Order Code RL32247
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
DNA Testing for Law Enforcement:
Legislative Issues for Congress
Updated December 23, 2004
Cindy Hill
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

DNA Testing for Law Enforcement:
Legislative Issues for Congress
Summary
The analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence has been an important
tool in law enforcement. DNA analysis has significantly changed the way crime
scenes are investigated and how prosecutions are conducted. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) started its DNA database in 1988. Since then, the FBI has led law
enforcement agencies throughout the United States to standardize DNA analyses to
be submitted into the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).
The collection of DNA for use in criminal investigations has grown much faster
than the resources to analyze it. As a result, many publicly funded laboratories across
the country have been experiencing difficulty in meeting the demand and reducing
the backlog of requests. Meanwhile, state and federal statutory regulations have been
enacted to require DNA samples to be taken from those convicted of certain criminal
offenses. During the 1990s and more recently, Congressional concern over the need
for federal assistance to crime labs led to the enactment of several measures.
On March 11, 2003, the Bush Administration announced a major DNA
initiative, totaling more than $1 billion over five years, designed to use DNA
technology to solve crimes and promote public safety. The House passed Advancing
Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003 (H.R. 3214) on November 5, 2003.
H.R. 3214 would address many of the proposals raised in the Administration’s
initiative. The first title focuses on rape kits and elimination of the backlog; the
second on various means of making DNA analysis a more effective law enforcement
tool; and the third on post-conviction testing and funding representational support for
both the prosecution and defense in capital cases. The Senate Judiciary Committee
ordered reported a similar bill (with an amendment in the nature of a substitute),
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2004 (S. 1700) on September
21, 2004.
Another piece of legislation, Justice for All Act of 2004 (H.R. 5107), reported
by the House Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2004, is similar to two bills.
Title I of H.R. 5107 is similar to S. 2329 that passed the Senate on April 22, 2004
giving victims of crime a list of rights. Titles II through IV, the DNA portion of H.R.
5107, is similar to the House passed legislation (H.R. 3214). The House passed H.R.
5107 after adopting a manager’s amendment that made a number of changes to the
measure on October 6, 2004. The Senate passed H.R. 5107 without amendment by
unanimous consent on October 9, 2004. On October 30, 2004, the President signed
this bill into law (P.L. 108-405).
This report discusses DNA testing for law enforcement, identifies issues with
such testing and the congressional and Administration response to the issues. A
number of civil liberty and privacy issues have been raised in discussions regarding
the expansion of the national DNA database. Among others, issues for Congress
include changes in the statute of limitations, post-conviction DNA testing, and DNA
standards in testing. This report will be updated as changes warrant.

Contents
Current Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Current Federal Statutory Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The DNA Identification Act of 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 . . . . . . . . . 4
Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act
of 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The USA Patriot Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation
of Children Today Act of 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Major Legislation in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act (H.R. 3214/S. 1700) . . . 6
Debbie Smith/Rape Kits and Eliminating the DNA Backlog . . . . . . . . 6
Strengthening Crime Laboratory Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Stimulating Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Providing Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Using DNA for Missing Persons Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Post-Conviction DNA Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Justice for All Act of 2004 (H.R. 5107) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Civil Liberty and Privacy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Broadening the Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Identification of Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Saving DNA Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Use of National Database for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Current Legislative Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
All-Felons Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Comprehensiveness of the National DNA Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Statute of Limitations Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Post-Conviction DNA Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
DNA Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Other Proposed Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
H.R. 3036 (Sensenbrenner) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
H.R. 2110 (Vitter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
H.R. 1705 (Schiff) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
S. 152 (Biden)/H.R. 1046 (Green) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
H.R. 889 (King) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
H.R. 537 (Andrews) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
H.R. 89 (Jackson-Lee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

S. 149 (DeWine) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
S. 132 (Feingold) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
S. 22 (Daschle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Related CRS Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

DNA Testing for Law Enforcement:
Legislative Issues for Congress
Current Developments
The House passed Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003
(H.R. 3214) on November 5, 2003. The Senate Judiciary Committee ordered
reported a similar bill (with an amendment in the nature of a substitute), Advancing
Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2004 (S. 1700) on September 21, 2004.
Another piece of legislation, Justice for All Act of 2004 (H.R. 5107), reported by the
House Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2004, is similar to two bills. Title I
of H.R. 5107 is similar to S. 2329 that passed the Senate on April 22, 2004 giving
victims of crime a list of rights. Titles II through IV, the DNA portion of the bill, is
similar to the House passed legislation (H.R. 3214). The House passed H.R. 5107
after adopting a manager’s amendment that made a number of changes to the
measure on October 6, 2004. The Senate passed H.R. 5107 without amendment by
unanimous consent on October 9, 2004. On October 30, 2004, the President signed
this bill into law (P.L. 108-405).
Introduction
Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is the fundamental building block for an
individual’s entire genetic makeup. DNA is a powerful tool for law enforcement
investigations because each person’s DNA is different from every other individuals
(except for identical twins). By analyzing selected DNA sequences (called markers),
a forensic laboratory can develop a profile to be used in identifying a person from a
DNA sample.1
DNA can be extracted from a number of biological tissues, such as hair, bone,
teeth, saliva, and blood. Because the human body contains so many copies of DNA,
even a minuscule amount of body fluid or tissue can yield useful information.
Statutory provisions authorize criminal justice officials to collect DNA samples from
federal offenders2, District of Columbia offenders3, and military offenders.4 Federal
law also features a grant program under which DNA-identifying information
1 See CRS Report RL30717, DNA Identification: Applications and Issues, by Eric A.
Fischer.
2 42 U.S.C. 14135a.
3 42 U.S.C. 14135b.
4 10 U.S.C. 1565.

CRS-2
collected by state law enforcement officials is fed into the FBI’s Combined DNA
Indexing System (CODIS) and available to law enforcement officials online.5
Obtaining a DNA sample from a suspect or convicted offender does not have to be
an invasive procedure; it can be as simple as a swab of the inside of the mouth with
a Q-tip to obtain some saliva, if applicable law permits this method of collection.
Currently, there are backlogs in analyzing collected DNA, both in state and
federal forensic laboratories. As a result, these profiles are not added into DNA
databases in a timely manner. Backlogs include casework samples, which consist of
DNA samples obtained from crime scenes, victims, and suspects in criminal cases;
and backlogs of states’ convicted offender samples, which consist of DNA samples
obtained from convicted offenders who are incarcerated or under court supervision.
Additionally, the FBI’s Federal Convicted Offender Program (FCOP), which is
responsible for processing and analyzing offender or arrestee samples from the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Federal probation offices, and the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, also faces backlogs of
offender DNA samples.
Although progress has been made, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
estimates that up to 90% of the DNA samples in this country identified for testing
had not yet made it to a laboratory, with new samples sitting at police stations
waiting for criminalists to complete other cases.6 NIJ also estimated that there was
a backlog of over half a million total crime samples nationwide that had not been
tested, with over 221,000 of those being homicide and rape cases.7
Some city and state forensic laboratories have been the subject of media
attention due to inefficiencies and test results that have been called into question.
With the backlog in samples around the country and the potential post-conviction
uses of DNA testing (including the possibility of freeing prisoners who were
erroneously convicted), Congress has turned its attention to DNA and its implications
when used during a criminal investigation and prosecution. This report discusses
possible issues that may be of concern to Congress.
Background
Few would argue that DNA has become the most significant weapon in crime
detection since the introduction of fingerprinting in the early 1900s. State and federal
DNA databases have proved instrumental in solving crimes, reducing the risk of
convicting the wrong person, and establishing the innocence of those wrongly
convicted. The FBI has chosen 13 markers to serve as the basis for entry into the
federal database, the National DNA Index System (NDIS), with the intention that all
5 42 U.S.C. 14131-14135.
6 See Attorney General Report to Congress, National Forensic DNA Study Report, Final
Report,
Dec. 12, 2003, p. 3, [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pdf/dna_studyreport_final.pdf],
visited Oct. 14, 2004.
7 Ibid.

CRS-3
forensic laboratories would be equipped to handle these 13 markers. Collectively,
the 13 markers provide great discriminatory power. The chance that two unrelated
people would have the same profile is judged to be extremely small — less than one
in hundreds of trillions.8
DNA evidence is used to solve crimes in two ways:
! In cases where a suspect is known, a sample of that person’s DNA
can be compared to biological evidence found at a crime scene. The
results of this comparison may then help establish whether the
suspect was at the crime scene or whether he/she committed the
crime.
! In cases where a suspect is not known, biological evidence from the
crime scene can be analyzed and compared to offender profiles
contained in existing DNA databases to assist in identifying the
perpetrator. Through the use of DNA databases, biological evidence
found at one crime scene can also be connected to other crime
scenes, linking them to the same perpetrator or perpetrators.
According to the FBI, more than 8,000 DNA samples from the scenes of
unsolved crimes have been matched with samples taken from inmates after their
imprisonment. An additional 3,000 crime-scene samples have been matched to
unidentified suspects who remain at large.9
Current Federal Statutory Law
As early as the 1980s, states began enacting laws that required DNA samples
from those offenders convicted of sexual offenses and other violent crimes. The
samples were then analyzed and their profiles entered into state databases.
Meanwhile, the FBI Laboratory convened a working group of federal, state and local
forensic scientists to establish guidelines for the use of forensic DNA analysis in
laboratories. The group proposed guidelines that are the basis of present national
quality assurance standards, and it urged the creation of a national DNA database.10
The criminal justice community began to utilize DNA analyses more often in
criminal investigations and trials, and Congress enacted legislation to better define
8 See National Institute of Justice, The Future of Forensic DNA Testing: Predictions of the
Research and Development Working Group,
NCJ 183697, Nov. 2000.
9 John Soloman, “AP: FBI’s DNA Database Gets Heavy Use,” Associated Press Online,
Mar. 9, 2004.
10 Statement of Dwight E. Adams, Deputy Assistant Director, Laboratory Division, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, in U.S. Congress, House, Government Reform Committee,
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental
Relations, How Effective are State and Federal Agencies Working Together to
Implement the Use of New DNA Technologies
?, hearing, 107th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 29,
2004, pp. 53-54. At [http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/dwight061201.htm], visited
Dec. 23, 2004.

CRS-4
how DNA could be used. During the 1990s and more recently, congressional
concern over the need for federal assistance for crime labs led to the enactment of
several measures. The following section summarizes current federal law as it pertains
to DNA used in a criminal justice capacity.
The DNA Identification Act of 1994. The DNA Identification Act of 1994
is a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L.
103-322).11 It was enacted to improve the capabilities and capacity of state and local
forensic DNA laboratories to support the investigation and prosecution of violent
crime. This law did the following: (1) provided funding to improve the quality and
availability of DNA analyses for law enforcement identification purposes; (2)
required quality assurance and proficiency testing standards; (3) required an FBI
index to facilitate law enforcement exchange of DNA identification information; and
(4) required privacy protections and proficiency standards for the FBI regarding
DNA.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Section
811(b) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-132)12
authorized the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of the FBI, to
make grants available to eligible states in order to establish, develop, update, or
upgrade the capability to analyze DNA in a forensic laboratory in ways that are
compatible and integrated with the Combined DNA Identification System (CODIS)13
of the FBI, among other things. As a condition, states were required to take DNA
samples from convicted violent sexual offenders.
Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998. The Crime Laboratory
Improvement Program (CLIP) was established under the Crime Identification
Technology Act (CITA) of 1998 (P.L. 105-251, Title I).14 This law authorized
funding for programs to establish, develop, update, or upgrade “the capabilities of
forensic science programs and medical examiner programs related to the
administration of criminal justice ... including programs ... relating to the
identification and analysis of DNA.”
11 108 Stat. 2065 (1994) (42 U.S.C. 14131-14134 (1994 ed.)).
12 110 Stat. 1312 (1996) (28 U.S.C. 531 note (1994 ed. & 1996 Supp.)).
13 CODIS contains local, state and national DNA databases that are linked electronically,
allowing the comparison of DNA profiles stored in differing locations and was authorized
in the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). CODIS uses two indices to generate
investigative leads in crimes where there is DNA evidence. The Convicted Offender Index
contains profiles of individuals convicted of violent crimes. The Forensic Index contains
DNA profiles from crime scene evidence, such as semen and blood. To ensure privacy,
CODIS does not include such things as social security numbers, criminal history, or case-
related information. As of Sept. 2004, the NDIS (the national component of CODIS) holds
just over 1.88 million samples, at [http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/national.htm], visited
Dec. 23, 2004.
14 112 Stat. 1871 (1998) and (42 U.S.C. 14601(b)(11) (1994 ed. & 1998 Supp.)).

CRS-5
The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. The DNA
Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-546) authorized the Attorney
General to make grants available to states to carry out DNA analyses.15 As a
requirement to receive grant funding, recipients must enter the DNA samples taken
from individuals convicted of certain crimes and crime scenes into CODIS. Under
the act, the grants could be used to increase the capacity of laboratories to carry out
DNA analyses. It also provided for the collection and use of DNA identification
information from certain federal, District of Columbia, and armed forces offenders
in custody or under federal supervision, and established submission of a DNA sample
as a condition of probation, supervised release, or parole.16
The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act of
2000. The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act of 2000
(P.L. 106-561)17 authorized funding to improve the quality, timeliness, and credibility
of forensic science services for criminal justice purposes through two sources: (1)
Byrne formula grants,18 and (2) the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences
Improvement Grants.
The USA Patriot Act. Section 503 of the Uniting and Strengthening America
by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act
(P.L. 107-56) expanded the list of “qualified offenses” to permit DNA collection
from those convicted of a federal crime of terrorism, a federal crime of violence, or
of attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime of terrorism or violence.19
Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of
Children Today Act of 2003. Among other provisions, the PROTECT Act (P.L.
108-21) authorizes indictments identifying an unknown defendant by a DNA profile
(“John Doe/DNA indictments”) in federal sex crimes.20 If the John Doe indictment
is issued within five years of the offense, there is no applicable statute of limitations
and the statutory speedy trial requirements do not begin to run until after the
defendant is arrested or served with a summons for the offense.
15 114 Stat. 2726 (2000) and (42 U.S.C. 14132, 14135-14135e; 10 U.S.C. 1565; 28 U.S.C.
531 note.
16 42 U.S.C. 14135a for federal offenders; 42 U.S.C. 14135b for District of Columbia
offenders; and 10 U.S.C. 1565 for military offenders.
17 114 Stat. 2787 (2000) and (42 U.S.C. 3751, 3753,3797j-3797o).
18 Under the Byrne formula grant program, funds must be used to improve criminal justice
systems in order to reduce violent crime, the demand for illegal drugs, or the availability of
such drugs. Enhancing state and local forensic laboratories falls under the multi-purpose
objective of eligible activities.
19 115 Stat. 364 (2001) and (42 U.S.C. 14135a(d)(2)).
20 117 Stat. 692 (2003) and (18 U.S.C. 3282(b)).

CRS-6
Major Legislation in the 108th Congress
In March 2003, the Bush Administration proposed an initiative that was
designed to (1) eliminate all state and federal DNA backlogs in DNA testing; (2)
expand DNA databases; and (3) upgrade testing equipment.21 It also supported
expanding the collection of DNA to people who have been arrested but not convicted
of a crime and adding them to CODIS. The President’s initiative would authorize
one billion dollars in spending over a five-year period. Several pieces of legislation
introduced in the 108th Congress incorporate (or were precursors to) elements of the
Administration’s DNA proposal.
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act (H.R.
3214/S. 1700)

The House passed Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003
(H.R. 3214) on November 5, 2003. The Senate Judiciary Committee ordered reported
a similar bill (with an amendment in the nature of a substitute), Advancing Justice
Through DNA Technology Act of 2004 (S. 1700) on September 21, 2004. Another
piece of legislation, Justice for All Act of 2004 (H.R. 5107), reported by the House
Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2004, is similar to two bills. Title I of H.R.
5107 is similar to S. 2329 that passed the Senate on April 22, 2004 giving victims of
crime a list of rights. Titles II through IV, the DNA portion of the bill, is similar to
the House-passed legislation (H.R. 3214). The House passed H.R. 5107 after
adopting a manager’s amendment that made a number of changes to the measure on
October 6, 2004. The Senate passed H.R. 5107 without amendment by unanimous
consent on October 9, 2004. Elements of the Advancing Justice Through DNA
Technology Act (H.R. 3214/S. 1700) and the Justice for All Act of 2004 (H.R. 5107)
are discussed below.
Debbie Smith/Rape Kits and Eliminating the DNA Backlog. The
Administration proposed funding to increase forensic laboratory capacity at the state
and local levels; to federal DNA laboratory programs to operate and improve
CODIS; and to improve the infrastructure of forensic laboratories. The President’s
21 Office of the President, Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology, Mar. 2003,
available at [http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/dnapolicybook_cov.htm], visited Dec. 23, 2004;
Prepared Remarks of Attorney General John Ashcroft: DNA Initiative, Mar. 11, 2003,
available at [http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2003/031102dnaremarks.htm], visited Dec.
23, 2004; Fact Sheet: The President’s Initiative to Advance Justice Through DNA
Technology
, available at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/pressreleases/2003/DNA-over.htm],
visited Oct. 14, 2004; Fact Sheet: Legislation to Advance Justice Through DNA Technology,
available at [http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/dnalegislation.htm], visited Dec. 23, 2004; see also,
Statement of National Institute of Justice Director Sarah V. Hart, in U.S. Congress, House
Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security,
Advancing Justice Through Forensic DNA Technology, 108th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington:
GPO, 2003), p. 7, at [http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hart071703.pdf], visited Dec. 23,
2004; and in Department of Justice Oversight: Funding Forensic Sciences — DNA and
Beyond
, hearing before the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts of
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (2003), available at
[http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=886], visited Dec. 23, 2004.

CRS-7
initiative is designed to eliminate the existing DNA backlog in five years. Title I of
H.R. 3214/S. 1700 and Title II of H.R. 5107 would permit units of local government
as well as the states to receive grants under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination
Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-546). It would also set a formula for distribution of the grants
and authorize funding of $151 million for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
Strengthening Crime Laboratory Capacity. Title I of H.R. 3214/S. 1700
and Title II of H.R. 5107 would also (1) allow states to submit DNA identifying
information to CODIS for individuals indicted but not yet convicted or acquitted of
a crime (entries relating to charges ending in dismissal or acquittal would be
expunged); (2) enlarge the list of federal and military qualifying offenses to include
all federal felonies and similar military crimes; (3) permit CODIS “keyboard
searches” by authorized state or federal users (a keyboard search is an online effort
to match a DNA sample that can be collected under state law but not added to
CODIS (e.g., an arrest sample) with a DNA sample in CODIS (e.g., samples
collected from convicted offenders or at a crime scene));22 (4) delay or suspend any
otherwise applicable federal statute of limitations until after the completion of a DNA
test which implicates an actual individual (not just his or her genetic profile); (5)
make grants for legal assistance under the Violence Against Women Act (42 U.S.C.
3796gg-6) available with respect to victims of dating violence; and (6) allow grants
to take the form of contracts as well as vouchers to private laboratories in order to
eliminate the backlog of DNA samples awaiting testing and analysis.
In addition, Title II of H.R. 3214/S. 1700 and Title III of H.R. 5107 would
increase the penalties for misuse of DNA analysis. H.R. 3214 and S. 1700 would set
the fine for knowingly disclosing a sample or result in an unauthorized manner at no
more than $100,000. H.R. 5107 would increase fines to $250,000, or imprisonment
for up to one year, or both. Each instance of disclosure, obtaining, or use constitutes
a separate offense in both H.R. 3214 and S. 1700.
Stimulating Research and Development. The Administration proposed
funding for DNA-related research and development, a portion of which would be
administered by the NIJ to improve DNA technology, and for the FBI’s DNA
research and development program. In addition, funding would be provided in the
Administration’s DNA initiative for demonstration projects aimed at determining the
scope of public safety benefits under a variety of circumstances: (1) when police
personnel are trained to more effectively collect DNA and other forensic evidence;
(2) when evidence is tested in a more timely manner; and (3) when prosecutors are
trained to enhance their ability to present such types of forensic evidence in court.
Title II of both H.R. 3214 and S. 1700 and Title III of H.R. 510723 would
authorize funding of $15 million for each FY2005 through FY2009 for DNA
research and development purposes. The establishment of a National Forensic
Science Commission would also be authorized. The task of this forensic science
commission would be to develop recommendations for maximizing the use of current
forensic technologies in solving crimes and protecting the public, and in identifying
22 See H.Rept. 108-321, p. 27.
23 Referred to as the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act in all three bills.

CRS-8
potential scientific advancements that may be used to further assist law enforcement
personnel, among other things. An additional $500,000 for each FY2005 through
FY2009 would be authorized for this commission.
Providing Training. The Administration proposed funding for training in the
collection, handling, and use of DNA evidence, including training and education for
police officers and investigators; prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges;
probation and parole officers and corrections personnel; forensic scientists; medical
personnel; and victim service providers.
Title II of both H.R. 3214 and S. 1700 and Title III of H.R. 5107 would
authorize funding of $12.5 million each year, FY2005 through FY2009, for training
in the collection, handling, and use of DNA evidence, including training and
education for police law enforcement, correctional personnel, and court officers; and
$30 million a year for a grant program to provide forensic exams in sexual assault
cases.
Using DNA for Missing Persons Identification. The Administration
proposed funding to promote the use of DNA technology to identify missing persons.
This includes the general strengthening of crime laboratory capacity which would
facilitate the timely analysis of biological samples from unidentified human remains;
assistance in the analysis of old and degraded biological samples; and research and
development of more robust methods for analyzing old, degraded, or compromised
biological samples. In addition, outreach programs and the development of
educational materials and reference collection kits would be developed under the
program for medical examiners, coroners, law enforcement personnel, and victims’
families on the use of DNA to identify missing persons. All three bills would
provide funding authorization of $2 million each year, FY2005 through FY2009, for
this purpose.
Title II of both H.R. 3214 and S. 1700 and Title III of H.R. 5107 would also (1)
require professional accreditation of DNA processing laboratories within two years
of passage of the act; (2) authorize appropriations of $42.1 million a year for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for FBI DNA programs and activities (nuclear DNA
analysis, mitochondrial DNA analysis and regional laboratories, CODIS, the Federal
Convicted Offender DNA program, and DNA research and development; (3)
establish a program for tribal coalition grants relating to domestic violence under the
Violence Against Women Act (42 U.S.C. 3796gg); (4) make Paul Coverdell Forensic
Science Improvement grants (Coverdell grants) (42 U.S. C. 3797m) available for the
elimination of backlogs relating to the forensic analysis of evidence including that
involving firearms, latent prints, toxicology, controlled substances, pathology,
documents and traces; (5) authorize appropriations of $20 million for each FY2007
through FY2009 for Coverdell grants (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(24))(authorization for prior
years already exists); and (6) require the Attorney General to report to Congress on
implementation of the act within two years.
Post-Conviction DNA Testing. According to some observers, DNA is often
overlooked as a tool to prove innocence as well as guilt. While they contend that
post-conviction DNA testing is necessary to correct erroneous convictions imposed
prior to the advent of today’s DNA advances. There is also a need to ensure that

CRS-9
post-conviction DNA testing is appropriately used and targeted to benefit potentially
innocent persons rather than merely creating a longer DNA analysis backlog, in
others, as some commentators are suggesting would occur.
The Administration proposed implementing a grant program to defray the costs
of post-conviction DNA testing in the state systems. According to the
Administration’s DNA initiative, in order to receive this funding states must require
DNA testing be performed by an accredited laboratory. Each state must also develop
plans to ensure that there is prompt DNA testing of people who may have been
wrongly convicted and procedures are in place to discourage frivolous testing.
Title III of both H.R. 3214 and S. 1700 and Title IV of H.R. 5107 , known as the
Innocence Protection Act, may be one of the most contentious sections in these three
pieces of legislation. The Innocence Protection Act of all three bills would serve
several purposes: (1) to create a federal post-conviction DNA preservation and
analysis procedure; (2) provide funding for representational support for both the
prosecution and defendants in state capital cases; (3) provide compensation for the
wrongfully convicted from $50,000 to $100,000 per year of imprisonment for those
“unjustly” sentenced to death. Appropriations are authorized for $5 million for each
fiscal year from 2005 through 2009 to fund assistance to state post-conviction
programs; and $100 million for each of those years to fund the capital
representational provisions.
In Title III of both H.R. 3214 and S. 1700, the standard for granting a motion for
a new trial or resentencing based on the outcomes of DNA testing would be
established by “a preponderance of the evidence” that a new trial would result in an
acquittal. In the manager’s amendment of Title IV of H.R. 5107 adopted by the
House, the threshold would be raised to instances where there was “compelling
evidence.”
The manager’s amendment to H.R. 5107 adopted by the House would encourage
defendants to apply for DNA testing promptly after their convictions by establishing
a presumption only in the first three years after a convictions that tests should be
ordered. A defendant’s motion for new DNA testing could still be granted after the
three years if a court found the applicant was incompetent at his or her trial, if there
was newly discovered DNA evidence, if denying the application would result in a
“manifest injustice,” or “upon good cause shown.”
A fourth bill, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003 (S.
1828) has been introduced by Senator Kyl, which contains most of the same elements
included in Titles I (The Debbie Smith Act of 2003 in H.R. 3214 and the Rape Kits
and DNA Evidence Backlog Elimination Act of 2003 in S. 1700) and II (The DNA
Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003) as H.R. 3214 and S. 1700. However, S. 1828
does not include the Innocence Protection Act. This bill has been referred to the
Judiciary Committee.
Justice for All Act of 2004 (H.R. 5107)
As stated previously, the Justice for All Act of 2004 includes similar DNA-
related provisions found in H.R. 3214 and S. 1700. Additionally, H.R. 5107 would

CRS-10
amend current law by creating a new provision that would (1) enumerate crime
victims’ rights; (2) detail enforcement and limitations with respect to crime victims’
rights and persons accused of a crime and cases with multiple crime victims; (3)
require the Attorney General to promulgate regulations with respect to enforcing the
rights of crime victims; (4) amend current law by establishing a Crime Victims Legal
Assistance Grants program and would authorize appropriations for the program.24
Civil Liberty and Privacy Issues
While there is opposition from some civil libertarians on the broad use of DNA,
proponents contend having a national DNA database, or a system that coordinates
multiple databases such as CODIS, may, in some cases, actually protect those
wrongfully accused or even convicted. However, there are a number of privacy
issues that arise when the subject of the use of DNA analysis for law enforcement
purposes is broached. The following are selected issues that have arisen in assessing
the costs and benefits of using DNA in the criminal justice system.
Broadening the Database
Expanding the national database to include persons convicted of lesser crimes
(or possibly arrestees) will potentially increase the number of crimes solved through
its use. However, the increased use and inclusiveness of DNA databases across the
country raises several concerns. If, for example, the national database was broadened
to the general public, an individual’s informational privacy, security and anonymity
would be more difficult to protect. Proponents of such a system respond that the
information included in the profiles could be restricted to particular markers that are
relevant only for identification.
Although there are currently no plans to develop a national DNA database
containing profiles of all citizens, such a development is not impossible. In fact, in
the military context, such a universal system has existed since 1991.25 To facilitate
identification of unknown soldiers killed in future battles, the Department of Defense
created a blood sample database of all active service members and military recruits.
Although the use of the database is primarily used for the identification of remains,26
a federal or military court order could allow both the FBI and civilian police to access
samples.27
While broadening the database may add to the number of crimes solved through
its use, it would also add to the costs of maintaining the system and to the backlog
24 With respect to the crime victims’ rights portion of the bill, the Senate passed a similar
bill (S. 2329) on April 22, 2004.
25 See Department of Defense Directive 5154.24, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
(AFIP)
, at [http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d515424_100301/d515424p.pdf],
visited Dec. 23, 2004.
26 Ibid., at §5.1.4.
27 See 10 U.S.C. 1565a.

CRS-11
of samples that would need to be processed, complicating further backlog reduction
efforts.
Identification of Relatives
By utilizing 13 markers, it is quite likely that a search of a database might
identify a person who was a relative of the person whose DNA sample was being
matched. Assuming a crime scene profile indicated a partial match with someone in
the database, the question then arises whether law enforcement personnel should be
entitled to investigate the relatives of the person, such as a sibling, based solely on
the partial match. Presently, laws are different in each state in this regard.28
Saving DNA Samples
Presently, there is no clear federal policy regarding what happens to the DNA
sample after profiles are added to the national database. The majority of states have
some form of storage policies for DNA samples to be kept for a specified time
period. However, some opponents fearful of invasion of privacy are concerned that
the DNA that is not destroyed may become available to unauthorized parties or
otherwise be used in ways that would disclose information that ought to remain
confidential. While most states have restrictions on the commercial exploitation or
non law enforcement use of DNA samples, there have been instances where persons
whose sample had been taken sued to have their sample returned to them, as opposed
to being destroyed, to ensure that there was no inappropriate use.
Use of National Database for Research
As the national database enlarges and if it is broadened to include persons
convicted of a larger variety of crimes, it might be possible that statistical studies of
the databases could reveal useful information. The question arises whether
researchers should be allowed access to CODIS or the national database in order to
further their fields even though they would not be using it in a law enforcement
capacity.
28 Half of an individual’s DNA comes from the individual’s father and half from the
individual’s mother. There is a far greater probability that a suspect’s 13 DNA markers
would match or partially match those of the suspect’s siblings, half-siblings, parents, or
children of the suspect since they have a common source (i.e., a crime scene sample that
points to a suspect is more likely to also point to his or her relatives than to the population
at large). The difficulty is that authorities may lack the probable cause to require relatives
to submit DNA samples in order to perform the more extensive analysis necessary to
determine that their DNA does not match that of the crime scene sample, Lempert, “Some
Caveats Concerning DNA as Criminal Identification Evidence: With Thanks to the
Reverend Bayes,” Cardozo Law Review, vol. 13, issue 303 (1991).

CRS-12
Current Legislative Issues for Congress
Taking into consideration the Administration’s DNA initiative, the 108th
Congress may ultimately consider some of the following issues affecting the
operation of DNA identification systems and the use of DNA evidence.
All-Felons Sample Collection
While all states collect samples from some categories of convicted offenders,
they vary in the types of crimes for which they collect DNA samples — with the
trend toward broader sample collection. A number of states collect samples from
juveniles adjudged delinquent on the basis of various crimes. A few collect samples
from anyone arrested (not just convicted offenders). A substantial number of states
have enacted legislation authorizing the collection of DNA samples from all
offenders convicted of a felony after the legislation is enacted. The Administration’s
DNA initiative proposes to expand the categories of convicted federal offenders from
whom the collection of DNA samples is authorized29 so that it includes all convicted
felons, regardless of whether the felony conviction was for a violent or nonviolent
crime.
Many state cases have been solved as a result of DNA collected pursuant to the
perpetrator’s prior conviction for a nonviolent crime in states for which DNA is
collected following conviction for such offenses (such as a theft, or drug offense).
Broadening qualifying offenses for sample collection to include all felonies is based
on the premise that the majority of serious offenders also commit lesser crimes.30 In
addition, international comparisons may become increasingly feasible, since eight of
the 10 markers in the British offender database are included in the 13 core markers
which the FBI uses.
While other crimes may be solved by expanding the categories of offenders
included in DNA databases, at what point does the cost associated with the additional
DNA samples to be analyzed outweigh the benefit? Some may argue that it is absurd
to expand the collection of DNA samples to all convicted felons. Opponents of the
measure may argue that while violent, habitual criminals may also commit
nonviolent crimes, the majority of offenders committing nonviolent crimes are not
committing violent offenses; therefore, resources are wasted. Moreover, expanding
29 Existing law permits collection from those convicted of a federal crime of violence, 42
U.S.C.14135a.
30 The state of Virginia has often been cited as a leading model in DNA legislation. Virginia
has been collecting DNA from all felons since 1990, taking DNA from everyone they arrest
and destroying the samples from people who are not convicted. Virginia indicates that in
2003 they averaged 51 matches per month of DNA evidence to DNA profiles of convicted
offenders. Since 1990, the state says that crimes solved in part due to DNA database
matches included 223 homicides and 464 non-homicide sexual assaults. Of the 2,309-plus
DNA matches Virginia has had to date, they report that 80% would have been missed if the
DNA database were limited to only violent offenders. See VA Department of Criminal
J u s t i c e S e r v i c e s ’ D N A D a t a b a n k S t a t i s t i c s W e b p a g e , a t
[http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/forensic/information/dna.cfm], visited Dec. 23, 2004.

CRS-13
the number of samples that need to be processed could add to the already taxed
forensic science budgets of many states.
Comprehensiveness of the National DNA Index
Should all DNA profiles collected by states be added into the national database?
The statute governing the national DNA index allows the inclusion of DNA profiles
of “persons convicted of crimes”31; however it does not permit the inclusion of all
DNA profiles from samples collected under applicable state authorities, such as those
from adjudicated juveniles or individuals arrested but not convicted of crimes.
Because what can be included in the national DNA database is narrower than the
scope of DNA sample collection under some state statutes, it has been argued that the
effectiveness of the national DNA index is hindered.
For example, most states collect DNA samples from some categories of
adjudicated juvenile delinquents. Some states have authorized DNA sample
collection from certain arrestees on a categorical basis. These states can collect these
samples and include the resulting DNA profiles in their own DNA databases;
however, they cannot submit this information to be entered into the national DNA
index because of the wording of the federal database statute. The Administration’s
DNA initiative proposes to amend the statute to allow submitting jurisdictions to
include any DNA profile from persons from whom they lawfully collected samples.
Critics, however, have voiced strong concerns that such testing would violate
constitutional rights to privacy and protections against illegal searches and seizures.
Statute of Limitations Changes
Often a statute of limitations balances the desire to prosecute serious crimes
with concerns that a delayed prosecution may be unreliable given the passage of time,
faded memories, and deteriorating evidence. It is possible that a person could be
immune from eventual conviction if he or she was not indicted before the statute of
limitations runs out, even if the DNA evidence might strongly implicate that person.
Federal prosecutors can issue an indictment identifying an unknown defendant by a
DNA profile for a sexual abuse offense (defined under chapter 109A, of Title 18
United States Code), for example, if they do so within five years of the crime, a later
prosecution may be brought at any time.32
The Administration proposes that Congress should permit the statute of
limitations to be waived where DNA evidence identifies the perpetrator in any federal
offense, recommending that the statute of limitations (1) would not begin to run until
the DNA identification occurs; and (2) would be made retroactively applicable to
offenses committed before its enactment.
Opponents of this provision contend that this proposal creates an unfair
advantage, where the rights of the victims are put ahead of the fair trial protections
31 42 U.S.C. 14132(a)(1).
32 18 U.S.C. 3282.

CRS-14
for the accused. They claim DNA warrants are unfair to defendants because they
circumvent the statute of limitations, which are there to protect people from being
charged with actions that they cannot defend themselves against because they
happened so long ago.
Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Most states have made provisions for post-conviction DNA testing. The
Administration has proposed to establish post-conviction DNA testing standards and
procedures for federal convicts who could not have obtained such forensic testing at
the time of their trials. Under this proposal, procedures would be implemented in
order to ensure that the use of DNA evidence could demonstrate innocence of the
crime for which the person was convicted because he or she was mistakenly
identified.
DNA Standards
Despite several cases where laboratories mishandled DNA evidence few states
require accreditation to specified standards. The Administration’s DNA initiative
would require every lab to be accredited under a uniform system, with practices
inspected and evaluated by independent inspectors.
Other Proposed Legislation
In addition to P.L. 108-21, H.R. 3214/S. 1700, and H.R. 5107 discussed earlier,
the following bills have been introduced in the 108th Congress regarding DNA for
law enforcement purposes:
H.R. 3036 (Sensenbrenner). DNA Database Enhancement Act was added
to the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004
through 2006, under an amendment offered by Representative Schiff during
committee markup, H.Rept. 108-426 (2004). Amends the DNA Analysis Backlog
Elimination Act of 2000 to require a backlog elimination grant application
certification to (1) include each violent felony as a qualifying State offense; and (2)
provide that a State does not prohibit or limit the comparison by a law enforcement
officer of the results of a DNA analysis carried out on a lawfully obtained DNA
sample with the information in the Combined DNA Index System. Authorizes
appropriations for fiscal years after 2003 for DNA analyses of samples taken from
individuals convicted of a qualifying State offense. Amends the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to authorize the DNA database to include
(1) DNA identification records of persons arrested for crimes (currently, limited to
those convicted of crimes); and (2) analyses of DNA samples from other persons as
authorized under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the samples were collected.
Neither the amendment nor any related provisions were included in the version of
H.R. 3036, which passed under suspension of the rules, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 150 (March 30, 2004), pp. 16666-16683.

CRS-15
S. 1828 (Kyl). Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003.
Among other purposes, this bill is designed to eliminate the backlog of DNA samples
collected from crime scenes and convicted offenders; improve and expand the DNA
testing capacity of federal, state, and local crime laboratories; increase research and
development of new DNA testing technologies; and develop new training programs
regarding the collection and use of DNA evidence. This bill is similar to Title I and
II of S. 1700. It also provides for the creation of a new forensic backlog elimination
grant program. This bill does not include post-conviction testing provisions.
Introduced November 5, 2003; referred to the Judiciary Committee.
H.R. 2110 (Vitter). Emergency DNA Backlog Elimination and Self Defense
from Serial Killers Act of 2003. Amends the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination
Act of 2000 to authorize appropriations and increase grant amounts for analysis and
processing of DNA evidence kit backlogs and of DNA samples from convicted
offenders and crime scenes. Gives priority funding for states and municipalities that
are in the midst of combating apparent serial killers. Authorizes appropriations for
FY2004 through FY2008 for grants to states that are documented by the FBI to
possess a serial killer, to eliminate the backlog in carrying out DNA analyses of
specified samples. Directs that grant applications include each offense under state
law for which a sentence of death or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed.
Introduced May 14, 2003; referred to the Judiciary Committee. Referred to the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on June 25, 2003.
H.R. 1705 (Schiff). DNA Database Enhancement Act. Amends the DNA
Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to direct that the backlog elimination
grant application include a certification that the state has determined those offenses
under state law that shall be treated as qualifying state offenses, provided that each
violent felony is treated as a qualifying state offense; and does not prohibit or limit
the comparison by a law enforcement officer of the results of a DNA analysis carried
out on a sample lawfully obtained with the information in CODIS. Authorizes
appropriations for fiscal years after 2003 for DNA analyses of samples taken from
individuals convicted of a qualifying state offense. Amends the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to authorize the Director of the FBI to
establish an index of DNA records of persons arrested for crimes and analyses of
DNA samples from other persons, as authorized under the laws of the jurisdiction in
which the samples were collected. Introduced April 9, 2003; referred to the Judiciary
Committee. Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security on May 5, 2003.
S. 152 (Biden)/H.R. 1046 (Green). S. 152 — DNA Sexual Assault Justice
Act of 2003. H.R. 1046 — The Debbie Smith Act of 2003. Directs the Attorney
General to (1) survey federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement jurisdictions to
assess the amount of DNA evidence from sexual assault crimes that has not been
subjected to testing and analysis; (2) review national, state, local, and tribal
government protocols on the collection and processing of DNA evidence at crime
scenes; and (3) make grants for sexual assault examiner programs, examiner training
and certification, acquisition or improvement of forensic equipment, and other
training. This bill amends the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to (1)
ensure that DNA testing from rape kits and non-suspect cases are carried out in a
timely manner; (2) reauthorize grants programs in the 2000 Act; (3) make local

CRS-16
governments eligible for grants; (4) direct the Attorney General to give priority to a
state or local governmental unit that has a significant rape kit or non-suspect case
backlog; and (5) expand the scope of DNA samples subject to privacy protections.
This bill amends the Federal Criminal Code and the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure to authorize “John Doe” DNA indictments for sexual abuse (this section
was included in conference as Section 611 to S. 151, which became the PROTECT
Act, P.L. 108-021) and amends the DNA Identification Act of 1994 to authorize
appropriations to the FBI to carry out a redesign of CODIS. S. 152 introduced
January 14, 2003, referred to the Judiciary Committee, January 14, 2003; H.R. 1046
introduced March 4, 2003; referred to the Judiciary Committee, May 5, 2003.
H.R. 889 (King). Convicted Child Sex Offender DNA Index System Support
Act. Requires the Director of the FBI to develop a plan to assist states in performing
DNA analyses of samples from convicted child sex offenders, with the objective of
eliminating the backlog of samples awaiting analysis and providing for entry of those
analyses into CODIS. Introduced February 25, 2003; referred to the Judiciary
Committee. Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security on March 6, 2003.
H.R. 537 (Andrews). DNA Database Completion Act of 2003. Amends the
DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to authorize $100 million for each
year, FY2003 through FY2007 for grants to eligible states for DNA analyses of
samples taken from individuals convicted of a qualifying state offense, and of
samples from crime scenes, for inclusion in CODIS. Introduced February 5, 2003;
referred to the Judiciary Committee. Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security on March 6, 2003.
H.R. 89 (Jackson-Lee). Save Our Children: Stop the Violent Predators
Against Children DNA Act of 2003. Among other things, directs the Attorney
General to establish and maintain a database solely for collecting DNA information
with respect to violent predators against children. Introduced January 7, 2003;
referred to the Judiciary Committee. Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security on March 6, 2003.
S. 149 (DeWine). Rape Kits and DNA Evidence Backlog Elimination Act of
2003. Reauthorizes appropriations under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination
Act of 2000 and makes local governments and Indian tribes eligible to apply for
elimination grants; expands the scope of DNA samples to be included in CODIS;
authorizes the Attorney General to award up to 15 grants to forensic laboratories to
implement innovative plans for the submission of rape evidence kits and to award
grants to train local prosecutors in the use of DNA evidence in a criminal
investigation or trial; requires the Attorney General to establish a program to award
and disburse annual grants to Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE)
programs; eliminates the statute of limitations for child abduction and sex offenses;
expresses that the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act (P.L.
106-561) should be funded in order to improve the quality, timeliness, and credibility
of forensic science services for criminal justice purposes. Introduced January 13,
2003; referred to the Judiciary Committee.

CRS-17
S. 132 (Feingold). National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2003. Places
a moratorium on executions by the federal government and urges the states to do the
same, while a National Commission on the Death Penalty reviews the fairness of the
death penalty. The commission is to study procedures to ensure that persons
sentenced to death have access to forensic evidence and modern testing of forensic
evidence, including DNA testing, when modern testing could result in new evidence
of innocence. Introduced January 9, 2003; referred to the Judiciary Committee.
S. 22 (Daschle). Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003.
Criminal justice bill that incorporates a provision entitled the DNA Sexual Assault
Justice Act of 2003 (S. 152 in its entirety), which sets forth procedures governing
DNA testing of a person convicted of a federal crime and provides grants for legal
representation provided to indigent defendants in state capital cases. Introduced
January 7, 2003; referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Related CRS Product
CRS Report RL30717, DNA Identification: Application and Issues, by Eric A.
Fischer