A bill to amend the Head Start Act to require parental consent for nonemergency intrusive physical examinations.

Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senators Craig, Sununu, Durbin, and Reid, my distinguished colleagues from Idaho, New Hampshire, Illinois, and Nevada, the Patriot Oversight Restoration Act of 2003, a short bill whose singular but important purpose is to provide Congress the opportunity to take a hard look at the USA PATRIOT Act, which we passed in the anxious weeks following the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001. This bipartisan bill is moderate in scope; it would simply expand the sunset provision already enacted in the PATRIOT Act, to cover a number of additional provisions. The ensuing debate, however, should be considerable. My hope is that, before the sunset expires in December 2005, Congress will methodically revisit PATRIOT, with an eye toward achieving a suitable balance between the need to address the threat of terrorism and the need to protect our constitutional freedoms--and with the lessons of the past few years to guide us.

We recently marked the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks. As we reflect on that terrible day, and honor those who were lost, I strongly believe we should take stock of where we stand in our fight against terrorism. In the aftermath of the attacks, Congress and the administration did forge a constructive partnership to write the USA PATRIOT Act, which was meant to help our law enforcement and intelligence communities prevent future attacks from occurring. The PATRIOT Act represented our best efforts, under difficult circumstances, to balance the rights and liberties of the American people with the very urgent need to confront a threat to our Nation.

Even in balancing this tension, we granted the executive branch an unprecedented, vast new array of powers. We did so because we believed the administration's claim that it needed these powers to protect us, and because we trusted the administration's promise that it would use these powers appropriately. I noted at the time that PATRIOT was not the bill that I, or any of the sponsors, would have written if compromise were unnecessary. But I believed in the bill's purpose, and I gave it my vote and support. I worked hard to add checks and balances to many of its provisions, and did so.

Unfortunately, like many Members who supported the act--and like many Americans nationwide--I have come to feel disappointed. Since we passed the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, it has grown increasingly apparent that the trust and cooperation Congress provided to the executive branch has proved to be a one-way street. In the quarter-century that I have served in the Senate, no administration has been more secretive, more resistant to congressional oversight, and more disposed to acting unilaterally, without the approval of the American people or their democratically elected representatives. Despite the administration's unprecedented public relations campaign to promote the PATRIOT Act-- including a 16-State, 18-city tour by the Attorney General himself--the administration has yet to show that it is using its PATRIOT powers wisely. Instead, it has been secretly drafting a sequel to PATRIOT that would grant it even more far-reaching powers.

I would never oppose an open discussion of any legislative tool that would help in the fight against terrorism. But for such a debate to be fruitful, we need to know more about the tools that are already available, including those created by the PATRIOT Act. Which are working, and how well? Which are not working, and why? Which, if any, struck the wrong balance, threatening the civil liberties of our citizens while doing little or nothing to keep our Nation secure?

Immediately after the PATRIOT Act passed, the administration draped a cloak of secrecy around its use. When lawmakers and citizens have attempted to start a dialogue on PATRIOT-related issues, the response has been to ignore, insult or derisively dismiss them.

Attorney General Ashcroft has repeatedly declined to appear before the Judiciary Committee to answer questions, and his Department is painfully slow to respond to written requests for information. To quote my friend Senator Grassley, ``getting information from the Justice Department under Ashcroft is like pulling teeth.'' By ignoring oversight requests until answers are moot or outdated, and responding in only vague and conclusory fashion, if at all, the Justice Department frustrates our constitutional system of checks and balances, and sows the sort of public distrust that now accompanies the PATRIOT Act.

Just recently, in July, the Department dumped on committee members literally hundreds of pages of answers to questions that had been submitted to Attorney General Ashcroft and other senior Department officials following their testimony before the committee more than a year earlier. To give just one example of what a travesty it is when oversight questions remain unanswered for a year or more, the Department's responses dated July 17, 2003, devoted fully 15 pages to answering questions about Operation TIPS--an ill-conceived program that Congress had already terminated more than 8 months earlier.

Is the Department incapable of responding to congressional inquiries in a timely fashion? Is it deliberately stonewalling? Or does it simply believe that oversight is a game that it need not play?

Even more troubling, high-level administration officials have rashly suggested that anyone who dares to voice their concerns as unpatriotic, anti-American and pro-terrorist. In one of his rare appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft charged that ``fear mongers''--those who were raising concern about the loss of civil liberties--were only aiding the terrorists. More recently, a Justice Department official dismissed the many local government resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act by saying ``half are either in cities in Vermont, very small population, or in college towns in California. It's in a lot of the usual enclaves where you might see nuclear free zones, or they

probably passed resolutions against the war in Iraq.''

It is unfortunate that the Justice Department felt it appropriate to ridicule these grass-roots efforts to participate in an important national dialogue. The opportunity to engage in public discourse is one of the hallmark benefits of being an American, and I am proud that Vermont towns are among those dedicated to thinking about and acting on these important issues. But more importantly, the concerns expressed in my home State are being echoed by Americans nationwide. To date, anti- PATRIOT resolutions have been passed by 178 communities in 32 States including Idaho, New Hampshire, and Illinois. These communities represent millions upon millions of Americans, not just a few free- spirited Vermonters, as the Justice Department has insinuated.

Concerns about the administration's antiterror tactics are also shared by Members on both sides of aisle, many of whom supported the PATRIOT Act as well as the war in Iraq, but who now know that the administration has been less than forthright about what it has been doing in the name of the American people. In July, the House voted to nullify section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows law enforcement to ask a court to delay notice of a search warrant where it could have certain adverse results. And several bills have been introduced in both Houses to roll back another PATRIOT Act provision, section 215, which gives federal agents new power to obtain records from libraries and bookstores. Remarkably, in response, the Justice Department then declassified information summarily reflecting that it has never used the Section 215 powers--despite expressing urgent ``need'' during pre- PATRIOT Act debate. And almost simultaneous to this announcement, the President urged support for an alternative record gathering power when Section 215 is still on the books. One has to question the inconsistencies in these two positions and whether Congress should blindly confer data gathering powers on an administration that does not provide a hint of factual support for such requests. There is overall a growing sense in the nation that Congress moved too fast in enacting the PATRIOT Act, and that the Justice Department moved too slowly in explaining its use of this sweeping legislation.

When we passed the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, I noted that Congress needed to exercise careful oversight of how the Justice Department, the FBI and other executive branch agencies used the newly expanded powers that the act provided. The need for oversight and accountability is the reason that former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and I insisted on a sunset provision for several key provisions in PATRIOT--provisions that blurred the lines between criminal investigation and intelligence gathering. We succeeded, but only in part; several PATRIOT provisions that should have been subject to the sunset--including a few that were sunset or even cut in the version of the bill reported by the House Judiciary Committee--were omitted from the sunset. As enacted, the sunset applies only to certain enhanced surveillance authorities in title II of the act.

The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would extend PATRIOT's sunset provision to other enhanced surveillance provisions in title II of the act. These include subsections (a) and (c) of section 203, which authorize the disclosure of grand jury information to foreign enforcement, intelligence and immigration officials; sections 210 and 211, which broaden the types of information that law enforcement may obtain, upon request, from electronic communication service providers and cable service operators; section 213, which authorizes so-called ``sneak and peak''--delayed notification--search warrants; sections 216 and 222, which significantly expand when, where, and how law enforcement can obtain a pen register or trap and trace order; and section 219, which authorizes judges to sign search warrants for properties located outside their districts.

In addition to these title II provisions, the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would also extend the sunset to a handful of provisions in titles IV, V, VIII and X of the PATRIOT Act. These provisions include sections 411 and 1006, which expand the Government's authority to declare certain persons inadmissible to the United States; section 412, which grants the Attorney General authority to ``certify'' that an alien is engaged in activity that endangers the national security, and to take such an alien into custody; section 505, which gives law enforcement greater authority to access telephone, bank, and credit records through the issuance of so-called ``National Security Letters,'' even if no criminal investigation is pending and without court review; sections 507 and 508, which remove certain privacy protections for educational records and surveys--called ``obstacles'' to investigating terrorism in the PATRIOT Act; section 802, which defines ``domestic terrorism'' in a way that could be read to include political protesters engaged in civil disobedience; section 806, which uses the aforementioned definition of ``domestic terrorism'' to expand the government's civil forfeiture authority; and section 1003, which references another section of PATRIOT that is already covered by the sunset.

With the PATRIOT Act, Congress provided government investigators with a virtual smorgasbord of new powers from which to choose. Is the Government gorging itself on the secretive powers allowed for ``foreign intelligence'' gathering, with their less onerous procedural requirements, rather than relying on bedrock criminal investigatory techniques that are subject to more rigorous review by the Federal courts? Have we provided too many choices and too much power to a limited few? These are questions that require answers before the more far-reaching provisions of PATRIOT are etched into stone.

The events of September 11, 2001, resound in our hearts and in our memories. We owe it to the American people to be circumspect in the powers and authorities we grant, even in the name of national security. Our country was attacked on September 11 because of the democratic principles that this country stands for and that we love. It would be a cruel twist of irony to abandon those principles in the guise of a law named ``PATRIOT'' that might prove to be anything but a defender or protector of those cherished rights and freedoms.

The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act offers a cautious and sensible solution to evolving fears about the PATRIOT Act. It will allow Congress to re-examine some of the important legal issues that abruptly confronted us in the weeks following September 11, and to re-assess our efforts with the benefit of hindsight and the luxury of time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, three years ago, Senator Smith, Senator Collins and I joined together to introduce the Innocence Protection Act, a modest and practical package of reforms aimed at reducing the risk of error in capital cases. The reforms we proposed were designed to create a fairer system of justice, where the problems that have sent innocent people to death row would not occur, and where victims and their families could be more certain of the accuracy, and finality, of the results.

During the last Congress, the Innocence Protection Act gained enormous momentum, with 32 Senators and 250 Representatives--well over half the House--signed on in support. Hearings were held in each House, and a version of the bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 7. Now is the time to finish the job and enact this important legislation.

I am pleased, today, to introduce the Innocence Protection Act of 2003. This legislation is a piece of a larger bill called the Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which provides an infusion of Federal funds to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs and to improve the capacity of Federal, State and local crime labs to conduct DNA analyses.

The Innocence Protection Act of 2003 proposes two critical reforms. First, it provides greater access to post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases, where it can help expose wrongful convictions, and authorizes $25 million in grants over 5 years to help defray the costs of such testing. Second, the bill addresses what all the statistics and evidence show is the single most frequent cause of wrongful convictions--inadequate defense representation at trial. By far the most important reform we can undertake is to help States establish minimum standards of competency and funding for capital defense.

Other provisions of the Innocence Protection Act establish standards for preserving biological evidence in criminal cases, and substantially increase the maximum amount of compensation that may be awarded in Federal cases of wrongful conviction.

Today's Innocence Protection Act is a modified version of the bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved last year. These modifications follow many months of negotiation and deliberation, and were made to build further on the groundswell of support for the bill, both here on Capitol Hill and across America. More than ever, the bill is a collaborative product of which we all can be proud--an exercise of bipartisanship that is in the best tradition of the United States Congress.

I want to thank and commend the Senators and Representatives who worked so hard this summer and fall to come to agreement on a bill that we can all strongly support.

First and foremost, I want to thank my partner in this endeavor, Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has worked tirelessly over many years to achieve this goal. I also want to thank our lead Republican sponsors in both houses, Senators Gordon Smith and Susan Collins, and Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, all of whom have been steadfast in their commitment to this effort.

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, deserves high praise for his leadership in our recent negotiations, as does the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, and I thank them both. Senator Hatch and I have debated these issues for years. I have always appreciated his thoughtful approach and serious commitment to improving the criminal justice system. Representative Sensenbrenner played an instrumental role in this process and I do not believe we could have come so far without his dedication. In addition, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Senator Feinstein, who has devoted countless hours over the years to reconciling the policy differences that prevented this legislation from moving forward.

I am sorry that Senator DeWine could not be with us earlier today to announce the introduction of the bill, and appreciate his willingness to allow us to proceed. I have long worked with Senator DeWine on funding important forensic science tools for law enforcement, and we are currently working on a proposal with regard to how the mentally retarded are treated by the criminal justice system. His leadership on these issues is important and greatly appreciated.

Thanks, too, to the many members on both sides of the aisle, in the Senate and in the House, who have supported this legislation over the years. Working together, we can finally begin to address the many problems facing our capital punishment system.

Capital Representation Improvement Grants: I would like to take a moment now to elaborate on the capital defense representation provisions of the bill, both because they are the more important provisions and because they have been the principal subject of the recent revisions to the bill.

The new version of the Innocence Protection Act establishes a grant program for States to improve the systems by which they appoint and compensate lawyers in death cases. States that authorize capital punishment may apply for these grants or not, as they wish. However, if a State chooses to accept the money, it must open itself up to a set of requirements designed to ensure that its system truly meets basic standards. After all, the point of the bill is not to throw money at the problem of inadequate representation; the point is to fix it.

Earlier versions of the Innocence Protection Act took more of a ``carrot and stick'' approach to the counsel issue. The ``carrot'' was the same as in the current version: millions of dollars in Federal grants to help achieve adequate representation in capital cases. The ``stick''--which is no longer in the bill--has evolved over the years. At one

time, we proposed that States that failed to meet basic competent counsel standards would have their death sentences given less deference and subjected to more rigorous Federal court review. In some versions of the bill, non-complying States would also have forfeited some Federal prison grant funding over time. In the version that the Judiciary Committee approved last year, if a State chose not to participate in the new Federal grant program, the Attorney General would award the money to one or more defender organizations within the State, to be used for capital defense work.

Each of these various mechanisms would have helped ensure cooperation on the part of the States, and I am disappointed that I was unable to prevail upon my colleagues to include any one of them. Still, I believe that the current formulation is a good first step and will make a difference, provided that the grant program is fully funded and that the States which are most in need of reform elect to participate.

As reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, the bill aimed to ensure full funding of the counsel program by providing that, if Congress failed to appropriate sufficient funding for the program, up to 10 percent of the Byrne block grant would be used for this purpose. I regret that this provision has been dropped from the bill; it seemed to me a good way to express our commitment to ensuring that the program is funded. However, given the tremendous support for this legislation in both houses, and on both sides of the aisle, I am confident that Congress will speak with one voice in ensuring that our years of effort are not undermined by a failure to appropriate the money needed to make this legislation effective.

Getting States to participate in the program may be more difficult. Indeed, the States that are in most need of reform may be the least inclined to participate, given that they will have the most to do to bring their indigent defense systems into compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant. While I am hopeful that States will want to improve their systems, and will welcome the infusion of Federal funds for this purpose, Congress will need to monitor this program carefully to ensure that it is meeting its stated objective of improving the quality of legal representation provided to indigent defendants in State capital cases and, if it is not, to take additional remedial action.

Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program: We have also established a $25 million grant program to help defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing. This program is named in honor of Kirk Bloodsworth, the first death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing.

I first met Kirk in February 2000, when he came to me as a man who had been exonerated after almost nine years of wrongful imprisonment. I am proud to say that we have become close friends and partners in the fight to reform capital punishment in America. I am also delighted that Kirk can finally feel truly free. Just a few weeks ago, the State of Maryland charged another man with the crime for which Kirk was convicted and sentenced to death, after prosecutors finally ran the DNA evidence in the case through the DNA database. The prosecutor who sent Kirk to death row, and who had previously refused to acknowledge his innocence, went to his home to apologize to him.

Kirk Bloodsworth's battle to prove his own innocence has been won. But his nightmare of wrongful conviction has been repeated again and again across the country. Since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the 1970s, more than 110 individuals who were convicted and sentenced to death have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. In addition, since the introduction of forensic DNA typing into the legal system in the early 1990s, many more individuals who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing. The Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program will help assist others who have experienced wrongful conviction.

Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program: As I noted earlier, this version of the Innocence Protection Act is being introduced as part of a larger package of criminal justice reforms, titled the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which will substantially increase Federal resources available to State and local governments to combat crimes with DNA technology. Among other things, this legislation creates the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which authorizes $755 million over the next five years to reduce the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs.

I have worked with the proponents of this program to revise the allocation formula, so that each State is guaranteed a minimum allocation of .50 percent of the total amount appropriated in a fiscal year. This will make the program fair for all States, including smaller States like Vermont.

As DNA testing has moved to the front lines of the war on crime, forensic laboratories nationwide have experienced a significant increase in their caseloads, both in number and complexity. Funding has simply not kept pace with this increasing demand, and forensic labs nationwide are now seriously bottlenecked.

Backlogs have seriously impeded the use of DNA testing in solving cases without suspects--and reexamining cases in which there are strong claims of innocence--as labs are required to give priority status to those cases in which a suspect is known. Solely for lack of funding, critical evidence remains untested while rapists and killers remain at large. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program will give States the help they desperately need to carry out DNA analyses of backlogged evidence, and I strongly support its passage and full funding.

Expansion of the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program: The bill also expands and extends for another three years an existing grant program, named after our late colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell. Congress passed the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act three years ago, with the goal of improving the quality and timeliness of State and local forensic science services. I was proud to cosponsor that legislation, and have worked since its passage to secure full funding for the grant program it establishes. Unfortunately, despite my efforts and those of other Members, and notwithstanding the urgent pleas of lab directors nationwide, the President has never requested funding for Paul Coverdell grants, and Congress has never appropriated sufficient funds to make the program effective. The legislation we introduce today renews our commitment to this important initiative.

Our bill also expands the purposes for which Paul Coverdell grants may be used, to include the elimination of a non-DNA forensic evidence backlog. The need for this measure was highlighted earlier this year at a subcommittee hearing on funding forensic sciences. Witness after witness testified that DNA evidence is not the only evidence that is going untested for lack of resources. Crime labs are also facing substantial backlogs with respect to other types of forensic science evidence, including firearms, latent prints, controlled substances, toxicology, trace evidence, questionable documents, and forensic pathology. We need to ensure that our labs are equipped to address the full range of issues that they are called upon to handle.

We have had a constructive debate. We have shown that the death penalty system is broken, and we have built a bipartisan coalition supporting reforms. It is now time to act. Our bill reflects a principled consensus on the most basic and essential reforms; it raises no serious constitutional or law enforcement concerns; it will improve criminal justice in America considerably; and it may well save innocent lives. I am therefore proud to sponsor it, and I urge its speedy passage into law.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a comprehensive bipartisan bill which will ensure the full use and availability of DNA technology in our criminal justice system. This bill, which enacts the President's DNA technology initiative, announced by Attorney General Ashcroft on March 11, 2003, will provide over $1 billion in funding and assistance over the next 5 years to the criminal justice system in order to realize the full potential of DNA technology to solve crimes, protect the public and exonerate the innocent.

The legislation I am introducing today represents a bipartisan compromise which was reached through extensive negotiations among Senators on the Judiciary Committee and members from the House Committee on the Judiciary. I want to first commend my counterpart, Chairman Sensenbrenner, for his steady leadership on this issue and his commitment to reaching an agreement, and note the commitment and dedication of Representatives Conyers, Coble, LaHood, and Delahunt to this important initiative.

I also want to commend my colleagues here in the Senate: Senators Biden, Specter, Leahy, DeWine, and Feinstein--who each have a long- standing commitment to issues included in this comprehensive DNA bill. We have worked together on DNA issues for many years, and thanks to each of their efforts we now are in the position to enact bipartisan legislation that enhances the use of DNA technology in our criminal justice system. I want to express my personal thanks to all of them for their leadership and contributions to this important piece of legislation.

Also, I want to highlight specifically the accomplishment today of the ranking member of our Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. For several years, Senator Leahy has dedicated himself to the issue of DNA technology and ensuring that such technology is used to protect the integrity of our criminal justice system by exonerating the innocent while punishing the guilty. He has worked tirelessly in this area as the sponsor of the Innocence Protection Act. While we both shared a common goal of protecting the integrity of our criminal justice system, we differed on the means to accomplish that end.

Today, I am proud to support the compromise proposal we have negotiated, and join together with my friend, Senator Leahy, to introduce the Innocence Protection Act of 2003 as part of this legislative package. I want to specifically congratulate Senator Leahy for his accomplishment and for his dedication to this important issue.

It is perhaps fitting that 50 years after the discovery of DNA by Dr. James Watson in 1953, we are now proposing to enact the most far- reaching and comprehensive expansion of DNA technology to promote public safety, to bring to justice violent criminals who can be identified through DNA technology, and to ensure the accuracy of our criminal justice system.

Let me take a moment to highlight the important provisions of this bill.

The bill enacts the President's comprehensive DNA initiative, ``Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology,'' and will authorize funding of $755 million for the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program in order to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in our Nation's crime labs. It is critical that such funding be appropriated to ensure that unanalyzed evidence from violent crime scenes, such as rape and murder, are compared against known DNA samples to solve these terrible crimes and apprehend the perpetrators.

As many of you know, Debbie Smith is the courageous survivor of a horrific sexual assault, and has become a leading spokesperson for women and crime victims across the country. Debbie Smith waited 6 years before Norman Jimmerson, a current inmate in a Virginia prison, was identified as her attacker through DNA. Debbie testified against Jimmerson, who is now serving two life sentences plus 25 years with no chance of parole.

Debbie Smith has dedicated herself to the elimination of the backlog in the processing of DNA evidence and samples. By eliminating the substantial backlog of DNA samples for the most serious violent offenses, we can solve more crimes, protect the public and apprehend more violent criminals. The National Institute of Justice estimates that the current backlog of rape and homicide cases is at least 350,000 cases. NIJ also estimates that there are between 300,000 and 500,000 collected, but untested convicted offender samples. In addition, the Justice Department estimates that there are between 500,000 and 1,000,000 convicted offender samples which have not yet been collected as required by law.

The President has directed the Justice Department to eliminate these backlogs completely within 5 years, and I am committed to doing everything in my power to make that a reality to ensure that the evidence is analyzed, the crimes solved and the criminals punished to the fullest extent of the law.

The proposed legislation also will solve more crimes by expanding State and local crime lab capacity to test DNA. Crime laboratories face increasing workloads and increased DNA analysis demands. Only 10 percent of public crime labs have automated facilities needed to process DNA testing, and help is needed in this area. We must expand the capacity of these laboratories to meet current demand and build for future needs. That is what the bill will do.

The bill also will increase research and development of new technologies to test DNA; provides training of criminal justice professionals to enhance collection and understanding of DNA evidence; and expands existing programs to train medical personnel who typically are the first to have contact with sexual assault victims so that they can collect and preserve critical biological evidence for DNA testing and comparison purposes.

Some have suggested that focusing exclusively on DNA technology ignores the significant need for funding and assistance to State and local crime labs for non-DNA forensic analyses. The proposed bill expands the Paul Coverdell Grant Program to provide assistance to the States to eliminate non-DNA forensic evidence backlogs. I recognize that forensic examination of ballistics evidence, fingerprints, suspected illegal drugs, and other evidence is critical to our criminal justice system. I am committed to addressing these needs as well in order to protect the public.

The legislation will not only speed the apprehension and prosecution of the guilty, but will protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution. DNA technology allows us to exclude innocent people as suspects early in an investigation, and allows law enforcement to focus on finding the true perpetrator.

The Innocence Protection Act of 2003, developed under the leadership of Senator Leahy, which is included as Title III of this bill, creates a federal post-conviction DNA testing scheme which authorizes DNA testing and relief for a convicted defendant, where the defendant claims he is ``actually innocent'' of the crime, and demonstrates that such testing shows that they did not commit the crime. DNA testing will not be permitted where such a test would only muddy the waters and be used by the defendant to fuel a new and frivolous series of appeals. Under the Act, DNA testing in capital cases will be prioritized and conducted on a ``fast track,'' so that these important cases are handled quickly.

In order to discourage a flood of baseless claims, the act authorizes the prosecution of defendants who make false claims of innocence in support of a DNA testing request. Each defendant will be required to assert under penalty of perjury that they are, in fact, innocent of the crime. When DNA testing reveals that the defendant's claim of innocence was actually false, the defendant can then be prosecuted and, if convicted, will be subject to a consecutive term of imprisonment of 3 years. Further, the act allows DNA test results to be entered into the CODIS database and compared against unsolved crimes. If the test result shows that the defendant committed another crime, the defendant may then be prosecuted for the other crime.

With respect to the States, the act encourages States to create similar DNA testing procedures, and provides funding assistance to those States that have existing DNA testing programs or that implement such DNA testing programs after enactment of this act. In honor of Kirk Bloodsworth, a death row inmate, who was eventually freed through post- conviction DNA testing, the bill creates and names a grant program after Mr. Bloodsworth to help the States conduct appropriate post- conviction DNA testing. With the new source of funding, more States will enact DNA testing programs, and will provide such testing on an expedited basis.

While DNA testing is now standard in pretrial criminal investigations today, the integrity of our criminal justice system and in particular, our death penalty system, can be enhanced with the appropriate use of DNA testing. No one disagrees with the fact that post-conviction DNA testing should be made available to defendants when it serves the ends of justice. I am convinced that the proposed legislation does so fairly and effectively with proper regard for the rights of the defendant and the interests of victims and their families.

Finally, Title III of the bill creates a new grant program to improve the performance of counsel--prosecutors and defense counsel--handling State capital cases. The issue of the death penalty in our country continues to spark significant debate. The recent Supreme Court decisions addressing capital punishment underscore the importance of this issue to the American people. It is an issue that engenders great passion, both among its supporters and among its opponents. A large majority of the American people believe in the death penalty, especially for terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans. And all of us agree that the death penalty must be imposed fairly and accurately.

I have stated on numerous occasions my views on the death penalty. It is the ultimate punishment and it should be reserved only for those defendants who commit the most heinous of crimes. I am firmly convinced that we must be vigilant in ensuring that capital punishment is meted out fairly against those truly guilty criminals. We cannot and should not tolerate defects in the capital punishment system. No one can disagree with this ultimate and solemn responsibility.

I have disagreed with others on the committee as to the state of our Nation's capital punishment system, the quality of representation in State capital cases, and whether such sentences are meted out fairly. I am proud, however, to support this proposal where we can all agree--we can improve the performance of counsel on both sides by awarding grants to States. These funds will be equally divided between prosecutors and defense counsel, and are designed to reduce to the maximum extent possible the occurrence of error in the conduct of capital trials in our States. We all agree that reducing trial error is a laudable goal. By doing so, we enhance the fairness of our capital punishment system.

Every defendant in our criminal justice system is afforded the guarantee by the sixth amendment of our Constitution of competent and effective counsel. The Supreme Court has enforced this right in numerous decisions in order to ensure that all defendants are afforded the constitutional protections guaranteed to them.

At the same time, the public is entitled to quality representation by prosecutors who handle capital cases. Training and monitoring the performance of prosecutors who handle these important cases will ensure that States and the public are fully and effectively served in the trial of capital cases.

Contrary to the view of some, I do not believe that our capital punishment is broken. However, I do believe that our justice system can always be improved. The grants proposed under the act will enable states to improve the performance of prosecutors and defense counsel to ensure that capital cases are handled more efficiently and effectively, and that every capital defendant will receive a fair trial under our justice system.

DNA technology has the power to convict the guilty and protect the innocent and will move our criminal justice system into a new era that is both fair and efficient. The President's DNA initiative is a forward-looking measure, which will improve significant aspects of federal, state and local criminal justice systems. We are poised to enter that new era. With this comprehensive proposal, we will ensure the use of DNA technology and protect the public safety.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join with me in promptly passing this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a section-by-section analysis.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield for a question?

Mr. President, it is my understanding that this legislation makes certain of its grants contingent on States providing a process for post-conviction testing available. For those States that already have enacted a statute providing such testing, that statute must ensure a meaningful process for resolving a claim of actual innocence. As I understand it, almost all of the State statutes already in existence, including those of Ohio, Utah, Delaware and Pennsylvania, would pass

muster and would qualify for the grants at issue. Is that the understanding of the Senator from Delaware?

Would the Senator yield?

I would just like to make clear that the understanding of the Senator from Delaware comports completely with mine.

And mine as well.

Mr. President, I rise along with the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch and several others of my colleagues, Senators Spector, Leahy, DeWine, and Feinstein, to introduce the Advancing Justice Through DNA Act, a bill that harnesses the power of DNA to give prompt justice to victims of sexual assault crimes and to free the wrongly convicted. This bill takes every component of DNA technology and makes it accessible and more useful to Federal, State and local law enforcement, to prosecutors and defense attorneys, to medical personnel and to victims of crime.

Promoting and supporting DNA technology as a crime-fighting tool is not a new endeavor for me. A provision of my 1994 crime bill created the Combined DNA Index System, called ``CODIS'', which is an electronic database of DNA profiles, much like the FBI's fingerprint database. CODIS includes two kinds of DNA information--convicted offender DNA samples and DNA from crime scenes. CODIS uses the two indexes to generate investigative leads in crimes where biological evidence is recovered from the scene. In essence, CODIS facilitates the DNA match. And once that match is made, a crime is solved because of the incredible accuracy and durability of DNA evidence.

Ninety-nine.nine percent--that is how accurate DNA evidence is. One in 30 billion--those are the odds someone else committed a crime if a suspect's DNA matches evidence at the crime scene. Twenty or 30 years-- that is how long DNA evidence from a crime scene lasts.

Just 10 years ago DNA analysis of evidence could have cost thousands of dollars and taken months, now testing one sample costs $40 and can take days. Ten years ago forensic scientists needed blood the size of a bottle cap, now DNA testing can be done on a sample the size of a pinhead. The changes in DNA technology are remarkable, and mark a sea change in how we can fight crime, particularly sexual assault crimes.

The FBI reports that since 1998 the national DNA database has helped put away violent criminals in over 9,000 investigations in 50 States. How? By matching the DNA crime evidence to the DNA profiles of offenders. Individual success stories of DNA cold hits in sexual assault cases make these numbers all too real.

Just last year, Alabama authorities charged a man in the rape of an 85-year-old woman almost 10 years ago after he was linked to the case by a DNA sample he was compelled to submit while in prison on unrelated charges.

In Colorado, prosecutors brought to trial a case against a man accused of at least 14 rapes and sexual assaults. Due to the national DNA database, prosecutors were able to trace the defendant to rapes and assaults that occurred in Colorado, California, Arizona, Nevada and Oklahoma between 1999 and 2002.

Or take for example a 1996 case in St. Louis were two young girls were abducted from bus stops and raped at opposite ends of the city. The police were unable to identify a suspect. In 1999, the police decided to re-run the DNA testing to develop new leads. In January 2000, the DNA database matched the case to a 1999 rape case, and police were able to identify the perpetrator.

Last spring, the New York Police Department arrested a man linked to the rape of a woman years ago. In 1997, a woman was horribly beaten, robbed and raped--there were no suspects. Five years later, the perpetrator submitted

a DNA sample as a condition of probation after serving time for burglary. The DNA sample matched the DNA from the 1997 rape. Crime solved, streets safer.

Undoubtedly, DNA matching by comparing evidence gathered at the crime scene with offender samples entered on the national DNA database has proven to be the deciding factor in solving stranger sexual assault cases--it has revolutionized the criminal justice system, and brought closure and justice for victims. A laboratory expert testified that Virginia has a 48 percent hit rate because the State collects samples from all convicted felons and aggressively analyzes crime scene evidence with no backlog. This means that almost 1 out of every 2 violent crimes could be solved by the national DNA database.

In light of the past successes and the future potential of DNA evidence, the reported number of untested rape kits and other crime scene evidence waiting in police warehouses is simply shocking--300,000 to 500,000. It is a national problem, plaguing both urban and rural areas, that deserves national attention and solutions. Last year, a Michigan newspaper reported that its State police forensic unit is expected to have a 10-year backlog of items in need of DNA testing. The Florida crime lab system is facing a backlog of more than 2,400 rape, murder and assault and burglary cases waiting for DNA testing. South Carolina has 10,000 untested samples from convicted offenders. In June 2003, the New Jersey police department reported that over 1,200 criminal cases--most of them sexual assault cases--were waiting for DNA analysis. Behind every single one of those rape kits is a victim who deserves recognition and justice.

One woman in particular has reminded State and Federal lawmakers that we cannot ignore even one rape kit sitting on a shelf gathering dust. That woman is Debbie Smith. In 1989, Mrs. Smith was taken from her home and brutally raped. There were no known suspects, and Mrs. Smith lived in fear of her attacker's return. Six years later, the Virginia crime laboratory discovered a DNA match between the rape scene evidence and a State prisoner's DNA sample. That cold hit gave Mrs. Smith her first moment of real security and closure, and since then she has traveled the country to advocate on behalf of assault victims and champion the use of DNA to fight sexual assault.

Today's bill provides over $755 five years to eliminate the backlog in rape kits and other crime scene evidence, eliminate the backlog of convicted offender samples awaiting DNA testing, and improve State laboratory capacity to conduct DNA testing. I am pleased that the backlog elimination grant program in the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act is entitled, ``The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants.'' It is a fitting tribute. I also want to take a moment to thank my colleagues Senators Kohl and DeWine who began this effort with the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, and acknowledge their ongoing commitment.

But the DNA testing is only useful if the crime scene evidence is carefully collected and preserved. Towards that end, the Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act creates two important grant programs: 1. a $62.5 million DNA training and education grant program for law enforcement, correctional personnel and court officers; and 2. a $50 million grant program to provide training, education and assistance to sexual assault forensic examiner programs, often known as SANE or SART programs.

The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act is a natural extension to the Violence Against Women Act, which requires the Attorney General to evaluate and recommend standards for training and practice for licensed health care professionals performing sexual assault forensic exams. So I knew that any DNA bill aimed at ending sexual assault must include resources for sexual forensic examiners. This bill ensures that sexual forensic nurses, doctors, and response teams are all eligible for assistance. These program should be in each and every emergency room to bridge the gap between the law and the medicine.

Today's bill also makes two small, but important, amendments to the Violence Against Women Act. First, it amends the law to include legal assistance for victims of dating violence, and it amends the eligibility criteria for discretionary programs so that tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions can directly receiving grants funds, including those funds unreleased from past fiscal years.

I started looking at the issue of improved prosecution of sexual assault crimes almost two decades ago when I began drafting the Violence Against Women Act. The DNA Sexual Justice Act of 2003 is the next step, a way to connect the dots between the extraordinary strides in DNA technology and my commitment to ending violence against women. We must ensure that justice delayed is not justice denied.

I am also gratified that this legislation includes the Innocence Protection Act, which I cosponsored last year, and which passed the Judiciary Committee. I have long advocated in this Committee for the changes that it will implement.

The Innocence Protection Act will immeasurably improve the administration of justice in our legal system, particularly where justice is most important, and where we can least afford to make mistakes--imposition of the death penalty.

I advocate for this bill not as an opponent of the death penalty looking to curtail it, but as a supporter of the death penalty who authored the first constitutional federal death penalty law after the Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional.

But we who support the death penalty also have a duty to ensure that it is fairly administered. The advent of DNA testing has provided us with a wealth of opportunities to make certain that we are prosecuting the right people. Just as we use DNA to help prosecutions, we must make testing available to those who can use it to prove their innocence. This legislation makes post-conviction testing to federal inmates who assert that they did not commit the crime for which they have been imprisoned. It also incentivizes States to take similar measures to ensure that individuals have a proper opportunity to prove their innocence. It also mandates proper preservation of DNA evidence so that the DNA can be tested if appropriate.

As for competent counsel in death penalty cases, nobody can look me in the eye and tell me that our system for representation in capital cases works as it should. This bill will take a big step toward fixing that by providing money for grants to States to improve their systems of representation, on both the prosecution and defense side, in capital cases.

Our goal must be an error-free system of criminal justice. To err is human, but it should never be acceptable. Our job is to do all we can to eliminate errors in the criminal justice system and to see to it that a lack of resources does not delay bringing rapists and murderers to justice. This bill means we are doing our job.

I would be remiss if I did not pause to thank some of the many people who have helped bring about the introduction of this bill. In particular, I wish to thank Senators Hatch and Leahy, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for devoting so much of their time and effort to developing this legislation. Similarly, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers have worked with us every step of the way to get this bill done. In addition, Senators Specter, DeWine and Feinstein, and Congressmen Delahunt and Coble, among others, have spent countless hours contributing their ideas to this bill. I wish to thank all of these members for their leadership on this matter.

Of course.

Yes, I thank the Senator from Utah for his question, and wholeheartedly agree with his understanding of this provision. I believe all of the drafters of this legislation are in agreement that most of the States that already have passed statutes, except for the few that limit post-conviction DNA testing to capital crimes, would pass muster. For example, even if a State's statute differs from the Federal law by imposing a meaningful time limit for filing of applications for testing, or excluding guilty pleas from eligibility, it would qualify. Specifically, Utah, Delaware, Ohio and Pennsylvania, among others, under their statutes, or the re-enactment of those statutes where they have expired, would be eligible for such grants. However, States that have not yet enacted a statute would be required to enact a statute, or follow a rule, regulation or practice, that met a higher standard--the statute, rule, regulation or practice would need to be ``comparable'' to the Federal law in order for the State to qualify for the grants. I see the Senator from Pennsylvania on the Floor. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator to hear his thoughts on this matter.

It would be my pleasure.

Yes, that has been, and remains, my understanding.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care Tax Credit Expansion Act of 2003.

According to the most recent census figures, more than 41 million Americans lack health insurance coverage. More than the population of 23 States, plus the District of Columbia. As premiums sky rocket and the unemployment rate remains high--despite signs of economic recovery--I worry that this number may grow even higher.

For America's uninsured, the consequences of going without health coverage can be devastating.

Put plainly, uninsured Americans are less healthy than those with health insurance. They delay seeking medical care or go without treatment altogether that could prevent and detect crippling illnesses. Illnesses like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. The uninsured are far less likely to receive health services if they are injured or become ill. They don't fill prescriptions that their doctors recommend.

These factors take an enormous personal toll on the lives of the uninsured. They are sicker and less productive. Their children are less likely to survive past infancy. And they must struggle with the knowledge that a serious injury or illness in their family might push them to the brink of financial ruin.

And there is also the impact on the rest of the U.S. economy that must be taken into account. Because when the uninsured become so sick that they must finally seek emergency treatment, there is often no one to pay for it. No insurance company. No government program.

So who absorbs the cost of uncompensated medical care? We all do. In the form of higher health care costs. Higher and higher premiums at a time when the cost of health care is already rising out of control.

The situation is becoming critical. And I believe the time for talking has ended. It is time for us to examine solutions instead of talking about the problem.

That is why I have joined with my colleague, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, to introduce this important piece of legislation.

Our bill would provide health care assistance to the unemployed--one specific category of those without health insurance. And one where we believe there is agreement to move forward.

More specifically, this bill would expand the 65 percent refundable, advanceable tax credit that is currently provided under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to workers receiving unemployment benefits.

By building on the structure that Congress put in place last year under the Trade Act, we make it more likely that unemployed workers can receive benefits in a timely manner. Without significant implementation and start-up time.

And by building on the historic agreement that we reached last year, we are more likely to have support for the structure and approach.

Let me be clear. This bill is not a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system that several Democratic Presidential candidates have outlined. It was not intended and does not seek to cover everyone in this country without health insurance.

Rather the proposal would use the money set aside in this year's budget for the uninsured--$50 billion--on a targeted policy that I believe both sides can agree on. It is a practical, principled, incremental solution.

Why the unemployed?

According to the Labor Department, since February 2001, 2.6 million jobs have been lost. And with those jobs, an awful lot of health insurance has been lost, too.

Despite assertions by economists that the recession has ended and the economy is experiencing signs of improvement, the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high--6.4 percent in June. In fact, we are hearing more and more talk of the same ``jobless recovery'' that we heard about following the recession in the early 1990s.

It is true that employment does not immediately improve when an economy emerges from recession. We read repeatedly that even if growth surges and business investment begins to take off tomorrow, the ranks of the unemployed may not thin for months.

Unfortunately, for many, many families, this means more weeks, if not months, of endless job searches. And a longer period of time without health coverage.

An estimated 46 percent of unemployed adults lack health insurance, or about 4 million unemployed workers. Less than one in three unemployed adults receives health coverage through their spouse or other family member.

And while 65 percent may qualify for COBRA continuation coverage, only 7 percent can afford to enroll. That is not surprising. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage. A very high price, given the average $1,100 monthly UI check.

Last year, when we debated the economic recovery package, both Republicans and Democrats proposed to expand health coverage for unemployed workers. There was almost universal agreement that this population deserved help and attention. So I think it's a good place for us to start from this year.

Why a tax credit?

There's been a lot of debate about the best way to expand health insurance coverage to the uninsured. Most Democrats favor expanding public programs like Medicaid and CHIP, and harnessing the power of the group insurance market to provide affordable coverage options.

Most Republicans, however, favor a more market-based approach that gives the uninsured tax breaks and allows them to use the individual insurance market.

But, after years of logjams and disagreements, we were able to come together last year when we created the TAA tax credit. The TAA tax credit merges a market-based tax credit with the affordability of the group insurance market. This proposal simply builds on that progress. With the structures now in place to implement the TAA credit, a new tax credit for the unemployed can easily be incorporated into the new system.

Caveats

I realize that the TAA tax credit is not a perfect model. And we may need to make some adjustments as full implementation kicks in this summer. For example, we need to ensure that the groups we intended to cover actually have access to coverage.

In particular, all workers who had health insurance coverage for 3 months before they lost their jobs should be assured of coverage they qualify for under TAA. I support making the technical change that would provide that assurance.

I am also willing to consider other improvements, like additional help for low income workers.

But I do not think these adjustments should deter us from moving forward with an expansion of the tax credit. Millions of unemployed workers and their families need our help. And they need it now.

All told, expanding the TAA tax credit to the unemployed would provide health insurance coverage for 1.4 million Americans a month who are currently unemployed and uninsured. It's not a panacea. But it's a start.

I hope my colleagues will join this fight by helping us pass this legislation, and taking a solid step toward providing quality, affordable health insurance to all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Retirement Security Advice Act of 2003, introduced by my good friend from Wyoming, Senator Mike Enzi. I do so because this bill holds important implications for small businesses in this county and for the millions of Americans they employ.

In 1996, we created the Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employees (SIMPLE) as a pension-plan option for small firms in this country. The goal was a simple one: provide a pension plan with low administrative costs for employers so they can offer pension benefits to encourage employees to save for their retirement. I am pleased that these plans have become quite popular, and together with the other pension simplifications and improvements enacted since then, they have contributed to better access to pension benefits by small businesses and their employees.

Greater retirement savings, however, have raised new and complex issues for many employees who have seen their pension accounts grow substantially. As a member of both the Senate Small Business Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, I have heard many constitents raise difficult questions in this area: What are appropriate investments for my personal circumstances and risk tolerance? Should I buy stocks, bonds, annuities, or something else? How should I diversify my investments? When should I modify my investment mix? And so on.

The importance of these questions has increased substantially in light of recent high-profile business failures and economic downtown. Gone are the days of the momentum market where any dollar invested seemed to grow with little effort or no risk.

The return to more cautious investing has left employees who participate in employer-sponsored pension plans in a real dilemma--hire an outside investment advisor or go it alone in most cases. Why? Current pension rules effectively preclude most employers from offering investment advice to their employees. In fact, recent estimates are that only about 16 percent of participants have access to investment advice through their pension plan. In today's complex investment environment that is simply too little help for employees who are trying to manage their retirement security.

Senator Enzi's bill addresses this situation in a responsible way. For most businesses, and particularly small firms, the logical place to look for an investment advisor would be the company that manage's the plan's investment options or an affiliated firm. Under Senator Enzi's bill that option would now be available, opening the door for countless businesses to offer this important benefit at a low cost to their employees who participate in the company's pension plan. In addition, by allowing more businesses to offer investment-advice benefits, the bill creates an opportunity for increased competition among investment advisors, which can lead to better advice products and lower costs overall.

Senator Enzi's bill, however, does not simply change the rules to help the business community. It also includes critical protections for the plan participants. Investment advisors must satisfy strict requirements concerning their qualifications, and they must disclose on a regular basis all their business relationships, fees, and potential conflicts of interest directly to the participants. In addition, and arguably most importantly, the investment advisor must assume fiduciary liability for the investment advice it renders to the employee participants in the plan. In short, if the investment advisor does not act solely in the interest of the participant, it will be liable for damages resulting from the breach of its fidicuary duty. Together, the bill's provisions provide substantive safeguards to protect the interests of the plan participants who take advantage of the new investment-advice benefit.

Some have contended that a better alternative is to force small businesses to engage an independent third party to provide investment advice. I disagree. The result would simply be the same as under current law. Cost is a real issue for small businesses seeking to offer benefits like pension plans and related investment advice--hence, the genesis of the SIMPLE pension plan. As under the current rules, if the only option is a costly outside advisor, the small firm will not offer the investment-advise benefit. As a result, we would not move the ball even a yard further--employers would still be left to their own devices to figure out the complex world of investing or they would have to seek out and hire their own advisor, which few have the wherewithal to do.

More to the point, nothing under the Enzi bill prevents a business from engaging an independent advisor if the employer deems that the best alternative. The standard under the Enzi bill for selecting the investment advisor is prudence; the same criteria that the employer must exercise under current law when selecting the company

that manages the pension plan and its investment options. If a prudent person would not hire or retain the investment advisor, then under the Enzi bill, the employer should not do so either or face liability for breach of fiduciary duty. Again, additional protection for the plan participants.

In my assessment, investment advice is an increasingly important benefit that employers want and need. Morover, small businesses in particular need the flexibility to offer benefits that keep them competitive with big companies as they seek to hire and retain the very best employees possible. And when we talk about small businesses, we are not dealing with an insignificant employer in this country. In fact, according to Small Business Administration data, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers and provide 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs annually in this country.

The Retirement Security Advice Act provides a carefully balanced and responsible solution to this situation. Most importantly, it provides a solution that employers will actually use to offer the investment advice sought by their employers who struggle to put money aside in the hopes of having a nest egg that someday will provide them with a comfortable retirement. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill and look forward to working with my colleague from Wyoming to see it enacted into law.