sive or show that the applicant was the source
of the DNA evidence, the DNA sample of the
applicant may be retained in NDIS.
‘‘(B) MATCH WITH OTHER OFFENSE.—If
the DNA test results obtained under this sec-
tion exclude the applicant as the source of the
DNA evidence, and a comparison of the DNA
sample of the applicant results in a match be-
tween the DNA sample of the applicant and an-
other offense, the Attorney General shall notify
the appropriate agency and preserve the DNA
sample of the applicant.
‘‘(C) NO MATCH.—If the DNA test results
obtained under this section exclude the appli-
cant as the source of the DNA evidence, and a
comparison of the DNA sample of the applicant
does not result in a match between the DNA
sample of the applicant and another offense,
the Attorney General shall destroy the DNA
sample of the applicant and ensure that such
information is not retained in NDIS if there is
no other legal authority to retain the DNA
sample of the applicant in NDIS.
‘‘(f) POST-TESTING PROCEDURES; INCONCLUSIVE
AND INCULPATORY RESULTS.—
‘‘(1) INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS.—If DNA test re-
sults obtained under this section are inconclusive,
the court may order further testing, if appropriate,
or may deny the applicant relief.
‘‘(2) INCULPATORY RESULTS.—If DNA test re-
sults obtained under this section show that the ap-
plicant was the source of the DNA evidence, the
court shall—
‘‘(A) deny the applicant relief; and
‘‘(B) on motion of the Government—
‘‘(i) make a determination whether
the applicant’s assertion of actual inno-
cence was false, and, if the court makes
such a finding, the court may hold the ap-
plicant in contempt;
‘‘(ii) assess against the applicant the
cost of any DNA testing carried out under
this section;
‘‘(iii) forward the finding to the Direc-
tor of the Bureau of Prisons, who, upon
receipt of such a finding, may deny, wholly
or in part, the good conduct credit author-
ized under section 3632 on the basis of
that finding;
‘‘(iv) if the applicant is subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States Parole
Commission, forward the finding to the
Commission so that the Commission may
deny parole on the basis of that finding;
and
‘‘(v) if the DNA test results relate to
a State offense, forward the finding to any
appropriate State official.
‘‘(3) SENTENCE.—In any prosecution of an ap-
plicant under chapter 79 for false assertions or other
conduct in proceedings under this section, the court,
upon conviction of the applicant, shall sentence the
applicant to a term of imprisonment of not less than
3 years, which shall run consecutively to any other
term of imprisonment the applicant is serving.
‘‘(g) POST-TESTING
PROCEDURES; MOTION
FOR
NEW TRIAL OR RESENTENCING.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any law
that would bar a motion under this paragraph as
untimely, if DNA test results obtained under this
section exclude the applicant as the source of the
DNA evidence, the applicant may file a motion for
a new trial or resentencing, as appropriate. The
court shall establish a reasonable schedule for the
applicant to file such a motion and for the Govern-
ment to respond to the motion.
‘‘(2) STANDARD FOR GRANTING MOTION FOR
NEW
TRIAL
OR
RESENTENCING.—The court shall
grant the motion of the applicant for a new trial or
resentencing, as appropriate, if the DNA test re-
sults, when considered with all other evidence in the
case (regardless of whether such evidence was intro-
duced at trial), establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal
of—
‘‘(A) in the case of a motion for a new
trial, the Federal offense for which the appli-
cant is under a sentence of imprisonment or
death; and
‘‘(B) in the case of a motion for resen-
tencing, another Federal or State offense, if—
‘‘(i) such offense was legally necessary
to make the applicant eligible for a sen-
tence as a career offender under section
3559(e) or an armed career offender under
section 924(e), and exoneration of such of-
fense would entitle the applicant to a re-
duced sentence; or
‘‘(b) DEFINED TERM.—For purposes of this section,
the term ‘biological evidence’ means—
‘‘(1) a sexual assault forensic examination kit;
or
‘‘(2) semen, blood, saliva, hair, skin tissue, or
other identified biological material.
‘‘(c) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall not apply
if—
‘‘(1) a court has denied a request or motion for
DNA testing of the biological evidence by the de-
fendant under section 3600, and no appeal is pend-
ing;
‘‘(2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily
waived the right to request DNA testing of such evi-
dence in a court proceeding conducted after the date
of enactment of the Innocence Protection Act of
2003;
‘‘(3) the defendant is notified after conviction
that the biological evidence may be destroyed and
the defendant does not file a motion under section
3600 within 180 days of receipt of the notice; or
‘‘(4)(A) the evidence must be returned to its
rightful owner, or is of such a size, bulk, or physical
character as to render retention impracticable; and
‘‘(B) the Government takes reasonable meas-
ures to remove and preserve portions of the material
evidence sufficient to permit future DNA testing.
‘‘(d) OTHER PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT.—Noth-
ing in this section shall preempt or supersede any statute,
regulation, court order, or other provision of law that may
require evidence, including biological evidence, to be pre-
served.
‘‘(e) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of the Innocence Protection Act of
2003, the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations
to implement and enforce this section, including appro-
priate disciplinary sanctions to ensure that employees
comply with such regulations.
‘‘(f) CRIMINAL PENALTY.—Whoever knowingly and
intentionally destroys, alters, or tampers with biological
evidence that is required to be preserved under this section
with the intent to prevent that evidence from being sub-
jected to DNA testing or prevent the production or use
of that evidence in an official proceeding, shall be fined
under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years,
or both.
‘‘(g) HABEAS CORPUS.—Nothing in this section shall
provide a basis for relief in any Federal habeas corpus
proceeding.’’.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The chapter anal-
ysis for part II of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to
chapter 228 the following:
‘‘228A. Post-conviction DNA testing ........................................... 3600’’.
(b) SYSTEM FOR REPORTING MOTIONS.—
(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Attorney General
shall establish a system for reporting and tracking
motions filed in accordance with section 3600 of title
18, United States Code.
(2) OPERATION.—In operating the system es-
tablished under paragraph (1), the Federal courts
shall provide to the Attorney General any requested
assistance in operating such a system and in ensur-
ing the accuracy and completeness of information in-
cluded in that system.
(3) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General
shall submit a report to Congress that contains—
(A) a list of motions filed under section
3600 of title 18, United States Code, as added
by this Act;
(B) whether DNA testing was ordered pur-
suant to such a motion;
(C) whether the applicant obtained relief
on the basis of DNA test results; and
(D) whether further proceedings occurred
following a granting of relief and the outcome
of such proceedings.
(4) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—The report re-
quired to be submitted under paragraph (3) may in-
clude any other information the Attorney General
determines to be relevant in assessing the operation,
utility, or costs of section 3600 of title 18, United
States Code, as added by this Act, and any rec-
ommendations the Attorney General may have relat-
ing to future legislative action concerning that sec-
tion.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY.—This section
and the amendments made by this section shall take effect
on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply with
respect to any offense committed, and to any judgment
of conviction entered, before, on, or after that date of en-
actment.
SEC. 312. KIRK BLOODSWORTH POST-CONVICTION DNA
TESTING GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall estab-
lish the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Grant Program to award grants to States to help defray
the costs of post-conviction DNA testing.
(b) AUTHORIZATION
OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There
are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to carry out this section.
(c) STATE DEFINED.—For purposes of this section,
the term ‘‘State’’ means a State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
SEC. 313. INCENTIVE GRANTS TO STATES TO ENSURE CON-
SIDERATION OF CLAIMS OF ACTUAL INNO-
CENCE.
For each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, all funds
appropriated to carry out sections 203, 205, 207, and 312
shall be reserved for grants to eligible entities that—
(1) meet the requirements under section 203,
205, 207, or 312, as appropriate; and
(2) demonstrate that the State in which the eli-
gible entity operates—
(A) provides post-conviction DNA testing
of specified evidence—
(i) under a State statute enacted be-
fore the date of enactment of this Act (or
extended or renewed after such date), to
any person convicted after trial and under
a sentence of imprisonment or death for a
State offense, in a manner that ensures a
meaningful process for resolving a claim of
actual innocence; or
(ii) under a State statute enacted
after the date of enactment of this Act, or
under a State rule, regulation, or practice,
to any person under a sentence of impris-
onment or death for a State offense, in a
manner comparable to section 3600(a) of
title 18, United States Code (provided that
the State statute, rule, regulation, or prac-
tice may make post-conviction DNA test-
ing available in cases in which such testing
is not required by such section), and if the
results of such testing exclude the appli-
cant, permits the applicant to apply for
post-conviction relief, notwithstanding any
provision of law that would otherwise bar
such application as untimely; and
(B) preserves biological evidence secured in
relation to the investigation or prosecution of a
State offense—
(i) under a State statute or a State or
local rule, regulation, or practice, enacted
or adopted before the date of enactment of
this Act (or extended or renewed after
such date), in a manner that ensures that
reasonable measures are taken by all juris-
dictions within the State to preserve such
evidence; or
(ii) under a State statute or a State
or local rule, regulation, or practice, en-
acted or adopted after the date of enact-
ment of this Act, in a manner comparable
to section 3600A of title 18, United States
Code, if—
(I) all jurisdictions within the
State comply with this requirement;
and
(II) such jurisdictions may pre-
serve such evidence for longer than
the period of time that such evidence
would be required to be preserved
under such section 3600A.
Subtitle B—Improving the Quality
of Representation in State Cap-
ital Cases
SEC. 
321. 
CAPITAL 
REPRESENTATION 
IMPROVEMENT
GRANTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall award
grants to States for the purpose of improving the quality
of legal representation provided to indigent defendants in
State capital cases.
(b) DEFINED TERM.—In this section, the term ‘‘legal
representation’’ means legal counsel and investigative, ex-
pert, and other services necessary for competent represen-
tation.
(c) USE OF FUNDS.—Grants awarded under sub-
section (a)—
(1) shall be used to establish, implement, or im-
prove an effective system for providing competent
legal representation to—
(A) indigents charged with an offense sub-
ject to capital punishment;
(B) indigents who have been sentenced to
death and who seek appellate or collateral relief
in State court; and
(C) indigents who have been sentenced to
death and who seek review in the Supreme
Court of the United States; and
(2) shall not be used to fund, directly or indi-
rectly, representation in specific capital cases.
(d) EFFECTIVE SYSTEM.—As used in subsection
(c)(1), an effective system for providing competent legal
representation is a system that—
(1) invests the responsibility for appointing
qualified attorneys to represent indigents in capital
cases—
(A) in a public defender program that re-
lies on staff attorneys, members of the private
bar, or both, to provide representation in cap-
ital cases;
(B) in an entity established by statute or
by the highest State court with jurisdiction in
criminal cases, which is composed of individuals
with demonstrated knowledge and expertise in
capital representation; or
(C) pursuant to a statutory procedure en-
acted before the date of the enactment of this
Act under which the trial judge is required to
appoint qualified attorneys from a roster main-
tained by a State or regional selection com-
mittee or similar entity; and
(2) requires the program described in para-
graph (1)(A), the entity described in paragraph
(1)(B), or an appropriate entity designated pursuant
to the statutory procedure described in paragraph
(1)(C), as applicable, to—
(A) establish qualifications for attorneys
who may be appointed to represent indigents in
capital cases;
(B) establish and maintain a roster of
qualified attorneys;
(C) except in the case of a selection com-
mittee or similar entity described in paragraph
(1)(C), assign 2 attorneys from the roster to
represent an indigent in a capital case, or pro-
vide the trial judge a list of not more than 2
pairs of attorneys from the roster, from which
1 pair shall be assigned, provided that, in any
case in which the State elects not to seek the
death penalty, a court may find, subject to any
requirement of State law, that a second attor-
ney need not remain assigned to represent the
indigent to ensure competent representation;
(D) conduct, sponsor, or approve special-
ized training programs for attorneys rep-
resenting defendants in capital cases;
(E) monitor the performance of attorneys
who are appointed and their attendance at
training programs, and remove from the roster
attorneys who fail to deliver effective represen-
tation or who fail to comply with such require-
ments as such program, entity, or selection
committee or similar entity may establish re-
garding participation in training programs; and
(F) ensure funding for the full cost of
competent legal representation by the defense
team and outside experts selected by counsel,
who shall be compensated—
(i) in the case of a State that employs
a statutory procedure described in para-
graph (1)(C), in accordance with the re-
quirements of that statutory procedure;
and
(ii) in all other cases, as follows:
(I) Attorneys employed by a pub-
lic defender program shall be com-
pensated according to a salary scale
that is commensurate with the salary
scale of the prosecutor’s office in the
jurisdiction.
(II) Appointed attorneys shall be
compensated for actual time and serv-
ice, computed on an hourly basis and
at a reasonable hourly rate in light of
the qualifications and experience of
the attorney and the local market for
legal representation in cases reflecting
the complexity and responsibility of
capital cases.
(III) Non-attorney members of
the defense team, including investiga-
tors, mitigation specialists, and ex-
perts, shall be compensated at a rate
that reflects the specialized skills
needed by those who assist counsel
with the litigation of death penalty
cases.
(IV) Attorney and non-attorney
members of the defense team shall be
reimbursed for reasonable incidental
expenses.
SEC. 322. CAPITAL PROSECUTION IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall award
grants to States for the purpose of enhancing the ability
of prosecutors to effectively represent the public in State
capital cases.
(b) USE OF FUNDS.—
(1) PERMITTED USES.—Grants awarded under
subsection (a) shall be used for one or more of the
following:
(A) To design and implement training pro-
grams for State and local prosecutors to ensure
effective representation in State capital cases.
(B) To develop and implement appropriate
standards and qualifications for State and local
prosecutors who litigate State capital cases.
(C) To assess the performance of State
and local prosecutors who litigate State capital
cases, provided that such assessment shall not
include participation by the assessor in the trial
of any specific capital case.
(D) To identify and implement any poten-
tial legal reforms that may be appropriate to
minimize the potential for error in the trial of
capital cases.
(E) To establish a program under which
State and local prosecutors conduct a system-
atic review of cases in which a death sentence
was imposed in order to identify cases in which
post-conviction DNA testing may be appro-
priate.
(F) To provide support and assistance to
the families of murder victims.
(2) PROHIBITED USE.—Grants awarded under
subsection (a) shall not be used to fund, directly or
indirectly, the prosecution of specific capital cases.
SEC. 323. APPLICATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall estab-
lish a process through which a State may apply for a grant
under this subtitle.
(b) APPLICATION.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—A State desiring a grant
under this subtitle shall submit an application to the
Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Attorney General
may reasonably require.
(2) CONTENTS.—Each application submitted
under paragraph (1) shall contain—
(A) a certification by an appropriate offi-
cer of the State that the State authorizes cap-
ital punishment under its laws and conducts, or
will conduct, prosecutions in which capital pun-
ishment is sought;
(B) a description of the communities to be
served by the grant, including the nature of ex-
isting capital defender services and capital pros-
ecution programs within such communities;
(C) a long-term statewide strategy and de-
tailed implementation plan that—
(i) reflects consultation with the judi-
ciary, the organized bar, and State and
local prosecutor and defender organiza-
tions; and
(ii) establishes as a priority improve-
ment in the quality of trial-level represen-
tation of indigents charged with capital
crimes and trial-level prosecution of capital
crimes;
(D) in the case of a State that employs a
statutory 
procedure 
described 
in 
section
321(d)(1)(C), a certification by an appropriate
officer of the State that the State is in substan-
tial compliance with the requirements of the ap-
plicable State statute; and
(E) assurances that Federal funds received
under this subtitle shall be—
(i) used to supplement and not sup-
plant non-Federal funds that would other-
wise be available for activities funded
under this subtitle; and
(ii) allocated in accordance with sec-
tion 326(b).
SEC. 324. STATE REPORTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Each State receiving funds under
this subtitle shall submit an annual report to the Attorney
General that—
(1) identifies the activities carried out with such
funds; and
(2) explains how each activity complies with the
terms and conditions of the grant.
(b) 
CAPITAL
REPRESENTATION
IMPROVEMENT
GRANTS.—With respect to the funds provided under sec-
tion 321, a report under subsection (a) shall include—
(1) an accounting of all amounts expended;
(2) an explanation of the means by which the
State—
(A) invests the responsibility for identi-
fying and appointing qualified attorneys to rep-
resent indigents in capital cases in a program
described in section 321(d)(1)(A), an entity de-
scribed in section 321(d)(1)(B), or selection
committee or similar entity described in section
321(d)(1)(C); and
(B) requires such program, entity, or selec-
tion committee or similar entity, or other appro-
priate entity designated pursuant to the statu-
tory 
procedure 
described 
in 
section
321(d)(1)(C), to—
(i) establish qualifications for attor-
neys who may be appointed to represent
indigents in capital cases in accordance
with section 321(d)(2)(A);
(ii) establish and maintain a roster of
qualified attorneys in accordance with sec-
tion 321(d)(2)(B);
(iii) assign attorneys from the roster
in accordance with section 321(d)(2)(C);
(iv) conduct, sponsor, or approve spe-
cialized training programs for attorneys
representing defendants in capital cases in
accordance with section 321(d)(2)(D);
(v) monitor the performance and
training program attendance of appointed
attorneys, and remove from the roster at-
torneys who fail to deliver effective rep-
resentation or fail to comply with such re-
quirements as such program, entity, or se-
lection committee or similar entity may es-
tablish regarding participation in training
programs, in accordance with section
321(d)(2)(E); and
(vi) ensure funding for the full cost of
competent legal representation by the de-
fense team and outside experts selected by
counsel, 
in 
accordance 
with 
section
321(d)(2)(F), including a statement set-
ting forth—
(I) if the State employs a public
defender 
program 
under 
section
321(d)(1)(A), the salaries received by
the attorneys employed by such pro-
gram and the salaries received by at-
torneys in the prosecutor’s office in
the jurisdiction;
(II) if the State employs ap-
pointed 
attorneys 
under 
section
321(d)(1)(B), the hourly fees received
by such attorneys for actual time and
service and the basis on which the
hourly rate was calculated;
(III) the amounts paid to non-at-
torney members of the defense team,
and the basis on which such amounts
were determined; and
(IV) the amounts for which at-
torney and non-attorney members of
the defense team were reimbursed for
reasonable incidental expenses;
(3) in the case of a State that employs a statu-
tory procedure described in section 321(d)(1)(C), an
assessment of the extent to which the State is in
compliance with the requirements of the applicable
State statute; and
(4) a statement confirming that the funds have
not been used to fund representation in specific cap-
ital cases or to supplant non-Federal funds.
(c) 
CAPITAL
PROSECUTION
IMPROVEMENT
GRANTS.—With respect to the funds provided under sec-
tion 322, a report under subsection (a) shall include—
(1) an accounting of all amounts expended;
(2) a description of the means by which the
State has—
(A) designed and established training pro-
grams for State and local prosecutors to ensure
effective representation in State capital cases in
accordance with section 322(b)(1)(A);
(B) developed and implemented appro-
priate standards and qualifications for State
and local prosecutors who litigate State capital
cases in accordance with section 322(b)(1)(B);
(C) assessed the performance of State and
local prosecutors who litigate State capital cases
in accordance with section 322(b)(1)(C);
(D) identified and implemented any poten-
tial legal reforms that may be appropriate to
minimize the potential for error in the trial of
capital 
cases 
in 
accordance 
with 
section
322(b)(1)(D);
(E) established a program under which
State and local prosecutors conduct a system-
atic review of cases in which a death sentence
was imposed in order to identify cases in which
post-conviction DNA testing may be appro-
priate in accordance with section 322(b)(1)(E);
and
(F) provided support and assistance to the
families of murder victims; and
(3) a statement confirming that the funds have
not been used to fund the prosecution of specific
capital cases or to supplant non-Federal funds.
(d) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ANNUAL STATE RE-
PORTS.—The annual reports to the Attorney General sub-
mitted by any State under this section shall be made avail-
able to the public.
SEC. 325. EVALUATIONS BY INSPECTOR GENERAL AND AD-
MINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
(a) EVALUATION BY INSPECTOR GENERAL.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after
the end of the first fiscal year for which a State re-
ceives funds under a grant made under this title, the
Inspector General of the Department of Justice (in
this section referred to as the ‘‘Inspector General’’)
shall—
(A) after affording an opportunity for any
person to provide comments on a report sub-
mitted under section 324, submit to Congress
and to the Attorney General a report evaluating
the compliance by the State with the terms and
conditions of the grant; and
(B) if the Inspector General concludes that
the State is not in compliance with the terms
and conditions of the grant, specify any defi-
ciencies and make recommendations for correc-
tive action.
(2) 
PRIORITY.—In 
conducting 
evaluations
under this subsection, the Inspector General shall
give priority to States that the Inspector General de-
termines, based on information submitted by the
State and other comments provided by any other
person, to be at the highest risk of noncompliance.
(3) DETERMINATION FOR STATUTORY PROCE-
DURE STATES.—For each State that employs a stat-
utory procedure described in section 321(d)(1)(C),
the Inspector General shall submit to Congress and
to the Attorney General, not later than the end of
the first fiscal year for which such State receives
funds, after affording an opportunity for any person
to provide comments on a certification submitted
under section 323(b)(2)(D), a determination as to
whether the State is in substantial compliance with
the requirements of the applicable State statute.
(b) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.—
(1) COMMENT.—Upon receiving the report
under subsection (a)(1) or the determination under
subsection (a)(3), the Attorney General shall provide
the State with an opportunity to comment regarding
the findings and conclusions of the report or the de-
termination.
(2) CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN.—If the Attor-
ney General, after reviewing the report under sub-
section (a)(1) or the determination under subsection
(a)(3), determines that a State is not in compliance
with the terms and conditions of the grant, the At-
torney General shall consult with the appropriate
State authorities to enter into a plan for corrective
action. If the State does not agree to a plan for cor-
rective action that has been approved by the Attor-
ney General within 90 days after the submission of
the report under subsection (a)(1) or the determina-
tion under subsection (a)(3), the Attorney General
shall, within 30 days, direct the State to take correc-
tive action to bring the State into compliance.
(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 90
days after the earlier of the implementation of a cor-
rective action plan or a directive to implement such
a plan under paragraph (2), the Attorney General
shall submit a report to Congress as to whether the
State has taken corrective action and is in compli-
ance with the terms and conditions of the grant.
(c) PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.—If the State
fails to take the prescribed corrective action under sub-
section (b) and is not in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the grant, the Attorney General shall dis-
continue all further funding under sections 321 and 322
and require the State to return the funds granted under
such sections for that fiscal year. Nothing in this para-
graph shall prevent a State which has been subject to pen-
alties for noncompliance from reapplying for a grant under
this subtitle in another fiscal year.
(d) PERIODIC REPORTS.—During the grant period,
the Inspector General shall periodically review the compli-
ance of each State with the terms and conditions of the
grant.
(e) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Not less than 2.5 per-
cent of the funds appropriated to carry out this subtitle
for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 shall be made
available to the Inspector General for purposes of carrying
out this section. Such sums shall remain available until
expended.
(f) SPECIAL RULE FOR ‘‘STATUTORY PROCEDURE’’
STATES NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH STAT-
UTORY PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a State that
employs a statutory procedure described in section
321(d)(1)(C), if the Inspector General submits a de-
termination under subsection (a)(3) that the State is