19–010

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 2d Session 107–334

THE DNA SEXUAL ASSAULT JUSTICE ACT OF 2002

NOVEMBER 4, 2002.—Ordered to be printed

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

Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2513] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 2513) to assess the extent of the backlog in DNA analysis of 

rape kit samples, and to improve investigation and prosecution of 

sexual assault cases with DNA evidence, having considered the 

same and amendments thereto, reports favorably thereon, with an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute, and recommends that the 

bill, as amended, do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 9

II. Legislative history ......................................................................................... 10

III. Vote of the Committee ................................................................................... 10

IV. Discussion ....................................................................................................... 10

V. Section-by-section analysis ............................................................................ 16

VI. Cost estimate .................................................................................................. 19

VII. Regulatory impact statement ........................................................................ 20

VIII. Changes in existing law ................................................................................ 24

The bill, as amended, is as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002’’. 

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

(a) ASSESSMENT.—The Attorney General, acting through 

the Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall surVerDate 0ct 31 2002 17:35 Nov 06, 2002 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR334.XXX SR334
vey Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement jurisdictions to assess the amount of DNA evidence contained 

in rape kits and in other evidence from sexual assault 

crimes that has not been subjected to testing and analysis. 

(b) REPORT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General 

shall submit to Congress a report on the assessment 

carried out under subsection (a). 

(2) CONTENTS.—The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include—

(A) the results of the assessment carried out 

under subsection (a); 

(B) the number of rape kit samples and other 

evidence from sexual assault crimes that have not 

been subjected to DNA testing and analysis; and 

(C) a plan for carrying out additional assessments and reports on the backlog in crime scene 

DNA testing and analysis. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice 

to carry out this section $500,000 for fiscal year 2003. 

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

Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 

of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended—

(1) by striking the heading and inserting 

‘‘AUTHORIZATION OF DEBBIE SMITH DNA 

BACKLOG GRANTS.’’; and 

(2) in subsection (a)—

(A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘including 

samples from rape kits and samples from other 

sexual assault evidence, including samples taken 

in cases with no identified suspect’’ after ‘‘crime 

scenes’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(4) To ensure that DNA testing and analysis of 

samples from rape kits and nonsuspect cases are carried out in a timely manner.’’. 

SEC. 4. INCREASED GRANTS FOR ANALYSIS OF DNA SAMPLES 

FROM CONVICTED OFFENDERS AND CRIME 

SCENES. 

Section 2(j) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 

Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135(j)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)—

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

the end; and 

(B) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; 

‘‘(D) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; 

‘‘(E) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; 

‘‘(F) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and 

‘‘(G) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007. 

Amounts made available to carry out the purposes 

specified in subsection (a)(1) shall remain available 

until expended.’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraphs (C) 

and (D) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(C) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; 

‘‘(D) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; 

‘‘(E) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; 

‘‘(F) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and 

‘‘(G) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2007. 

Amounts made available to carry out the purposes 

specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) 

shall remain available until expended.’’. 

SEC. 5. AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO APPLY FOR 

AND RECEIVE DNA BACKLOG ELIMINATION 

GRANTS. 

Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 

of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) in the matter preceeding paragraph (1)—

(i) by inserting ‘‘, units of local government, 

or Indian tribes’’ after ‘‘eligible States’’; and 

(ii) by inserting ‘‘, unit of local government, 

or Indian tribe’’ after ‘‘State’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘or by units of 

local government’’ and inserting ‘‘, units of local 

government, or Indian tribes’’; 

(2) in subsection (b)—

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 

inserting ‘‘or unit of local government, or the head 

of the Indian tribe’’ after ‘‘State’’ each place that 

term appears; 

(B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, unit of local 

government, or Indian tribe’’ after ‘‘State’’; 

(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘, unit of local 

government, or Indian tribe’’ after ‘‘State’’ the first 

time that term appears; 

(D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘, unit of local 

government, or Indian tribe’’ after ‘‘State’’; and 

(E) in paragraph (5), by inserting ‘‘, unit of local 

government, or Indian tribe’’ after ‘‘State’’; 

(3) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘, unit of local government, or Indian tribe’’ after ‘‘State’’; 

(4) in subsection (d)—

(A) in paragraph (1)—

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or a 

unit of local government’’ and inserting ‘‘, a 

unit of local government, or an Indian tribe’’; 

and 

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘or a 

unit of local government’’ and inserting ‘‘, a 

unit of local government, or an Indian tribe’’; 

and 

(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ‘‘, units of 

local government, and Indian tribes,’’ after ‘‘States’’; 

(5) in subsection (e)— (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘or local government’’ after ‘‘State’’ each place that term appears; and 

(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘, unit of local 

government, or Indian tribe’’ after ‘‘State’’; 

(6) in subsection (f), in the matter preceeding paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, unit of local government, or 

Indian tribe’’ after ‘‘State’’; 

(7) in subsection (g)— (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, unit of local 

government, or Indian tribe’’ after ‘‘State’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘, units of 

local government, or Indian tribes’’ after ‘‘States’’; 

and 

(8) in subsection (h), by inserting ‘‘, unit of local government, or Indian tribe’’ after ‘‘State’’ each place that 

term appears. 

SEC. 6. IMPROVING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR BACKLOG 

GRANTS. 

Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 

of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended— (1) in subsection (b)— (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ after the 

semicolon; 

(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at 

the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(6) if the applicant is a unit of local government, 

certify that the applicant participates in a State laboratory system; ‘‘(7) provide assurances that, not later than 3 years 

after the date on which the application is submitted, 

the State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe 

will implement a plan for forwarding, not later than 

180 days after a DNA evidence sample is obtained, all 

samples collected in cases of sexual assault to a laboratory that meets the quality assurance standards for 

testing under subsection (d); and ‘‘(8) upon issuance of the regulations specified in section 10(d), certify that the State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe is in compliance with those regulations.’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(k) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this section, 

the Attorney General shall give priority to a State or unit 

of local government that has a significant rape kit or nonsuspect case backlog per capita as compared with other applicants.’’. 

SEC. 7. QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS FOR COLLECTION 

AND HANDLING OF DNA EVIDENCE. 

(a) NATIONAL PROTOCOL.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall review 

national, State, local, and tribal government protocols, 

that exist on or before the date of enactment of this 

Act, on the collection and processing of DNA evidence 

at crime scenes. 

(2) RECOMMENDED PROTOCOL.—Based upon the review described in paragraph (1), the Attorney General 

shall develop a recommended national protocol for the 

collection of DNA evidence at crime scenes, including 

crimes of rape and other sexual assault. 

(b) STANDARDS, PRACTICE, AND TRAINING FOR SEXUAL

ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAMINATIONS.—Section 1405(a) of the 

Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 

(42 U.S.C. 3796gg note) is amended— (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and emergency 

response personnel’’ after ‘‘health care students’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘and DNA evidence collection’’ after ‘‘sexual assault forensic examinations’’. 

SEC. 8. SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAM PROGRAM 

GRANTS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.—The Attorney General 

shall make grants to eligible entities to— (1) establish and maintain sexual assault examiner 

programs; 

(2) carry out sexual assault examiner training and 

certification; and 

(3) acquire or improve forensic equipment. 

(b) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—For purposes of this section, the 

term ‘‘eligible entity’’ means—

(1) a State; 

(2) a unit of local government; 

(3) a college, university, or other institute of higher 

learning; 

(4) an Indian tribe; 

(5) sexual assault examination programs, including 

sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs, sexual assault forensic examiner (SAFE) programs, and 

sexual assault response team (SART) programs; and 

(6) a State sexual assault coalition. 

(c) APPLICATION.—To receive a grant under this section— (1) an eligible entity shall submit to the Attorney 

General an application in such form and containing 

such information as the Attorney General may require; and 

(2) an existing or proposed sexual assault examination program shall also—

(A) certify that the program complies with the 

standards and recommended protocol developed by 

the Attorney General pursuant to section 1405 of 

the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection 

Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg note); and 

(B) certify that the applicant is aware of, and 

utilizing, uniform protocols and standards issued 

by the Department of Justice on the collection and 

processing of DNA evidence at crime scenes. 

(d) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this section, 

the Attorney General shall give priority to proposed or existing sexual assault examination programs that are serving, or will serve, populations currently underserved by existing sexual assault examination programs. 

(e) RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF FUNDS.—

(1) SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS.—Funds made available 

under this section shall not be used to supplant State 

funds, but shall be used to increase the amount of 

funds that would, in the absence of Federal funds, be 

made available from State sources for the purposes of 

this section. 

(2) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—An eligible entity may 

not use more than 5 percent of the funds it receives 

under this section for administrative expenses. 

(3) NONEXCLUSIVITY.—Nothing in this section shall 

be construed to limit or restrict the ability of proposed 

or existing sexual assault examination programs to 

apply for and obtain Federal funding from any other 

agency or department or any other Federal grant program. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, 

to remain available until expended, $30,000,000 for each of 

fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 9. DNA EVIDENCE TRAINING GRANTS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.—The Attorney General 

shall make grants to eligible entities to—

(1) train law enforcement personnel and all other 

first responders at crime scenes, including investigators, in the handling of sexual assault cases and the 

collection and use of DNA samples for use as forensic 

evidence; 

(2) train State and local prosecutors on the use of 

DNA samples for use as forensic evidence; and 

(3) train law enforcement personnel to recognize, detect, report, and respond to drug-facilitated sexual assaults. 

(b) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—For purposes of this section, the 

term ‘‘eligible entity’’ means—

(1) a State; 

(2) a unit of local government; 

(3) a college, university, or other institute of higher 

learning; and 

(4) an Indian tribe. 

(c) APPLICATION.—To receive a grant under this section, 

the chief executive officer of a State, unit of local government, or university, or the head of a tribal government 

that desires a grant under this section shall submit to the 

Attorney General—

(1) an application in such form and containing such 

information as the Attorney General may require; 

(2) certification that the applicant is aware of, and 

utilizing, uniform protocols and standards issued by 

the Department of Justice on the collection and processing of DNA evidence at crime scenes; 

(3) certification that the applicant is aware of, and 

utilizing, the national sexual assault forensic examination training protocols developed under section 1405(a) 

of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection 

Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg note); and 

(4) if the applicant is a unit of local government, certification that the applicant participates in a State 

laboratory system. 

(d) RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF FUNDS.—

(1) SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS.—Funds made available 

under this section shall not be used to supplant State 

funds, but shall be used to increase the amount of 

funds that would, in the absence of Federal funds, be 

made available from State sources for the purposes of 

this section. 

(2) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—An eligible entity may 

not use more than 5 percent of the funds it receives 

under this section for administrative expenses. 

(3) NONEXCLUSIVITY.—Nothing in this section shall 

be construed to limit or restrict the ability of an eligible entity to apply for and obtain Federal funding from 

any other agency or department or any other Federal 

grant program. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice 

$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to 

carry out this section. 

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZING JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENTS. 

(a) LIMITATIONS.—Section 3282 of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘Except’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) LIMITATION.—Except’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(b) DNA PROFILE INDICTMENT.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In any indictment found for an offense under chapter 109A, if the identity of the accused is unknown, it shall be sufficient to describe the 

accused as an individual whose name is unknown, but 

who has a particular DNA profile. 

‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—Any indictment described in paragraph (1), which is found within 5 years after the offense under chapter 109A shall have been committed, 

shall not be subject to—

‘‘(A) the limitations period described in subsection (a); and 

‘‘(B) the provisions of chapter 208 until the individual is arrested or served with a summons in 

connection with the charges contained in the indictment. 

‘‘(3) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this subsection, 

the term ‘DNA profile’ means a set of DNA identification characteristics.’’. 

(b) RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.—Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended in subdivision (c)(1) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘For purposes of an indictment referred to in section 3282 of title 

18, United States Code, if the identity of the defendant is 

unknown, it shall be sufficient to describe the defendant, 

in the indictment, as an individual whose name is unknown, but who has a particular DNA profile, as defined 

in that section 3282.’’. 

SEC. 11. INCREASED GRANTS FOR COMBINED DNA INDEX 

(CODIS) SYSTEM. 

Section 210306 of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 

U.S.C. 14134) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘There’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(b) INCREASED GRANTS FOR CODIS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to carry out upgrades to the Combined DNA Index 

System (CODIS) $9,700,000 for fiscal year 2003.’’. 

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

Section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 

of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a) is amended by adding at the 

end the following: 

‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to carry out this section $500,000 for fiscal year 

2003.’’. 

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

(a) PRIVACY PROTECTION STANDARD.—Section 10(a) of 

the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 

U.S.C. 14135e(a)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘or in section 3282(b) of title 

18, United States Code’’. 

(b) LIMITATION ON ACCESS TO DNA INFORMATION.—Section 10 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 

2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135e) is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON ACCESS TO DNA INFORMATION.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall establish, by regulation, procedures to limit access to, or 

use of, stored DNA samples or DNA analyses. 

‘‘(2) REGULATIONS.—The regulations established 

under paragraph (1) shall establish conditions for 

using DNA information to—

‘‘(A) limit the use and dissemination of such information, as provided under subparagraphs (A), 

(B), and (C) of section 210304(b)(3) of the Violent 

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 

(42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(3)); 

‘‘(B) limit the redissemination of such information; 

‘‘(C) ensure the accuracy, security, and confidentiality of such information; 

‘‘(D) protect any privacy rights of individuals 

who are the subject of such information; and 

‘‘(E) provide for the timely removal and destruction of obsolete or inaccurate information, or information required to be expunged.’’. 

(c) CRIMINAL PENALTY.—Section 10(c) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135e) is 

amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘discloses a sample 

or result’’ and inserting ‘‘discloses or uses a DNA sample or DNA analysis’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘per offense’’ after 

‘‘$100,000’’.

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 2513, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 

2002, is to increase Federal resources available to States and local 

governments to combat crimes, particularly sexual assault crimes, 

with DNA technology. In particular, the bill addresses the DNA 

backlog crisis in the Nation’s crime labs, where crime scene evidence (including rape kits) and convicted offender samples wait for 

DNA testing while rapists and killers remain at large. The bill also 

provides increased Federal support for sexual assault examiner 

programs, DNA training of law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, and updating the national DNA database. To ensure that 

these grants are effective, the bill heightens the standards for DNA 

collection and maintenance, and requires the Department of Justice 

to promulgate national privacy guidelines. Finally, the bill authorizes the issuance of ‘‘John Doe’’ DNA indictments for Federal sexual assault crimes, which toll the applicable statute of limitations 

and permit prosecution whenever a DNA match is made. 

Congress began to attack the problem of the DNA backlog two 

years ago, by passing the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 

of 2000, Public Law 106–546. That legislation authorized $170 million over four years for grants to States to increase the capacity of 

their forensic labs and to carry out DNA testing of backlogged evidence. Despite the new law and some Federal funding, the persistent backlogs nationwide make it plain that more must be done 

to help the States. The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002 

takes the next step and provides more comprehensive assistance to 

States. Recognizing the enormous strides in DNA technology and 

the interconnection of States through the national DNA database, 

the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002 enhances the infrastructure so that the criminal justice system can harness the power 

of DNA. 

II. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002 was introduced on 

May 14, 2002, by Senators Biden and Clinton. That same day, the 

Subcommittee on Crimes and Drugs held a hearing entitled 

‘‘Justice for Victims of Sexual Assault: Using DNA Evidence to 

Combat Crime,’’ chaired by Senator Biden. On the first panel, 

Sarah J. Hart, Director of the National Institute of Justice, and Dr. 

Dwight Adams, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Laboratory Division, 

provided an update on the Federal Government’s efforts relating to 

DNA. On the second panel, Debbie Smith of Williamsburg, VA, 

gave powerful personal testimony about her experience as a rape 

victim, and explained how DNA identified her attacker six years 

after the crime; Linda Fairstein, former Chief of the Sex Crimes 

Unit in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, testified about 

how DNA evidence has improved sexual assault prosecutions; 

Debra Holbrook, a registered nurse and certified sexual assault 

nurse examiner with the Nanticoke Memorial Hospital in Seaford, 

DE, testified about sexual assault examiner programs; Susan 

Narveson, President of the Association of Crime Laboratory Directors in Phoenix, AR, spoke about the laboratory communities’ need 

for more resources; and J. Tom Morgan, District Attorney from Decatur, GA, and Vice President of the National District Attorneys 

Association (NDAA), testified on behalf of the NDAA about recent 

State law changes to statutes of limitations for sexual assault 

crimes. 

III. VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, with a quorum present, 

met on Thursday, July 18, 2002, to consider the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002. The Committee considered and accepted 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Senators 

Biden, Clinton, Cantwell, Carper, Schumer, Hatch, Durbin, Feinstein, Leahy, Jeffords, and Specter. The Committee then approved 

the bill, as amended, by voice vote, with no objection noted, and ordered the bill to be reported favorably to the Senate, with a recommendation that the bill do pass. 

IV. DISCUSSION

The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002, S. 2513, offers a 

two-pronged attack on sexual assault crime in America. First, it 

builds upon the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 by 

adding more Federal resources for States (and for the first time, 

makes those resources directly available to local governments as 

well) so that they may eliminate the backlog of untested DNA samples—and in particular, the troubling backlog of untested rape kits. 

Second, because tapping the potential of DNA technology requires 

more than eliminating existing backlogs, S. 2513 also provides increased grants to upgrade the national DNA database, supports 

specially trained sexual assault examiner programs, takes steps to 

ensure that evidence is routinely and promptly sent for DNA testing in the future, and authorizes ‘‘John Doe’’ DNA indictments. In 

honor of her courage and tireless advocacy on behalf of victims, S. 

2513 authorizes that the grant programs for DNA testing be named 

after Ms. Debbie Smith. 

1 In the year 2000, 62 percent of all rapes of women were committed by persons known to 

their victims. Bureau of Justice Statistics, ‘‘Criminal Victimization 2000,’’ June 2001. 

A. THE RAPE KIT BACKLOG CRISIS

Most sexual assault crimes occur between individuals who know 

each other; only about 30 percent are stranger rape cases.1 Thus, 

in many instances, sexual assault cases do not hinge on DNA evidence. However, in stranger sexual assault cases, DNA matching 

by comparing evidence gathered at the crime scene with convicted 

offender samples entered into the national DNA database (typically 

called a ‘‘cold hit’’) has proven to be the deciding factor in identifying the perpetrator—it has revolutionized the criminal justice 

system, and brought closure and justice for victims. 

For example, through DNA testing, the Baltimore Police recently 

solved a twelve-year-old case for the rape and murder of a teenager. The DNA evidence matched the profile of a man already serving time for robbery and attempted rape. When confronted with the 

DNA evidence, the perpetrator confessed. In Florida, Kellie Green 

was brutally attacked and raped in the laundry room of her apartment complex. Because of lack of funds, her rape kit sat on the 

shelf for three years until a persistent detective had it analyzed. 

The evidence matched the profile of a man already incarcerated for 

beating and raping a woman six weeks before Ms. Green was attacked. Finally, Debbie Smith testified that she was abducted from 

her home in 1989 and raped in the woods behind her home while 

her police officer husband was asleep upstairs. Six years later, 

DNA evidence obtained from the assault matched with DNA from 

an inmate in a Virginia prison. For the first time since the rape, 

Debbie knew that her attacker would not return—it was her first 

moment of peace and security. 

As these and many other stories illustrate, solving cold cases 

through DNA testing is possible, and the technology is at our fingertips. Any backlog in DNA testing of sexual assault evidence is 

profoundly unfair to victims and dedicated law enforcement alike. 

A 1999 study authorized by the National Institute of Justice’s 

National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence found that 

there was an overall backlog of 180,000 rape kits sitting on the 

shelves in State crime labs waiting for DNA analysis. More recent 

news reports estimate that untested crime scene evidence number 

to be much more, upwards of 500,000. 

Significantly, there is no accurate nationwide count of the current rape kit backlog, just piecemeal media reports. New York 

City’s backlog is particularly dire and, consequently, has drawn recent attention. At one time there were at least 16,000 untested 

rape kits stored in a police warehouse in Queens—a fact widely 

publicized by former New York City Commissioner Howard Safir. 

The Los Angeles Times reported in 2001 that at least 2,600 rape 

kits were awaiting testing in the Los Angeles area, among the 

20,000 untested kits in California. Evidence from nearly 4,000 sexual assault cases in Arizona similarly remain untested in crime 

labs throughout the State. In April, 2002, a local newspaper reported that more than 5,000 rape kits were sitting on shelves at 

one of the four DNA labs in Indiana. State officials in Washington 

estimate that more than 7,000 kits containing rape evidence have 

been gathering dust in police evidence rooms, in some cases for decades. 

Because there is no current accounting of the backlog, S. 2513 directs the Department of Justice to survey the Nation’s law enforcement agencies to determine the precise scope of the rape kit backlog. In addition, S. 2513 requires the Department of Justice to submit a plan for carrying out additional backlog assessments as may 

be required so that Congress may measure the progress made on 

this issue. 

Basic reasons for the rape kit backlog are woefully inadequate 

funding and lack of infrastructure. DNA testing for a rape kit costs 

between $500 and $1,500. Testing costs vary depending on the type 

and number of samples, economies of scale, the scope and condition 

of the evidence, and whether the testing is done by a private or 

public lab. In addition to lack of funds, law enforcement efforts are 

hampered by a lack of lab infrastructure and forensic analysts to 

do the actual tests. In recognition of these obstacles, the costs, and 

the pervasiveness of the problem, S. 2513 significantly increases resources available to States and local enforcement for crime scene 

testing, from $50 million for 2003 and 2004 under existing law, to 

$75 million each year from 2003 to 2007. 

B. THE BACKLOG IN DNA TESTING OF CONVICTED OFFENDER SAMPLES

1. The national DNA database 

A provision of the 1994 Crime Bill, the DNA Identification Act 

of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 14131 et seq., created the Combined DNA Index 

System (‘‘CODIS’’)—an electronic database of DNA profiles much 

like the FBI’s fingerprint database. CODIS includes a Convicted 

Offender Index, which contains DNA profiles taken from samples 

drawn from certain convicted offenders, and a Forensic Index, 

which contains DNA profiles developed from crime scene evidence. 

CODIS software searches these two indices for matching DNA profiles. As of July 2002, 153 crime labs in 49 States have the CODIS 

system.

Federal law delineates the specific Federal qualifying offenses 

(murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, and other crimes of 

violence) for which a convicted individual must submit DNA samples for inclusion in CODIS. Notably, individuals on parole, release 

or probation for these offenses, and military and District of Columbia offenders, must also provide samples. 

Like Federal authorities, participating States enter the DNA profiles of individuals convicted of certain crimes (e.g., rape, murder, 

child abuse) into the CODIS system. (See attached chart listing the 

qualifying offenses for each State as of October, 2002.) In 1998, the 

FBI set up the National DNA Indexing System (‘‘NDIS’’), which 

links together State and Federal DNA profiles and evidence on the 

CODIS system. If a State laboratory is not part of NDIS, it can use 

the CODIS software only to compare DNA samples taken from that 

particular laboratory. As described above, 153 labs in 49 States 

participate in CODIS. Of that number, as of August 2002, laboratories in 44 States, the U.S. Army, the FBI, and Puerto Rico participate in NDIS. Non-participating States (South Dakota, Iowa, 

Mississippi, Alabama, Rhode Island, and Hawaii) are able to access 

2The survey defined a case as backlogged when a lab had a complete set of samples ready 

for testing for more than 15 days, and an offender sample as backlogged when it was in the 

lab for more than 10 days. 

the national database only in limited ‘‘exigent circumstances’’-type 

situations. 

The FBI provides CODIS software, installation and user support 

free of charge to any State or local law enforcement lab. As of August 2002, the FBI reported that there were over 1,119,127 convicted offender DNA profiles and 39,096 case samples in the index. 

The FBI also concluded that CODIS had assisted in over 5,400 investigations in 34 States. 

2. Convicted offender DNA testing 

With each passing legislative session, States are amending their 

State laws to expand the number of qualifying offenses for which 

convicted offenders must submit DNA samples. Passage of State 

laws requiring all offenders convicted of felonies to submit DNA 

samples are imposing a significant financial burden on the States 

at the outset, as samples must be drawn from all those currently 

incarcerated and then analyzed to develop a DNA profile of each 

offender. Because the pool of convicted offender samples is constantly growing, it is very difficult for States to eliminate the backlog and keep up with new samples. 

In May 2002, the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice issued an audit report on the Office of Justice Programs Convicted Offender DNA Sample Backlog Reduction Grant 

Program as carried out for fiscal year 2000. The audit report reiterates the challenge of measuring the backlog of untested convicted 

offender samples because it is constantly fluctuating with the addition of new qualifying offenses at the State level. Nonetheless, the 

report quotes an FBI estimate of 681,470 untested offender samples as of the end of 2001. 

In an earlier report, the Federal Government conducted a survey 

of the 110 known public forensic DNA labs in 2000. See Bureau of 

Justice Statistics Bulletin, ‘‘Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories,’’

January 2002. Eighty-one percent of the crime labs reported DNA 

analysis backlogs totaling 16,081 subject cases (evidence from a 

single crime scene, sometimes called ‘‘casework’’) and 265,329 convicted offender samples.2 To assist in DNA testing, 45 percent of 

the crime labs contracted with private labs. It is expected that pursuant to funds received under this legislation, State and local governments will continue to outsource their DNA testing to private 

labs as needed. 

In the fight against sexual assault crimes, the backlog in convicted offender samples is just as debilitating as the rape kit backlog. The national DNA database system is effective only with updated and accurate offender samples with which to compare crime 

scene evidence. Indeed, the State with the current highest ‘‘cold 

hit’’ rate using the DNA database—Virginia—attributes its success 

to the fact that convicted offender samples are widely and frequently uploaded into its system. Accordingly, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002 extends the funding available for offender 

sample testing through 2007, at $15 million a year. 

3 In a study comparing 24 sexual assault evidence kits collected by sexual assault nurse examiners (SANEs) to 73 evidence kits collected by untrained personnel, the SANE kits were better 

documented, more complete and maintained the proper chain of evidence. 

C. SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINER PROGRAMS

A critical improvement in law enforcement’s response to sexual 

assault cases are specially trained sexual assault forensic examiners. These nurses and doctors are specially adept at identifying 

sexual assault injuries and collecting the evidence. Indeed, studies 

show evidence collected by specially trained forensic nurses is 

much more likely to yield reliable DNA profiles.3 Furthermore, 

these examiners are particularly sensitive to the trauma of sexual 

assault and try to ensure that the patient is not revictimized after 

reporting the crime, allowing victims to avoid waiting for hours in 

crowded emergency rooms and repeating their story to multiple 

staff. Forensic nurses and examiners occupy a unique niche between the medical community and law enforcement. Often examiners serve as expert witnesses and typically provide juries with 

specific and strong evidence to convict. Yet, as Debra Holbrook testified, these services are currently available to only two out of 

every ten victims of sexual assault. 

Since the early 1990s, police departments, victim service providers, advocates, and hospitals have collaborated to create sexual 

assault examiner teams, ranging from sexual assault nurse examiners (SANEs) to sexual assault forensic examiners (SAFEs) to sexual assault response teams (SARTs). Experts estimate that about 

300 SANE programs currently exist. The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act creates a grant program to expand the availability of sexual assault examiner programs. Ultimately, these programs should 

be established in every emergency room, and it will be routine for 

law enforcement and prosecutors to work with sexual assault examiners. Every victim of sexual assault deserves the expert and 

tailored care of a sexual assault examiner and the certainty that 

a trained examiner brings to the courtroom. Further, the criminal 

justice system as a whole will benefit from programs that adeptly 

collect DNA evidence from victims. 

D. DNA TRAINING GRANTS

Law enforcement and State prosecutors are clamoring for information about DNA evidence—how to collect it, how to maintain it, 

and how to use it in the courtroom. A well-meaning police officer 

may irreparably degrade DNA evidence by placing crime scene evidence in the hot trunk of a police car for days. By all accounts, police officers everywhere are eager for information about collecting 

and processing DNA evidence before it gets to the crime laboratory. 

When the National Institute of Justice issued a pamphlet called 

‘‘What Every Law Enforcement Officer Should Know About DNA 

Evidence,’’ the first printing of one million copies was gone after 

just five months. Training should be a matter of course for all law 

enforcement. No rape kit will lead to the perpetrator if the evidence is collected improperly. 

Training must also be available for all prosecutors. The subcommittee heard testimony on this topic from the Vice President of 

the National Association of District Attorneys, who stated:

Prosecutors who advise law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories, as well as actively try cases involving 

DNA, need to be fully versed in the capabilities, and 

vulnerabilities of this technology. This is not something 

you learn in law school nor is it something that most of us 

can ‘‘bone up on’’ the night before trial. DNA technology is 

complex. Training in the use of DNA evidence in a criminal investigation or a trial is crucial.

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

E. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND THE ‘‘JOHN DOE’’ DNA WARRANT

Rather than discard the statute of limitations entirely for crimes 

of sexual assault, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002 authorizes the issuance of ‘‘John Doe’’ DNA indictments for Federal 

sexual assault crimes. When law enforcement does not know the 

name of the perpetrator but does know his DNA profile, it may 

seek an indictment that identifies the defendant by that DNA profile. As long as the indictment is returned within the five-year statute of limitations, the prosecution may proceed at any time, without regard to the limitations period. 

‘‘John Doe’’ DNA indictments respond effectively to the profound 

injustice done to rape victims when delayed DNA testing leads to 

a ‘‘cold hit’’ after the statute of limitations has expired. For instance, a women was brutally raped in her California home, and 

for years the police were unable to solve the crime. Seven years 

later, DNA from the rape matched a man in jail for an unrelated 

crime. Yet the rapist was never charged, convicted, or sentenced 

because California’s statute of limitations had expired the previous 

year. In response, California changed its law and now allows prosecution of certain sexual offenses within one year of matching the 

DNA evidence to the perpetrator. Other States are also changing 

their laws—some by extending their statute of limitations for sexual offenses from five to ten years, and others by eliminating the 

limitations period for sexual assault altogether when prosecution is 

based on DNA evidence. 

‘‘John Doe’’ DNA indictments strike the appropriate balance: 

they encourage swift and efficient investigations, while recognizing 

the durability and credibility of DNA evidence and preventing an 

injustice if a ‘‘cold hit’’ occurs outside the limitations period. 

DNA indictments were pioneered by Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Norman Gahn in 1999. Since then, they have 

been used by prosecutors in at least eight other States—New York, 

Kansas, Utah, Pennsylvania, California, Oklahoma, Texas and 

North Dakota. For example, in February 2002, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office charged a parolee with an unsolved rape 

from 1995 based on a DNA match. The case rests on a ‘‘John Doe’’

DNA warrant filed in October 2000 to comply with the five-year 

statute of limitations. Thus far, State DNA indictments have been 

upheld by State courts in Wisconsin and California. As articulated 

by the court in California, ‘‘John Doe’’ DNA indictments describe 

the defendant with ‘‘reasonable certainty’’ and so preserve due 

process rights. In addition, S. 2513 complies with the sixth amendment’s speedy trial guarantee by triggering the provisions of the 

Speedy Trial Act as soon as the defendant is arrested or served 

with a summons in connection with the charges contained in the 

indictment—presumably after a ‘‘cold hit’’ occurs. 

Nothing in this provision shall be read to limit or otherwise affect the constitutionality of an indictment that identifies the defendant only by an alleged alias, the fictitious name ‘‘John Doe,’’ or 

other particulars concerning the defendant’s race, sex, age, height, 

weight, hair color, eye color, and/or unique physical characteristics. 

See e.g., United States v. Doe, 401 F. Supp. 63 (E.D. Wis. 1975). 

V. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

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

Section 2. Assessment of backlog in DNA analysis of samples 

This section requires the Attorney General to survey law enforcement to assess the extent of the backlog of untested rape kits and 

other sexual assault evidence. Within one year of enactment, the 

Attorney General shall submit his findings in a report to Congress 

with a plan for carrying out additional assessments and reports on 

the backlog as needed. Five hundred thousand dollars is authorized 

in fiscal year 2003 to carry out this section. The Committee understands that the Attorney General intends to review the backlog 

consistent with this legislative directive and is in the process of 

convening a DNA Backlog Working Group that should facilitate 

compliance with this section. 

Section 3. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program 

This provision names a section of the DNA Backlog Elimination 

Act after Ms. Debbie Smith, and amends the purpose section of 

that Act to ensure the timely testing of rape kits and evidence from 

non-suspect cases. 

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

This provision extends and increases authorizations in the DNA 

Analysis Backlog Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. 14135. That Act authorizes $15 million dollars for fiscal year 2003 for DNA testing of 

convicted offender samples, and $50 million for fiscal years 2003 

and 2004 for DNA testing of crime scene evidence (including rape 

kits) and laboratory improvement. The DNA Sexual Assault Justice 

Act increases the convicted offender authorization to $15 million for 

each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007—a total increase of $60 million—and increases the crime scene evidence and laboratory improvement authorizations to $75 million for fiscal years 2003 

through 2006, and $25 million for fiscal year 2007—a total increase 

of $275 million. 

Increased Federal resources are necessary to (1) eliminate the extensive State backlog in untested rape kits and other non-suspect 

case evidence; (2) strengthen insufficient laboratory equipment and 

woefully inadequate staffing; and (3) keep pace with the ever-expanding amount of offender samples to be tested. 

Section 5. Authority of local governments to apply for and receive 

DNA Backlog Elimination Grants 

This section authorizes local State governments and Indian 

tribes to apply directly for Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants so 

that Federal resources can meet local needs more quickly. 

Section 6. Improving eligibility criteria for backlog grants 

To ensure that Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants are most productive, this section amends the eligibility requirements to ensure 

that applicants adhere to certain protocols. Specifically, when a 

local governmental entity such as a city or county applies for a 

grant, it must certify that it participates in a State laboratory system (or intends to do so within a reasonable time frame), meaning 

that it submits its completed DNA analyses for inclusion in the 

State DNA database system, making them available to be searched 

nationally. Each applicant must also certify that, within three 

years after submission of the application, it will implement a plan 

for forwarding all DNA evidence collected in sexual assault cases 

to a qualified laboratory within 180 days. This requirement will ensure that States and localities develop the necessary infrastructure 

to guarantee that DNA testing in sexual assault cases occurs within three months. Finally, applicants must also certify compliance 

with privacy regulations promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to section 13 of this act. 

Section 6 further provides that in making Debbie Smith DNA 

Backlog Grants, the Department of Justice shall give priority to applicants with the greatest backlogs per capita. The Committee intends to bring about the largest possible reduction in the national 

backlog, but at the same time to ensure that small rural jurisdictions that are often the most lacking in financial resources to pay 

for DNA testing remain eligible for funding. 

Section 7. Quality assurance standards for collection and handling 

of DNA evidence 

This section requires the Department of Justice to develop a recommended national protocol for the collection of DNA evidence at 

crime scenes, which will provide guidance to law enforcement and 

other first responders on appropriate ways to collect and maintain 

DNA evidence. However, nothing in this provision shall be interpreted as establishing only one acceptable means of attaining DNA 

evidence, nor shall it be interpreted as creating Federal and/or 

State standards for the admissibility, reliability or credibility of 

DNA evidence. 

This section also amends the Violence Against Women Act of 

2000, 42 U.S.C. 3796gg, to ensure that the recommended national 

protocol for training individuals in the collection and use of DNA 

evidence through forensic examination in cases of sexual assault 

that is mandated by that Act is in fact developed, and to include 

standards for training of emergency response personnel. Several 

professional organizations and community advocates have already 

developed operating procedures, policies and practices for sexual 

assault examinations; the Committee intends for the Department 

of Justice to refer to these existing practices when complying with 

this provision of the act. 

Section 8. Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program Grants 

This section creates a new grant program to establish and maintain sexual assault examiner programs, carry out sexual assault 

examiner training and certification, and acquire or improve forensic equipment. Eligible entities are States, local governments, Indian tribal governments, universities, and existing sexual assault 

examiner programs that comply with standards developed pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. The grant program 

is authorized for fiscal years 2003 through 2007, at $30 million per 

year. In awarding grants under this section, the Attorney General 

shall give priority to programs that are serving or will serve communities that are currently underserved by existing sexual assault 

examiner programs. 

Section 9. DNA Evidence Training Grants 

This section creates a new grant program to train law enforcement and prosecutors in the collection, handling, and courtroom 

use of DNA evidence, and to train law enforcement in responding 

to drug-facilitated sexual assaults. Eligible applicants are States, 

local governments, Indian tribal governments, and universities. 

Grants are contingent upon adherence to FBI laboratory protocols, 

use of the collection standards established pursuant to section 7 of 

this act, and participation in a State laboratory system. The grant 

program is authorized for fiscal years 2003 through 2007, at $10 

million per year. 

Section 10. Authorizing ‘‘John Doe’’ DNA Indictments 

In Federal sexual assault crimes, this provision authorizes the 

issuance of ‘‘John Doe’’ DNA indictments that identify the defendant by his DNA profile. Such indictments must issue within the applicable statute of limitations; thereafter, the prosecution may commence at any time once the defendant is arrested or served with 

a summons. 

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

System 

This provision appropriates $9.7 million for fiscal year 2003 to 

upgrade the national DNA database. Improved database software 

will handle the expected increase in DNA information from the 

States and produce quicker matches. 

Section 12. Increased grants for Federal convicted offender program 

This provision appropriates $500,000 for fiscal year 2003 to process Federal offender DNA samples and enter that information into 

the national DNA database. As Congress increases the number of 

qualifying Federal crimes for the database, this funding will help 

the Federal Bureau of Investigations handle the 5,000 to 7,500 

Federal offender DNA samples entering the system each year. 

Section 13. Privacy requirements for handling DNA evidence and 

DNA analysis 

This section requires the Department of Justice to promulgate 

privacy regulations that will limit the use and dissemination of 

DNA information generated for criminal justice purposes, and ensure the privacy, security, and confidentiality of DNA samples and 

analyses. In addition, this section amends the DNA Analysis Backlog Reduction Act of 2000 to increase criminal penalties for disclosing or using a DNA sample or DNA analysis in violation of that 

act by a fine not to exceed $100,000 per offense. 

VI. COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee sets forth, with respect to the 

bill, S. 2513, the following estimate and comparison prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 403 

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, August 9, 2002. 

Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2513, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. 

Sincerely, 

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director). 

Enclosure.

S. 2513—DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002

Summary: S. 2513 would authorize the appropriation of $546 

million over the 2003–2007 period, mostly to increase funding for 

grants to states to improve forensic analysis of crime scenes and 

collect DNA samples from offenders. The bill also would increase 

penalties for the unauthorized use of DNA samples. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2513 would cost $425 million over the 

2003–2007 period. This legislation would affect direct spending and 

receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would apply, but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be significant. 

S. 2513 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

The bill would benefit state, local, and tribal governments; any 

costs incurred to receive or administer grants would be voluntary. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2513 is shown in the following table. For the 

purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the authorized 

amounts will be appropriated by the start of each fiscal year and 

that spending will follow the historical spending rates for those activities. The cost of this legislation falls within budget function 750 

(administration of justice). 

In addition, enacting S. 2513 could increase collections of criminal fines for unauthorized use of DNA samples. CBO estimates 

that any additional collections would not be significant. Criminal 

fines are recorded as receipts and deposited in the Crime Victims 

Fund, then later spent.

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law for the Programs Funded by S. 

2513: 

Authorization Level 1 ............................................................ 45 40 25 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 12 28 38 24 9 0

Proposed Changes: 

Authorization Level .............................................................. 0 101 105 130 130 80

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 0 28 59 100 119 118

Spending Under S. 2513: 

Authorization Level 1 ............................................................ 45 141 130 130 130 80

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 12 56 97 124 128 118

1 The 2002 level is the total amount appropriated for that year for the programs authorized by S. 2513. The 2003 and 2004 levels are the 

total amounts authorized in current law for those programs. 

Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act specifies pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending and receipts. These procedures 

would apply to S. 2513 because it would affect both direct spending 

and receipts, but CBO estimates that the annual amount of such 

changes would not be significant. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2513 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

The bill would benefit state, local, and tribal governments by creating new grant programs and by reauthorizing and expanding existing grants under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 

2000. Any costs incurred to receive or administer grants under 

these programs would be voluntary.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz; Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Angela Seitz; and Impact 

on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimated approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

VII. REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with paragraph 11(b)(1), rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee, after due consideration, 

concludes that S. 2513 will not have significant regulatory impact.


Insert offset folio 36 here SR334.001

Insert offset folio 37 here SR334.002

Insert offset folio 38 here SR334.003
VIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 2513, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman). 

UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * *

TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL 

PROCEDURE

Part Section 

I. CRIMES ......................................................................................... 1

* * * * * * *

PART II—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Chapter Section 

201. General provisions ................................................................... 3001

* * * * * * *

213. Limitations ............................................................................... 3281

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 213—LIMITATIONS

Sec. 

3281. Capital offenses. 

3282. Offenses not capital. 

* * * * * * *

§ 3282. Offenses not capital 

øExcept¿ (a) LIMITATION.—Except as otherwise expressly provided 

by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information 

is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been 

committed.

(b) DNA PROFILE INDICTMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In any indictment found for an offense 

under chapter 109A, if the identity of the accused is unknown, 

it shall be sufficient to describe the accused as an individual 

whose name is unknown, but who has a particular DNA profile. 

(2) EXCEPTION.—Any indictment described in paragraph (1), 

which is found within 5 years after the offense under chapter 

109A shall have been committed, shall not be subject to—

(A) the limitations period described in subsection (a); and 

(B) the provisions of chapter 208 until the individual is 

arrested or served with a summons in connection with the 

charges contained in the indictment. 

(3) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this subection, the term ‘‘DNA profile’’ means a set of DNA identification characteristics. 

* * * * * * *

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

I. SCOPE, PURPOSE AND CONSTRUCTION 

Rule 

1. Scope. 

* * * * * * *

III. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION 

* * * * * * *

7. The Indictment and the Information. 

(a) Use of Indictment or Information. 

(b) Waiver of Indictment. 

(c) Nature and Consents. 

(1) In General. 

* * * * * * *

Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information. 

(a) Use of Indictment or Information. An offense * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) NATURE AND CONTENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The indictment or the information shall be 

a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential 

facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be signed by the 

attorney for the government. It need not contain a formal commencement, a formal conclusion or any other matter not necessary to such statement. Allegations made in one count may 

be incorporated by reference in another count. It may be alleged in a single count that the means by which the defendant 

committed the offense are unknown or that the defendant committed it by one or more specified means. The indictment or information shall state for each count the official or customary 

citation of the statute, rule, regulation or other provision of law 

which the defendant is alleged therein to have violated. For 

purposes of an indictment referred to in section 3282 of title 18, 

United States Code, if the identity of the defendant is unknown, 

it shall be sufficient to describe the defendant, in the indictment, as an individual whose name is unknown, but who has 

a particular DNA profile, as defined in that section 3282. 

* * * * * * *

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND 

WELFARE

Chapter Section 

1. The Public Health Service [See Chapter 6A] ............................. 1

* * * * * * *

46. Justice System Improvement ......................................................................... 3701

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 46—JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

Sec. 

3701. Repealed. 

Subchapter I—Office of Justice Programs 

* * * * * * *

Subchapter XII–H—Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women 

3796gg. Purpose of the program and grants. 

(a) General program purpose. 

(b) Purposes for which grants may be used. 

* * * * * * *

Subchapter XII–H—Grants to Combat Violent Crime Against 

Women 

§ 3796gg. Purpose of the program and grants 

(a) GENERAL PROGRAM PURPOSE.—The purpose of this subchapter is to assist States, State and local courts (including juvenile courts), Indian tribal governments, tribal courts, and units of 

local government to develop and strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent crimes against 

women, and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women. 

* * * * * * *

(c) STATE COALITION GRANTS.—

(1) PURPOSE.—The Attorney General shall award grants to 

each State domestic violence coalition and sexual assault coalition for the purposes of coordinating State victim services activities, and collaborating and coordinating with Federal, State, 

and local entities engaged in violence against women activities. 

* * * * * * *

(3) ELIGIBILITY FOR OTHER GRANTS.—Receipt of an award 

under this subsection by each State domestic violence and sexual assault coalition shall not preclude the coalition from receiving additional grants under this subchapter to carry out 

the purposes described in subsection (b). 

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Revision Notes and legislative Reports. 2000 Acts. House Report 

No. 106–939, see 2000 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1380. 

* * * * * * *

Standards, Practice, and Training for Sexual Assault Forensic 

Examinations. Pub.L. 106–386, Div. B, Title IV, § 1405, Oct. 28, 

2000, 114 Stat. 1515, provided that: 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall—

‘‘(1) evaluate existing standards of training and practice for 

licensed health care professionals performing sexual assault forensic examinations and develop a national recommended 

standard for training; 

‘‘(2) recommend sexual assault forensic examination training 

for all health care students and emergency response personnel

to improve the recognition of injuries suggestive of rape and 

27

sexual assault and baseline knowledge of appropriate referrals 

in victim treatment and evidence collection; and ‘‘(3) review existing national, State, tribal, and local protocols 

on sexual assault forensic examinations and DNA evidence collection and based on this review, develop a recommended national protocol and establish a mechanism for its nationwide 

dissemination. 

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 136—VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW 

ENFORCEMENT

SUBCHAPTER I—PRISONS 

PART A—VIOLENT OFFENDER INCARCERATION AND TRUTH IN SENTENCING INCENTIVE

GRANTS

Sec. 

13701. Grants for correctional facilities. 

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IX—STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

PART A—DNA IDENTIFICATION

Sec. 

14131. Quality assurance and proficiency testing standards. 

* * * * * * *

14134. Authorization of appropriations. 

* * * * * * *

§ 14134. Authorization of appropriations 

øThere¿ (a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to carry out sections 

14131, 14132, and 14133 of this title—

(1) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 1996; 

(2) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; 

(3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; 

(4) $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1999; and 

(5) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

(b) INCREASED GRANTS FOR CODIS.—There is authorized to be 

appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to carry out upgrades to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) $9,700,000 for 

fiscal year 2003.

§ 14135. øAuthorization of grants¿ Authorization of Debbie 

Smith DNA Backlog Grants 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.—The Attorney General may 

make grants to eligible States, units of local government, or Indian 

tribes for use by the State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe

for the following purposes: 

(1) To carry out, for inclusion in the Combined DNA Index 

System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, DNA analyses 

of samples taken from individuals convicted of a qualifying 

State offense (as determined under subsection (b)(3)). 

(2) To carry out, for inclusion in such Combined DNA Index 

System, DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes including 

samples from rape kits and samples from other sexual assault 

evidence, including samples taken in cases with no identified 

suspect.

(3) To increase the capacity of laboratories owned by the 

State øor by units of local government¿, units of local government, or Indian tribes within the State to carry out DNA analyses of samples specified in paragraph (2). 

(4) To ensure that DNA testing and analysis of samples from 

rape kits and nonsuspect cases are carried out in a timely manner.

(b) ELIGIBILITY.—For a State or unit of local government, or the 

head of the Indian tribe to be eligible to receive a grant under this 

section, the chief executive officer of the State or unit of local government, or the head of the Indian tribe shall submit to the Attorney General an application in such form and containing such information as the Attorney General may require. The application 

shall—

(1) provide assurances that the State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe has implemented, or will implement not 

later than 120 days after the date of such application, a comprehensive plan for the expeditious DNA analysis of samples 

in accordance with this section; 

(2) include a certification that each DNA analysis carried out 

under the plan shall be maintained pursuant to the privacy requirements described in section 14132(b)(3) of this title; 

(3) include a certification that the State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe has determined, by statute, rule, or regulation, those offenses under State law that shall be treated for 

purposes of this section as qualifying State offenses; 

(4) specify the allocation that the State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe shall make, in using grant amounts to 

carry out DNA analyses of samples, as between samples specified in subsection (a)(1) and samples specified in subsection 

(a)(2); øand¿

(5) specify that portion of grant amounts that the State, unit 

of local government, or Indian tribe shall use for the purpose 

specified in subsection (a)(3)ø.¿;

(6) if the applicant is a unit of local government, certify that 

the applicant participates in a State laboratory system; 

(7) provide assurances that, not later than 3 years after the 

date on which the application is submitted, the State, unit of 

local government, or Indian tribe will implement a plan for forwarding, not later than 180 days after a DNA evidence sample 

is obtained, all samples collected in cases of sexual assault to 

a laboratory that meets the quality assurance standards for 

testing under subsection (d); and 

(8) upon issuance of the regulations specified in section 10(d), 

certify that the State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe 

is in compliance with those regulations.

(c) CRIMES WITHOUT SUSPECTS.—A State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe that proposes to allocate grant amounts 

under paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) for the purposes specified in paragraph (2 or (3) of subsection (a) shall use such allocated 

amounts to conduct or facilitate DNA analyses of those samples 

that relate to crimes in connection with which there are no suspects. 

(d) ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The plan shall require that, except as provided in paragraph (3), each DNA analysis be carried out in a 

laboratory that satisfies quality assurance standards and is—

(A) operated by the State øor a unit of local government¿, a unit of local government, or an Indian tribe

within the State; or 

(B) operated by a private entity pursuant to a contract 

with the State øor a unit of local government¿, a unit of 

local government, or an Indian tribe within the State. 

(2) QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS.—

(A) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

shall maintain and make available to States, units of local 

government, and Indian tribes, a description of quality assurance protocols and practices that the Director considers 

adequate to assure the quality of a forensic laboratory. 

* * * * * * *

(e) RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF FUNDS.— (1) NONSUPPLANTING.—Funds made available pursuant to 

this section shall not be used to supplant State or local government funds, but shall be used to increase the amount of funds 

that would, in the absence of Federal fund, be made available 

from State or local government sources for the purposes of this 

Act.

(2) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—A State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe may not use more than 3 percent of the 

funds it receives from this section for administrative expenses. 

(f) REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.—Each State, unit of 

local government, or Indian tribe which receives a grant under this 

section shall submit to the Attorney General, for each year in 

which funds from a grant received under this section is expended, 

a report at such time and in such manner as the Attorney General 

may reasonably require, which contains—

* * * * * * *

(g) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 90 days after the end 

of each fiscal year for which grants are made under this section, 

the Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report that includes—

(1) the aggregate amount of grants made under this section 

to each State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe for such 

fiscal year; and 

(2) a summary of the information provided by States, units 

of local government, or Indian tribes receiving grants under 

this section. 

(h) EXPENDITURE RECORDS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe which receives a grant under this section shall keep 

records as the Attorney General may require to facilitate an effective audit of the receipt and use of grant funds received 

under this section. 

(2) ACCESS.—Each State, unit of local government, or Indian 

tribe which receives a grant under this section shall make 

available, for the purpose of audit and examination, such 

records as are related to the receipt or use of any such grant. 

* * * * * * *

(j) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Amounts are authorized 

to be appropriated to the Attorney General for grants under subsection (a) as follows: 

(1) For grants for the purposes specified in paragraph (1) of 

such subsection— (A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; 

(B) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; øand¿

ø(C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;¿

(C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; 

(D) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; 

(E) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; 

(F) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and 

(G) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; 

Amounts made available to carry out the purposes specified in 

subsection (a)(1) shall remain available until expended.

(2) For grants for the purposes specified in paragraphs (2) 

and (3) of such subsection— (A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; 

(B) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; 

ø(C) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and 

ø(D) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.¿

(C) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; 

(D) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; 

(E) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; 

(F) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and 

(G) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2007. 

Amounts made available to carry out the purposes specified in 

paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) shall remain available 

until expended. 

(k) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this section, the Attorney General shall give priority to a State or unit of local government 

that has a significant rape kit or nonsuspect case backlog per capita 

as compared with other applicants.

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

(a) COLLECTION OF DNA SAMPLES.—

(1) FROM INDIVIDUALS IN CUSTODY.—The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall collect a DNA sample from each individual in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons who is, or has 

been, convicted of a qualifying Federal offense (as determined 

under subsection (d)) or a qualifying military offense, as determined under section 1565 of Title 10. 

* * * * * * * 

(f) COMMENCEMENT OF COLLECTION.—Collection of DNA samples 

under subsection (a) shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, commence not later than the date that is 180 days after December 18, 2000.

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to carry out 

this section $500,000 for fiscal year 2003. 

* * * * * * *

§ 14135e. Privacy protection standards 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), any sample collected under, or any result of any analysis carried out under, 

section 14135, 14135a, or 14135b of this title may be used only for 

purpose specified in such section or in section 3282(b) of title 18, 

United States Code.

* * * * * * *

(c) CRIMINAL PENALTY.—A person who knowingly—

(1) ødiscloses a sample or result¿ discloses or uses a DNA 

sample or DNA analysis described in subsection (a) in any 

manner to any person not authorized to receive it; or 

(2) obtains, without authorization, a sample or result described in subsection (a), shall be fined not more than $100,000 

per offense.

(d) LIMITATION ON ACCESS TO DNA INFORMATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall establish, by 

regulation, procedures to limit access to, or use of, stored DNA 

samples or DNA analyses. 

(2) REGULATIONS.—The regulations established under paragraph (1) shall establish conditions for using DNA information 

to—

(A) limit the use and dissemination of such information, 

as provided under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 210304(b)(3) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(3)); 

(B) limit the redissemination of such information; 

(C) ensure the accuracy, security, and confidentiality of 

such information; 

(D) protect any privacy rights of individuals who are the 

subject of such information; and 

(E) provide for the timely removal and destruction of obsolete or inaccurate information, or information required to 

be expunged.

Æ