you can rely 
upon.
    I hope as we move this legislation forward we will be able 
to look also at an option that includes a focus on child 
predators. I believe it is important to focus on child 
predators because the numbers have been increasing. I have 
legislation that sets aside a separate DNA bank just for those 
who have been previously convicted of a child predator act, 
sexual abuse, so that they can be immediately determined by a 
national DNA bank. I would hope that as we become more 
comfortable with legislation like this we will be able to 
address other issues that confront the fairness of making sure 
that the victim is responded to and that person who perpetrated 
the crime is immediately brought to justice.
    So I rise to support this legislation on the quality that 
it brings to DNA labs, the funding that it will allow for 
improvement of local DNA labs, and I would also like to promote 
the idea----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. That we have compulsory 
standards in place. I yield back.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. I would like to thank a former State 
prosecutor, Bill Delahunt, in this enterprise. I would like to 
express appreciation for the Chairman of the full Committee on 
Judiciary, and the close cooperation that we are enjoying in 
this measure with the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. I think this is very important legislation and I 
will return my time and put my statement in the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues and 
thank you for your leadership on this along with Mr. Coble, Mr. 
Smith, Mr. Delahunt, and others.
    As a former prosecutor, it really has never been far from 
my thoughts that here we have one of the most powerful tools 
for solving crimes and it is also one of the most 
underutilized. It is as if we have the opportunity to take 
countless numbers of murderers and rapists off the street but 
we do not allow ourselves the tools to do that. I am glad the 
Committee has taken such a strong action today to change that 
dynamic.
    I am pleased to be one of the original co-sponsors of the 
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act. This is landmark 
legislation that will assist law enforcement insolving crimes, 
and also protect the innocent. In 1998, FBI created a system of DNA 
profile indexes, CODIS, to allow participating forensic laboratories to 
compare DNA profiles with a goal of matching case evidence to other 
previously unrelated cases or persons already convicted of specific 
crimes. The database now contains about 1.5 million DNA samples and has 
yielded thousands of matches in criminal investigations.
    It is hard to really comprehend what an incredible advance 
this is. We wrestle in this Committee, and State legislatures 
do the same, with ways of attacking the problem of crime. Often 
our response has been to increase sentences, too incapacitate 
people, to deter people. We have also made every effort to 
rehabilitate those coming out of prison.
    But through this legislation today we use yet another, 
perhaps even more powerful tool, and that is to address the 
very short terms, the very short sentences, and indeed the 
nonexistent terms of all those who have committed murder, rape 
and never been apprehended. That is the most promising 
sentencing reform of all, to find those that have committed 
these violent crimes through the use of technology and take 
them off the street.
    It also, at the same time wonderfully, almost 
symmetrically, helps us with the most persistent fear in the 
criminal justice system, that is the fear of convicting the 
wrong person. Mr. Delahunt has really been a great champion of 
this portion of the bill and I want to add my voice to those 
who have already congratulated him on his efforts.
    So here we have taken some very important and phenomenal 
steps in changing policies that will allow us to make much 
greater, more powerful use of DNA profiles. I introduced 
legislation earlier this year to increase the effectiveness of 
the DNA database by expanding the national database. This 
legislation was also aimed at facilitating information-sharing 
and increasing searching capabilities among State and local law 
enforcement agencies. I am very pleased that many of these 
policy changes have been included in the bill before us today.
    States have taken the lead in the use of DNA and expanding 
that use. For example, Virginia, as we heard during the 
testimony at the subcommittee, has led a tremendous effort 
making over 1,000 cold hits; finally providing resolution to a 
great number of unsolved crimes. The legislation before us 
today makes important changes in Federal law in order to 
replicate these tremendous successes on a nationwide basis.
    In addition, the legislation authorizes much-needed funding 
to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in 
the Nation's crime labs. And finally, as I alluded earlier, the 
important innocents protection provisions will help ensure 
eligible Federal and State inmates access to DNA testing to 
establish their innocence.
    I want to applaud the tremendous bipartisan and bicameral 
efforts on this legislation and join my colleagues in urging 
overwhelming support for this reform. I yield back the balance 
of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the chair. Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3214 offered by Mr. Green of 
Wisconsin. Page 14, lines 15, 16 strike ``except for a felony 
offense under Chapter 109(a.)''.

Amendment to H.R. 3214 Offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin Page 14, lines 
   15-16, strike ``except for a felony offense under chapter 109A,''.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Wisconsin is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by 
offering my voice or adding my voice to those of others here in 
praise for your work, the work of Congressman Delahunt and 
Congressman Weiner and so many others who have worked on this 
legislation.
    The Debbie Smith grants in this bill will help eliminate 
the rape kit backlog and will help put hundreds of thousands of 
criminals behind bars. We can bolster that effort by giving 
prosecutors the best tools available and removing impediments 
in good cases that prevent those cases from being indicted and 
prosecuted. In my original bill, the Debbie Smith Act, we 
included a provision for John Doe indictments that allows 
prosecutors to indict a DNA sample instead of an actual person 
in a sexual assault case. This provision was enacted into law 
as part of the Protect Act earlier this year. It is a great 
measure that can help prosecutors build strong cases against 
the assailant.
    Now as referenced by my friend and colleague Mr. Weiner, 
the legislation before us properly tolls the statute of 
limitations for crimes with a DNA sample until that sample is 
matched to a person. Once the sample is matched to a person, 
the statute begins to run. However, it exempts sexual assault 
crimes like aggrevated sexual abuse, abuse of a minor, and 
abusive sexual contact from this important reform.
    We should give prosecutors the ability to charge the true 
perpetrator in these types of cases as well whenever he is 
accurately identified through DNA. My amendment will allow 
Chapter 109(a) crimes, along with all other crimes, to 
beeligible for DNA matching before the statute of limitations would 
run.
    Mr. Chairman, I know that you are sympathetic to the issue 
that I have raised in this amendment. If you would be willing 
to work with me to try to address this matter as this bill 
leaves the Committee and moves to the floor, I would be willing 
to----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Green. Yes, I would.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I will be happy to work with the 
gentleman on this. I think he has identified an important 
issue.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that I would ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
    Are there further amendments?
    If there are no further amendments, the chair notes the 
presence of a reporting quorum. The question occurs on the 
motion to report the bill H.R. 3214 favorably, as amended. All 
in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no?
    I think everybody would like a roll call on this. The clerk 
will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Ms. Hart.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake.
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence.
    Mr. Pence. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King.
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter, aye. Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mrs. Blackburn.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin.
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there members in the chamber 
who wish to cast or change their votes? The gentleman from 
California, Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their votes? The gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their votes? If not, the clerk will report.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Jackson Lee is recorded as 
aye.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 28 ayes and one no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The motion to report favorably is 
agreed to. Without objection, the bill will be reported 
favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment in the 
nature of a substitute incorporating the amendment offered and 
adopted here today. 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 two days, 
as provided by the House rules, in which to submit additional 
dissenting supplemental or minority views.
    Let me quote Ronald Reagan before shutting this meeting 
down. One of the more wise sayings that President Reagan made 
during his term of office is that you really do not know how 
much you can accomplish around here if you do not care who 
takes credit for it. This piece of legislation, I think that 
every member of this Committee can take credit for because of 
the hard work that was done in reaching a compromise. Thank you 
for being so prompt and I am hopeful that we can get to the 
floor very promptly on this piece of legislation because it 
does have the potential of really revolutionizing and making 
more accurate our criminal justice system.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you have quoted 
someone that was not from California this morning? [Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I like California a lot better 
today.
    The committee stands adjourned.