DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the Senate's passage of H.R. 3402, the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. My comments are directed at Title X of the bill, the ``DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005.'' This provision is nearly identical to S. 1606, a bill of the same name that Senator Cornyn and I introduced earlier this year. The DNA Fingerprint Act was added to the Senate version of VAWA reauthorization, S. 1197, in the Senate Judiciary Committee on a Kyl/Cornyn amendment that was accepted by voice vote. I am pleased to see that this provision has been maintained in the final bill.

The DNA Fingerprint Act will allow State and Federal law enforcement to catch rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals whom it otherwise would be impossible to identify and arrest. The principal provisions of the bill make it easier to include and keep the DNA profiles of criminal arrestees in the National DNA Index System, where that profile can be compared to crime-scene evidence. By removing current barriers to maintaining data from criminal arrestees, the Act will allow the creation of a comprehensive, robust database that will make it possible to catch serial rapists and murderers before they commit more crimes.

The impact that this act will have on preventing rape and other violent crimes is not merely speculative. We know from real life examples that an all-arrestee database can prevent many future offenses. In March of this year, the City of Chicago produced a case study of eight serial killers in that city who would have been caught after their first offense--rather than after their fourth or tenth--if an all-arrestee database had been in place. This study is included in the congressional record at the conclusion of my introduction of S. 1606, at 151 Cong. Rec. S9529-9531 (July 29, 2005).

The first example that the Chicago study cites involves serial rapist and murderer Andre Crawford. In March 1993, Crawford was arrested for felony theft. Under the DNA Fingerprint Act, the State of Illinois would have been able to take a DNA sample from Crawford at that time and upload and keep that sample in NDIS, the national DNA database. But at that time--and until this bill may be enacted--Federal law makes it difficult to upload an arrestee's profiles to NDIS, and bars States from keeping that profile in NDIS if the arrestee is not later convicted of a criminal offense. As a result, Crawford's DNA profile was not collected and it was not added to NDIS. And as a result, when Crawford murdered a 37-year-old woman on September 21, 1993, although DNA evidence was recovered from the crime scene, Crawford could not be identified as the perpetrator. And as a result, Crawford went on to commit many more rapes and murders.

On December 21, 1994, a 24-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned building on the 800 block of West 50th place in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the September 1993 murder, and this December 1994 murder could have been prevented.

On April 3, 1995, a 36-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned house on the 5000 block of South Carpenter Street in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the two earlier murders that he had committed, and this April 1995 murder could have been prevented.

On July 23, 1997, a 27-year-old woman was found murdered in a closet of an abandoned house on the 900 block of West 51st Street in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the three earlier murders that he had committed, and this July 1997 murder could have been prevented.

On December 27, 1997, a 42-year-old woman was raped in Chicago. As she walked down the street, a man approached her from behind, put a knife to her head, dragged her into an abandoned building on the 5100 block of South Peoria Street, and beat and raped her. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the four earlier murders that he had committed, and this December 1997 rape could have been prevented.

In June 1998, a 31-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned building on the 5000 block of South May Street in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the four earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this June 1998 murder could have been prevented.

On August 13, 1998, a 44-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned house on the 900 block of West 52nd Street. Her clothes were found in the alley. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the five earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this August 1998 murder could have been prevented.

Also on August 13, 1998, a 32-year-old woman was found murdered in the attic of a house on the 5200 block of South Marshfield. Her body was decomposed, but DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the six earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this additional murder could have been prevented.

On December 8, 1998, a 35-year-old woman was found murdered in a building on the 1200 block of West 52nd Street. She had rope marks around her neck and injuries to her face. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the seven earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this December 1998 murder could have been prevented.

On February 2, 1999, a 35-year-old woman was found murdered on the 1300 block of West 51st Street. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the eight earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this February 1999 murder could have been prevented.

On April 21, 1999, a 44-year-old woman was found murdered in the upstairs of an abandoned house on the 5000 block of South Justine Street. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the nine earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this April 1999 murder could have been prevented.

And on June 20, 1999, a 41-year-old woman was found murdered in the attic of an abandoned building on the 1500 block of West 51st Street. DNA evidence was recovered from blood on a

nearby wall, indicating a struggle. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the ten earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this additional murder could have been prevented.

As the City of Chicago case study concludes:

In January 2000, Andre Crawford was charged with 11 murders

and 1 Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault. If his DNA sample

had been taken on March 6, 1993, the subsequent 10 murders

and 1 rape would not have happened.

The City of Chicago study goes on to discuss the cases of 7 other serial rapists and murders from that city. Each of these criminals had a prior arrest that could have been a basis for a DNA collection but had no prior conviction. Collectively, together with Andre Crawford, these 8 serial rapists and killers represent 22 murders and 30 rapes that could have been prevented had an all-arrestee database been in place.

The DNA Fingerprint Act eliminates current Federal statutory restrictions that prevent states from adding and keeping arrestee profiles in NDIS. In effect, the Act would make it possible to build a comprehensive, robust national all-arrestee DNA database.

Here is how the DNA Fingerprint Act works. First, the Act eliminates current Federal statutory restrictions that prevent an arrestee's profile from being included in NDIS at the same time that fingerprints are taken and added to the national database. Under current law, as soon as someone is arrested, fingerprints can be taken as part of the booking procedure and uploaded to the national database. But DNA cannot be uploaded until the arrestee is charged in an indictment or information, which can take weeks. Allowing local authorities to collect and upload DNA at the same time as fingerprints--as part of a unified procedure--establishes a clear and straightforward process, making it easier and thus more likely that states will move to an all- arrestee database.

Second, current law places the burden on the State to remove an arrestee DNA sample from NDIS if the arrestee later is acquitted or charges are dismissed. The U.S. Justice Department has criticized this as an unwieldy requirement to impose on State labs--it effectively requires lab administrators to track the progress of individual criminal cases. Under the DNA Fingerprint Act, an arrestee will be required to take the initiative to have his profile removed form NDIS if he does not want it compared to future crime-scene evidence. The arrestee will be required to file a certified copy of a final court order establishing that all indexable charges have been dismissed, have resulted in acquittal, or that no charges were filed within the applicable time period. This is the same system that some States use if an arrestee wants to have an arrest struck from his record. And it is more restrictive of law enforcement than the rule for fingerprints-- there is no expungement of fingerprints from the national database, even if the arrestee is acquitted or charges are dismissed.

The bureaucratic burden imposed by the current system discourages States from creating and maintaining comprehensive, all-arrestee DNA databases. It also effectively precludes the creation of a genuine national all-arrestee database; only convicts' DNA profiles can be kept in the national database over the long term.

Some critics have complained that this expungement provisions in the DNA Fingerprint Act do not require expungement for State offenses that have no statute of limitations--i.e., for offenses for which the ``applicable time period'' does not expire. Others have complained that some States may not make certified court orders available for all of the scenarios under which expungement is contemplated under this bill. The answer to all of these complaints is that these are questions for the States to resolve. If a state chooses to abolish its statute of limitations for murder, rape, or other crimes, that is the State's decision to make. Certainly a person arrested for a serious crime in a State with no statute of limitation for the offense would be more significantly burdened the fact that he may be subject to further arrest and prosecution at any time than by the fact that his DNA is in the national database and may identify him if he commits a crime. Similarly, it is up to the States to decide when certified court orders should be made available to memorialize particular events. All that the DNA Fingerprint Act requires is that if the State does make such an order available to an arrestee--for example, for purposes of having an arrest struck from his record--then the arrestee could also use that order to have his DNA profile removed from NDIS.

Third, the DNA Fingerprint Act would allow expanded use of Federal DNA grants. Current law only allows these grants to be used to build databases of convicted felons. The DNA Fingerprint Act permits these grants to be used to analyze and database any DNA sample whose collection is permitted by State or local law.

Fourth, the DNA Fingerprint Act allows the Federal Government to take and keep DNA samples from Federal arrestees and from non-U.S. persons who are detained under Federal authority. (A ``United States person'' is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. See 50 U.S.C. 1801(i).) The act gives the Attorney General the authority to issue regulations requiring the collection of such DNA profiles--including requiring other Federal agencies to collect the profiles. As the National Immigration Law Center noted in its October commentary on this section of the Act, ``[u]nder this provision, the attorney general could authorize the Dept. of Homeland Security and its immigration agencies to collect DNA samples from immigrants who are arrested and `non-United States persons' who are detained under the authority of the United States.'' And as the NILC's commentary also notes, the word ```detained' covers a wide spectrum of circumstances. The dictionary definition of `detained' is to keep from proceeding or to keep in custody or temporary confinement.''

Finally, the act tolls the statute of limitations for Federal sex offenses. Current law generally tolls the statute of limitations for felony cases in which the perpetrator is implicated in the offense through DNA testing. The one exception to this tolling is the sexual- abuse offenses in chapter 109A of title 18. When Congress adopted general tolling, it left out chapter 109A, apparently because those crimes already are subject to the use of ``John Doe'' indictments to charge unidentified perpetrators. The Justice Department has made clear, however, that John Doe indictments are ``not an adequate substitute for the applicability of [tolling].'' The Department has criticized the exception in current law as ``work[ing] against the effective prosecution of rapes and other serious sexual assaults under chapter 109A,'' noting that it makes ``the statute of limitation rules for such offenses more restrictive that those for all other Federal offenses in cases involving DNA identification.'' The DNA Fingerprint Act corrects this anomaly by allowing tolling for chapter 109A offenses.

Further evidence of the potential effectiveness of a comprehensive, robust DNA database is available from the recent experience of the United Kingdom. The British have taken the lead in using DNA to solve crimes, creating a database that now includes 2,000,000 profiles. Their database has now reached the critical mass where it is big enough to serve as a highly effective tool for solving crimes. In the U.K., DNA from crime scenes produces a match to the DNA database in 40 percent of all cases. This amounted to 58,176 cold hits in the United Kingdom 2001. (See generally ``The Application of DNA Technology in England and Wales,'' a study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice.) A broad DNA database works. The same tool should be made available in the United States.

Some critics of DNA databasing argue that a comprehensive database would violate criminal suspects' privacy rights. This is simply untrue. The sample of DNA that is kept in NDIS is what is called ``junk DNA''-- it is impossible to determine anything medically sensitive from this DNA. For example, this DNA does not allow the tester to determine if the donor is susceptible to particular diseases. The

Justice Department addressed this issue in its statement of views on S. 1700, a DNA bill that was introduced in the 108th Congress (See Letter of William Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, to the Honorable Orrin Hatch, April 28, 2004):

[T]here [are no] legitimate privacy concerns that require

the retention or expansion of these [burdensome expungement

provisions]. The DNA identification system is already subject

to strict privacy rules, which generally limit the use of DNA

samples and DNA profiles in the system to law enforcement

identification purposes. See 42 U.S.C. 14132(b)-(c).

Moreover, the DNA profiles that are maintained in the

national index relate to 13 DNA sites that do not control any

traits or characteristics of individuals. Hence, the

databased information cannot be used to discern, for example,

anything about an individual's genetic illnesses, disorders,

or dispositions. Rather, by design, the information the

system retains in the databased DNA profiles is the

equivalent of a ``genetic fingerprint'' that uniquely

identifies an individual, but does not disclose other facts

about him.

In its September 29 Statement of Views on S. 1197, this year's Senate VAWA bill, the Justice Department commented favorably on the inclusion of the DNA Fingerprint Act in that bill. The Department noted:

Title X of the bill contains provisions we strongly support

that will strengthen the ability of the Nation's justice

systems to identify and prosecute sexually violent offenders

and other criminals through the use of the DNA technology.

These reforms have generally been proposed or endorsed by the

Department of Justice in previous communications to Congress.

See Letter from Assistant Attorney General William E.

Moschella to the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch concerning H.R.

3214, at 3-7 (April 28, 2004); Letter from Assistant Attorney

General William E. Moschella to the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch

concerning S. 1700, at 5-6 (April 28, 2004).

Section 1002 would remove unjustified restrictions on the

DNA profiles that can be included in the National DNA Index

System (``NDIS''), including elimination of language that

generally excludes from NDIS the DNA profiles of arrestees.

Section 1003 is a parallel amendment to allow the use of DNA

backlog elimination funding to analyze DNA samples collected

under applicable legal authority, not limited (as currently

is the case) to DNA samples collected from convicted

offenders. Section 1004 would authorize the Attorney General

to extend DNA sample collection to Federal arrestees and

detainees. A number of States (including California,

Virginia, Texas, and Louisiana) already have authorized

arrestee DNA sample collection under their laws. Section 1004

would create legal authority to extend this beneficial reform

to the Federal jurisdiction. Section 1005 would strike

language in 18 U.S.C. section 3297 that currently makes that

provision's statute of limitations tolling rule for cases

involving DNA identification uniquely inapplicable to sexual

abuse offenses under chapter 109A of the Federal criminal

code.

In one respect, the amendments in section 1002, which are

absolutely critical to the future development and

effectiveness of the DNA identification system in the United

States, fall short of our recommendations. They moderate

existing expungement provisions requiring the removal of DNA

profiles from NDIS in certain circumstances, but do not

completely repeal the expungement provisions of 42 U.S.C.

14132(d), as we have recommended. Paragraph (2) of section

1002 should be amended so that it simply repeals subsection

(d) of 42 U.S.C. 14132. We have previously observed:

``States usually do not expunge fingerprint records . . .

if the defendant is not convicted, or if the conviction is

ultimately overturned, nor are they required to remove

fingerprint records in such cases from the national . . .

criminal history records systems. There is no reason to have

a contrary Federal policy mandating expungement for DNA

information. If the person whose DNA it is does not commit

other crimes, then the information simply remains in a secure

database and there is no adverse effect on his life. But if

he commits a murder, rape, or other serious crime, and DNA

matching can identify him as the perpetrator, then it is good

that the information was retained.''

Letter from Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella

to the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch concerning H.R. 3214, supra,

at 5; see 150 Cong. Rec. S10914-15 (Oct. 9, 2004) (remarks of

Senator Cornyn).

We note with approval that the Committee has made the

salutary reforms of title X that expand the collection and

indexing of DNA samples and information generally applicable,

and has not confined the application of these reforms to

cases involving violent felonies or some other limited class

of offenses. The experience with DNA identification over the

past fifteen years has provided overwhelming evidence that

the efficacy of the DNA identification system in solving

serious crimes depends upon casting a broad DNA sample

collection net to produce well-populated DNA databases. For

example, the DNA profile which solves a rape through database

matching very frequently was not collected from the

perpetrator based upon his prior conviction for a violent

crime, but rather based upon his commission of some property

offense that was not intrinsically violent. As a result of

this experience, a great majority of the States, as well as

the Federal jurisdiction, have adopted authorizations in

recent years to collect DNA samples from all convicted

felons--and in some cases additional misdemeanant categories

as well--without limitation to violent offenses. See, e.g.,

42 U.S.C. 14135a(d)(l). The principle is equally applicable

to the collection of DNA samples from non-convicts, such as

arrestees. By rejecting any limitation of the proposed

reforms to cases involving violent felonies or other limited

classes, the Committee has soundly maximized their value in

solving rapes, murders, and other serious crimes.

(Letter of William Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, to the Honorable Arlen Specter, September 29, 2005.)

I note with pride that in addition to receiving the strong support of the Justice Department, the DNA Fingerprint Act is endorsed by the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, Debbie and Rob Smith, and the California District Attorneys Association. I include in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks letters from these individuals and organizations supporting the DNA Fingerprint Act.

I would also like to comment on an issue that I chose not to address in the DNA Fingerprint Act but that I may need to address in future legislation. This matter concerns the efficient use of the limited Federal dollars available for offender DNA analysis. Some State crime laboratories recently have been required to remove criminal offender profiles from the national DNA database system because of Federal regulations that require a 100 percent technical review of offender DNA samples tested by private DNA laboratories, rather than review of a random sampling. Given that private laboratories must meet the same accreditation and quality assurance standards as public laboratories in order to test samples for CODIS, and given that these quality assurance standards include the same reviews of DNA analysis reports which are required of public laboratories, I question why the additional 100 percent review is required.

Moreover, offender DNA samples are not themselves considered evidence. After matched to an unsolved case on CODIS, regulations require that the offender sample be reanalyzed to confirm the match and then a new sample is collected from the suspect and tested anew to reconfirm the match. DNA cases with named suspects tested by accredited private laboratories are routinely brought directly to court without the duplicated public laboratory review requirement. If these private laboratories can be trusted to perform quality analysis for the thousands of DNA cases that have resulted in conviction for over 15 years, then it stands to reason that they could also be trusted with database samples which will be reanalyzed twice after a match is made.

While I understand the concern that potential incorrect results from an offender's sample could lead to a missed opportunity to solve a crime, I also am concerned about the potential for additional crimes to occur while an offender's profile is queued in a laboratory review backlog. It has been brought to my attention that there are other forensic disciplines, such as drug chemistry, in which laboratories use statistically based formulas to achieve a high degree of certainty without requiring a 100 percent review of all samples. I also am aware that the National Institute of Justice already requires that outsourced DNA samples include a requirement for five percent of a given batch to be blind samples.

This duplicated requirement for review of samples tested at private laboratories appears to be an inefficient use of federal funds and, more importantly, delays justice for victims seeking a name for their attacker. Before--and ideally, instead of--my introducing legislation to address what appears to be a non-statutory problem, I would suggest that the Attorney General and the FBI reevaluate the necessity for this regulation. The Justice Department also ought to consider the possibility of permitting accredited private laboratories limited but direct ability to upload data to the national DNA Index System, similar to the permission granted to private laboratories in the United Kingdom's DNA database system.

Finally, I would like to thank those who have made it possible to enact the

DNA Fingerprint Act as part of this year's VAWA reauthorization bill. This includes my colleague, Senator Cornyn, with whom I introduced S. 1606 and who offered the Kyl amendment on my behalf at the Judiciary Committee's executive meeting; Chip Roy and Reed O'Connor of Senator Cornyn's staff; and Lisa Owings and Brett Tolman of Chairman Specter's staff. It is my understanding that absent some aggressive staffing by Mr. Tolman at various stages of the legislative process, the effort to have the DNA Fingerprint Act enacted into law as part of VAWA this year would not have succeeded. His contribution is duly noted and appreciated.

I ask unanimous consent that the following letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my appreciation to my colleagues for passing for the second time this session, the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. Once again the Senate has spoken loudly and clearly that domestic violence and sexual assault are serious, public crimes that must be addressed. Today's bill is a tremendous compromise measure that merges the comprehensive, Senate- passed Violence Against Women Act, S. 119, with the House of Representative's Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act bill, H.R. 3402. This merger followed hours of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Compromises and edits were made, and what emerges is a balanced bill that strikes the right balance between rejuvenating core programs, making targeted improvements, and responsibly expanding the Violence Against Women Act to reach the needs of America's families.

The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 was the beginning of a historic commitment to women and children victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault. While not the single cause, this commitment has made our streets and homes safer. Since the Act's passage in 1994, domestic violence has dropped by almost 50 percent incidents of rape are down by 60 percent and the number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22 percent. Today, more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime. And since we passed the Act in 1994, over a million women have found justice in our courtrooms and obtained domestic violence protection orders.

This is a dramatic change from a decade ago. Back then, violence in the household was treated as a ``family matter'' rather than a criminal justice issue. Because we took action, the criminal justice system is much better equipped to handle domestic violence, and it is treated for what it is--criminal. The goal of the legislation passed here today is to usher the Violence Against Women Act into the 21st century. With this bill we attempt to look beyond the immediate crisis and take steps to not only punish offenders, but to also help victims get their lives back on track, and prevent domestic violence and sexual assault from occurring in the first place.

The bill contains much to commend. To that end, I will ask unanimous consent to include at the close of my statement a thorough section-by- section summary of H.R. 3402, but in the meantime, I would like to highlight some of the bill's provisions.

Title I, the bill's backbone, focuses on the criminal justice system and includes provisions to: (1) renew and increase funding to over $400 million a year for existing, fundamental grant programs for law enforcement, lawyers, judges and advocates; (2) stiffen existing criminal penalties for repeat federal domestic violence offenders; and (3) appropriately update the criminal law on stalking to incorporate new surveillance technology like Global Positioning System, GPS.

Notably, our bill reauthorizes the Court Appointed Special Advocates, ``CASA,'' a nationwide volunteer program to help children in the judicial system. Children are doubly impacted by family violence--both as observers of, and recipients of abuse. Court Appointed Special Advocates fit uniquely into the mix of services for victims of violence. Judges overwhelmingly report that children and families are better served by the involvement of a CASA volunteer on their cases. I hope that my colleagues see fit to fully appropriate this effective program, and in the future, raise the program's authorization level.

The Violence Against Women Act has always included measures to help law enforcement and victim service providers reach underserved communities. Today's bill goes even further by creating a new, targeted culturally and linguistically specific service grant program. This provision is intended to ensure that the Act's resources reach racial and ethnic communities grappling with family violence and its enormous ramifications.

The Violence Against Women Act crafts a coordinated community response that seeks the participation of police, judges, prosecutors, and the host of entities who care for the victims. Title II helps victim service providers by: (1) creating a new, dedicated grant program for sexual assault victims that will strengthen rape crisis centers across the country; (2) reinvigorating programs to help older and disabled victims of domestic violence; (3) strengthening and expanding existing programs for rural victims and victims in underserved areas; and (4) removing a current cap on funding for the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Sexual violence is a crime that affects children and adults across our country. Unfortunately, rape has been a crime shrouded in secrecy and shame. Sexual assault survivors can experience physical and emotional problems for years. Approximately 1,315 rape crisis centers across the country help victims of rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and incest rebuild their lives by providing a range of vital services to survivors. But unfortunately, many rape crisis centers are under funded and understaffed. They are constantly in a crisis mode, responding to the needs of all victims--male, female as well as children--and are incapable of undertaking large-scale prevention efforts in their communities.

In response to this overwhelming need, our bill will provide increased resources to serve sexual assault victims. It includes, for the first time, a dedicated Federal funding stream for sexual assault programs through the proposed Sexual Assault Services Program, SASA. SASA will fund direct services to victims, including general intervention and advocacy, accompaniment through the medical and criminal justice processes, support services, and related assistance.

Reports indicate that up to ten million children experience domestic violence in their homes each year. The age at which a female is at greatest risk for rape or sexual assault is 14. Two-thirds of all sexual assault victims reported to law enforcement are under 18, and national research suggests that 1 in 5 high-school girls is physically or sexually abused by a dating partner. Treating children who witness domestic violence, dealing effectively with violent teenage relationships and teaching prevention strategies to children are keys to ending the cycle of violence. This reauthorization takes bold steps to address the needs of young

people by renewing successful programs and creating new programs to: (1) promote collaboration between domestic violence experts and child welfare agencies; and (2) enhance to $15 million a year grants to reduce violence against women on college campuses.

Critical prevention initiatives are contained in title IV, including programs supporting home visitations for families at risk, and initiatives that specifically engage men and boys in efforts to end domestic and sexual violence. We can no longer be satisfied with punishing abusers after the fact and trying to help a woman pull her life back together--we must end the violence before it ever starts. We must end it, not just mend it.

Violence against women is a health care issue of enormous proportions with one in three women expected to experience such violence at some point in their lives. It also has enormous health consequences for women and children, leading to serious injuries and disease, including substance abuse, chronic, serious pain and sexually transmitted infections including HIV/AIDS. We know pregnant women are particularly at risk for violence with increased levels of abuse accounting for injuries to the mother and developing fetus. In fact, homicide is a leading cause of death for pregnant and recently pregnant women.

Consequently, doctors and nurses, like police officers on the beat, are often the first witnesses of the devastating aftermath of abuse. Unfortunately, most health care providers are not currently trained on how to screen for, identify, document and treat or refer for violence- related illnesses or injuries. That's why the new health care programs in the Act are so essential--they provide an opportunity to intervene much earlier in the cycle of violence, before it becomes life threatening, and they provide a chance to reach out to children who may be growing up in violent homes.

In some instances, women face the untenable choice of returning to their abuser or becoming homeless. Indeed, 44 percent of the nation's mayors identified domestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness. Efforts to ease the housing problems for battered women are contained in Title VI, including (1) $20 million grant programs to facilitate collaboration between domestic violence organizations and housing providers; (2) programs to combat family violence in public and assisted housing, including new requirements that domestic violence victims may not be evicted or cut off from voucher services because of the violence; and (3) enhancements to transitional housing resources.

In some instances, victims of domestic violence who apply for or reside in public and subsidized housing are evicted or turned away because of the violence against them. A scream for help, a shot being fired, or the sound of police sirens is cited as a ``disruptive sound'' justifying eviction. In a recent nationwide survey, local housing and domestic violence attorneys across the country reported over 500 documented cases where victims were evicted because of the domestic violence committed against them.

Sections 606 and 607 of the Act provide important protections in public housing and the Section 8 program for victims of domestic violence and stalking. These sections prohibit denial of housing assistance based on the individual's status as a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking. With certain exceptions, they also prohibit terminating a victim's tenancy or rental assistance because of the violence against him or her. When women know they may lose their homes if their housing provider learns about the violence, they will seek to keep the abuse secret at all costs and thus, will often be unable to take the steps necessary to keep themselves and their families safe.

While protecting victims against retaliation, Sections 606 and 607 permit public housing authorities and private landlords to evict or end voucher assistance to perpetrators of domestic violence. It also ensures that landlords and housing providers can effectively manage their properties and maintain important discretionary authority. The Act allows landlords to bifurcate a lease to remove a perpetrator while maintaining a victim's tenancy and evict victims who commit other lease violations or if the tenancy creates an actual and imminent threat to the public safety. Further, the Act clarifies that landlords should not be held liable simply for complying with the statute. Sections 606 and 607 benefited greatly from the input by the national associations representing landlords and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, including the National Association of Realtors, the National Multi-Housing Council, and the National Leased Housing Association.

It may be useful if the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issues guidance or regulations to assist with the implementation of these sections. Certain nonprofit organizations and other government agencies that have expertise in domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking, or in housing law and policy, could provide valuable guidance to HUD in creating such guidance and regulations.

Title VII helps abused women maintain economic security by establishing a national resource center to provide information to employers and labor organizations so that they may effectively help their employees who are victims of domestic violence. I had hoped that provisions from Senator Murray's Security and Financial Empowerment Act, SAFE, would have remained in the bill. This amendment would provide some fundamental economic protections for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Just as the Family Medical Leave Act protects individuals caring for a sick loved one, the SAFE Act would allow domestic violence victims to take time off from work to appear in court cases and other judicial proceedings without jeopardizing their employment at a time they need it the most. It is my hope that the Senate will revisit this issue soon.

Immigrant women often face a difficult time escaping abuse because of immigration laws, language barriers, and social isolation. Title VIII of today's bill builds on the progress of VAWA 1994 and VAWA 2000 to remove obstacles hinder or prevent immigrants from fleeing domestic abuse and participating in prosecutions. Further, the bill expands VAWA relief to: (1) elder abuse victims who have been abused by adult U.S. citizen sons or daughters; and (2) victims of child abuse or incest who are less than 25 and would have qualified as child self-petitioners. It will allow adopted children who have been abused by an adoptive parent to obtain permanent residency without having to reside with the abusive parent for 2 years. In an important move to help battered immigrant women achieve desperately-needed economic stability, the bill permits employment authorization to battered women and abused spouses of certain nonimmigrants.

Title VIII enhances immigration protection for victims of trafficking by removing barriers that block some victims from accessing to T and U visas. Title VIII also facilitates the reunion of trafficking victims with their family members abroad who are in danger of retaliation from international traffickers, and will increase access to permanent residency for victims of severe forms of trafficking who are cooperating in trafficking prosecutions. Finally, title VIII will arm foreign fiancees with background information about their U.S. citizen fiance, and will educate foreign fiancees about U.S. domestic violence laws and resources.

In an effort to focus more closely on violence against Indian women, title IX creates a new tribal Deputy Director in the Office on Violence Against Women dedicated to coordinating Federal policy and tribal grants. It also authorizes the Office to pool funds available to tribes and tribal organizations in various VAWA programs. In addition, Title IX authorizes tribal governments to access and upload domestic violence and protection order data on criminal databases, as well as create tribal sex offender registries, and strengthens available criminal penalties.

No doubt, today's bill is comprehensive; it speaks to the many complexities presented by domestic violence and sexual assault. I am indebted to a whole host of groups who worked on this measure and/or voiced their support throughout the journey from introduction to passage, including the American Bar Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, the International Association of Forensic Nurses, the American Medical Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the National Coalition

Against Domestic Violence, the National Congress of American Indians, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, Legal Momentum, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Center for Victims for Crime, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Council on Family and Juvenile Court Judges, the National Association of Chiefs of Police, and many others. I am grateful for the work each of you does each day to make our families safer and healthier.

The legislation being passed today also demonstrates Congress's commitment to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS. This program has been widely credited for helping to reduce crime rates over the past 10 years. It was deemed a ``miraculous success'' by Attorney General Ashcroft, and law enforcement experts from top to bottom, including Attorney General Gonzalez, police chiefs, and sheriffs, have all testified to its effectiveness at combating crime. While many politicians have argued this point, the Government Accountability Office conclusively established a statistical link between COPS hiring grants and crime reductions. We know that the COPS program works, and the legislation we are passing today recognizes this fact by re-authorizing the COPS program for the next 5 years at $1.05 billion per year.

In addition, this legislation also updates the COPS program grant making authority by providing more flexibility for local agencies in applying for assistance. It still includes many of the hallmarks that attributed to its success, such as reducing redtape by allowing local agencies to apply directly to the Federal Government for assistance, and providing grants on a three-year basis to facilitate long-term planning. The major improvement is that agencies will now be able to submit one application for its various funding needs, including hiring officers, purchase equipment, pay officers' overtime, and other programs that will increase the number of officers deployed in community oriented policing services. Originally, agencies had to make separate grant applications for the various purpose areas of the program. In addition, it allows the COPS program to award grants for officers hired to perform intelligence, anti-terror, or homeland security duties. Providing local agencies with this type of flexibility is a step forward.

While re-authorizing the COPS program is important, the next step is for the appropriators to fund the program at authorized levels. Back in the nineties, we invested roughly $2.1 billion for state and local law enforcement each year. We are safer today because of these investments. Over the past 5 years, we have adopted a wrong-headed approach of cutting funding for our state and local law enforcement partners. And, the recently passed Commerce, Justice, Science budget allocated less than $800 million for state and local law enforcement assistance, and it zeroed out the COPS hiring program. I agree with the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs Association that these cuts leave us more vulnerable to crime and terrorism. In this bill, the Congress demonstrated its support for the COPS program, but the real test will come when we make funding decisions in the future. For the safety and security of the American people, I will be fighting for the Congress to fully fund the COPS program at the newly authorized levels of $1.05 billion per year.

I have many partners here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives who have worked tirelessly on this bill. Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers were committed to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, and spent countless hours working on a resolution. Our negotiations were model ones--I wish bicameral relations were always so easy.

Senator Reed and Senator Allard were very helpful on the act's housing provisions, and Senator Enzi helped craft some of the victim service providers. I appreciate their assistance and help to move this bill forward. With respect to the Native American provisions, Senator McCain and Senator Dorgan provided instrumental guidance.

Since 1990, Senator Hatch and I have worked together to end family violence in this country, so it is no great surprise that once again he worked side-by-side with us to craft today's bill. I am also deeply indebted to Senator Kennedy for his unwavering commitment to battered immigrant women and his work on the bill's immigration provisions. Senator Kennedy's staff, particularly Janice Kaguyutan, have been invaluable to this process. I also thank Senator Leahy who has long- supported the Violence Against Women Act and, in particular, has worked on the rural programs and transitional housing provisions. As Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy has consistently pushed forward reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and his staff, chief counsel Bruce Cohen, Tara Magner, and Jessica Berry have worked hard for passage. My final appreciation is for my very good friend from Pennsylvania for his commitment and leadership on this bill. It is a pleasure to work with Chairman Specter, and his staff Brett Tolman, Lisa Owings, Joe Jacquot, Juria Jones and chief counsel Mike O'Neill. From day one, Chairman Specter has been one of this bill's biggest champion. Chairman Specter is the reason a bipartisan, bicameral compromise measure is being passed today and I thank him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally passing H.R. 3402, as amended--a carefully crafted, bipartisan, bicameral compromise to provide for the comprehensive reauthorization of both the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, and the programs and authorities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, DOJ. It has been a long time in coming.

I thank Senator Specter, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senators Biden and Kennedy for their hard work and steadfast support for crafting this compromise legislation. I want to especially recognize Senator Biden for his longstanding commitment to finding ways to help end violence against women and children, and his leadership in helping bring the Violence Against Women Act to the floor and in ensuring that its vital programs continue.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers deserve much credit as well for working so closely with us in a bipartisan manner to pass legislation in the House of Representatives. It is no easy task to take two large legislative measures and combine them into a single bipartisan, bicameral agreement. That is exactly what we have done, and we have achieved this milestone because we had the willingness of everyone involved to negotiate in good faith to see VAWA and the Justice Department authorization bill ushered into law this year.

I would like to highlight several of the provisions of this bipartisan measure--a bill that combines the Violence Against Women Act, S. 1197, as passed by the Senate, and the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009, H.R. 3402, as passed by the House.

The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act more than a decade ago marked an important national commitment to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. I am proud to join Senators Biden, Hatch, Specter and others as an original cosponsor of our reauthorization effort. The bill that passed the Senate had 58 cosponsors. Enactment of this measure will further our goal of ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

Earlier in my career as a prosecutor in Vermont, I witnessed the devastating effects of domestic violence. Violence and abuse affect people of all walks of life, regardless of gender, race, culture, age, class or sexuality. Such violence is a crime and it is always wrong, whether the abuser is a family member, someone the victim is dating, a current or past spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend, an acquaintance, or a stranger.

The National Crime Victimization Survey estimates there were 691,710 non-fatal, violent incidents committed against victims by current and former spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends--also known as intimate partners--during 2001. Of those incidents, 85 percent were against women. The rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has fallen steadily since 1993, when the rate was 9.8 incidents per 1,000 people. In 2001, the number fell to 5.0 incidents per 1,000 people, nearly a 50 percent reduction, but still unacceptably high. Tragically, however, the survey found that 1,600 women were killed in 1976 by a current or former spouse or boyfriend, while in 2000 some

1,247 women were killed by their intimate partners.

According to the annual Vermont Crime Report, the number of forcible rapes reported in Vermont rose in 2004 to the highest level in seven years, while the amount of violent crime remained unchanged and overall crime fell by about 5 percent from 2003. Reported incidents of rape rose by 58 percent, from 117 in 2003 to 185 in 2004. The average age of the victim was 21, and 47 percent of victims were younger than 18 years old. In 74 percent of the cases the perpetrator was an acquaintance of the victim, and in a quarter of the cases the defendant was a family member or intimate partner of the victim. In only 1 percent of the cases was the perpetrator a stranger. These figures in my home state raise significant concern because violent crime has declined nationwide during that same time period. Numbers like these are why reauthorizing VAWA is so vital.

Our Nation has made remarkable progress over the past 25 years in recognizing that domestic violence and sexual assault are crimes. We have responded with better laws, social support and coordinated community responses. But millions of women, men, children and families continue to be traumatized by abuse, leading to increased rates of crime, violence and suffering.

The Violence Against Women Act has provided aid to law enforcement officers and prosecutors, helped stem domestic violence and child abuse, established training programs for victim advocates and counselors, and trained probation and parole officers who work with released sex offenders. Now Congress has the opportunity to reauthorize VAWA and make improvements to vital core programs, tighten criminal penalties against domestic abusers, and create new solutions to other crucial aspects of domestic violence and sexual assault. This is an opportunity to help treat children victims of violence, augment health care for rape victims, hold repeat offenders and Internet stalkers accountable, and help domestic violence victims keep their jobs.

Included in this bill are reauthorizations of two programs I initially authored that are vital to helping rural communities battle domestic violence in a setting in which isolation can make it more difficult for both victims and law enforcement. In a small, rural state like Vermont, our county and local law enforcement agencies rely heavily on cooperative, interagency efforts to combat and solve significant problems. That is why I sought to include the Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grant Program as part of the original VAWA. This program helps make services available to rural victims and children by encouraging community involvement in developing a coordinated response to combat domestic violence, dating violence and child abuse. Adequate resources combined with sustained commitment will bring about significant improvements in rural areas to the lives of those victimized by domestic and sexual violence.

The Rural Grants Program section of VAWA 2005 reauthorizes and expands the existing education, training and services grant programs that address violence against women in rural areas. This provision renews the rural VAWA program, extends direct grants to state and local governments for services in rural areas and expands areas to include community collaboration projects in rural areas and the creation or expansion of additional victim services. This provision includes new language that expands the program coverage to sexual assault, child sexual assault and stalking. It also expands eligibility from rural states to rural communities, increasing access to rural sections of otherwise highly populated states. This section authorizes $55,000,000 annually for 2006 through 2010, an increase of $15 million per year.

The second grant program initiative on which I have focused is the Transitional Housing Assistance Grants for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault or Stalking. This program, which became law as part of the PROTECT Act of 2003, authorizes grants for transitional housing and related services for people fleeing domestic violence, sexual assault or stalkers. At a time when the availability of affordable housing has sunk to record lows, transitional housing for victims is especially needed. Today more than 50 percent of homeless individuals are women and children fleeing domestic violence. We have a clear problem that is in dire need of a solution. This program is part of the solution.

Transitional housing allows women to bridge the gap between leaving violence in their homes and becoming self-sufficient. VAWA 2005 amends the existing transitional housing program by expanding the current direct-assistance grants to include funds for operational, capital and renovation costs. Other changes include providing services to victims of dating violence, sexual assault and stalking; extending the length of time for receipt of benefits to match that used by Housing and Urban Development transitional housing programs; and updating the existing program to reflect the concerns of the service provision community. The provision would increase the authorized funding for this grant program from $30,000,000, to $40,000,000.

The reauthorization of VAWA is an important part of our efforts to increase awareness of the problem of violence, to save the lives of battered women, rape victims and children who grow up with violence and to continue progress against the devastating tragedy of domestic violence. I look forward to seeing it signed into law and thus strengthen the prevention of violence against women and children and its devastating costs and consequences.

In the 107th Congress, we properly authorized appropriations for the entire Department of Justice for the first time since 1979. We had extended that authorization in 1980 and 1981, but until 2002 neither had Congress passed nor the President signed an authorization bill for the Department. In fact, there were a number of years in which Congress failed to consider any Department authorization bill. This 26-year failure to properly reauthorize the Department forced the Appropriations committees in both chambers to reauthorize and appropriate money.

We ceded the authorization power to the appropriators for too long, but in the 107th Congress Senator Hatch and I joined forces with House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers to create and pass bipartisan legislation that reaffirmed the authorizing authority and responsibility of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees--the ``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act,'' Public Law 107-273. A new era of oversight began with that new charter for the Justice Department, with the Senate and House Judiciary Committees taking more-active new roles in setting the priorities and monitoring the operations of the Department of Justice, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and that bill helped our oversight duties in many ways. And, as we have learned in recent years, the fight against terrorism makes constructive oversight more important than ever before.

Earlier this year, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers authored and shepherded through the House of Representatives a new Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009, H.R. 3402. I commend both Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for working in a bipartisan manner to pass that legislation in the House of Representatives. It is on that comprehensive authorization of the Justice Department that the bipartisan, bicameral compromise the Senate now considers was built.

The bill we are considering today not only authorizes appropriations for the Justice Department for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, but also provides permanent enabling authorities to allow the Department to efficiently carry out its mission, clarifies and harmonizes existing statutory authority, and repeals obsolete statutory authorities. It establishes certain reporting requirements and other mechanisms intended to better enable the Congress to oversee DOJ operations.

In addition to the important oversight tools provided in the bill, there are many additional sound provisions designed to improve the administration of programs within the Justice Department. For example, in Section 1111 we eliminate duplication by consolidating

the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, LLEBG, program and the Byrne Formula Grant Program into one program--the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program--with the same purposes and simplified administration. We authorize funding for this program at $1.095 billion in FY 2006, which is $678.5 million--or 62 percent--more than the actual amount appropriated, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009.

I am a longtime supporter of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and the LLEBG Program, both of which have been continuously targeted for elimination by this Administration. As a senator from a rural State that relies on these grants to combat crime, I have been concerned with the President's proposals for funding and program eliminations of these well- established grant programs. Our legislation makes clear that the same authorized funding levels and uses will be available under the new, consolidated grant program as under the previous ones.

When we began negotiations with the House on the Justice Department authorization portion of this package, I expressed to Congressman Sensenbrenner my concerns that a combination of the merger of and drastic funding cuts to these programs will cause smaller states to lose the assistance on which they rely to prevent and control crime and improve the criminal justice system. In rural states, the State Administering Agency and state agencies are the local criminal justice resources; they are more than just state level actors. Additionally, more often than not our rural States are ground zero for the rapidly increasing methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution. It is on Byrne funding that rural States and small towns rely to stem the scourge of methamphetamine.

Byrne funding is the backbone of counterdrug enforcement and prosecution efforts in Vermont. Over the years, Vermont has been able to support a broad spectrum of projects within corrections, courts, training, forensics, and domestic violence and victim services. Chances are none of these initiatives will be possible under the new Byrne program formula because of the drop in funding level and funding distribution method. Since FY 2004, after which the new formula was applied, Byrne funds to Vermont have dropped by more than $1.2 million, or 61 percent. Clearly, the Byrne program affords States and communities the ability to use funding for a variety of crime-fighting activities, but unfortunately not the means.

I appreciate the willingness of Congressman Sensenbrenner to work with me during our negotiations to find a solution to ease the loss of Byrne grants by small rural States during these tough fiscal times. The agreement we came to provides for reserved funds that allow the Attorney General to set aside up to 5 percent of the total amount made available for Byrne formula grants for States or local governments to combat, address or otherwise respond to precipitous or extraordinary increases in crime; or to prevent, compensate for or mitigate significant programmatic harm resulting from operation of the new Byrne formula.

We increase the authorization for grants to drug courts to $70 million for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008. In addition, we provide for targeted technical assistance and training by the newly created Community Capacity Development Office to assist applicants in how to successfully pursue grants under the program, and to strengthen existing State drug court systems. Under that technical assistance and training, the Community Capacity Development Office will consider and respond to the unique needs of rural States, rural areas and rural communities that wish to implement and enhance drug court systems.

I am pleased that this compromise package provides an extension through 2009 for the Campbell-Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, an existing matching grant program authorized at $50 million to help State, tribal, and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers.

Our former colleague, Senator Campbell, and I authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998 in response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two State troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost. Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and in the closing days of the last Congress we again successfully extended the program's authorization through 2007 by including it in the State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-372.

Year after year, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program saves the lives of law enforcement officers nationwide by providing more help to State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful DOJ program has provided law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly 350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, more than 150 municipalities have been fortunate to receive funding for the purchase of 1,400 vests. Without the Federal funding given by this program, I daresay there would be close to that number of police officers without vests in Vermont today.

We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of this program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one.

I am also pleased that we include a $4 million authorization for SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program. SEARCH is the only no-cost service for small- and medium-sized criminal justice agencies nationwide to assist them in enhancing and upgrading their information systems, building integrated information systems that all criminal justice agencies need, and ensuring compatibility between local systems and State, regional and national systems.

I thank my colleagues again for supporting the final passage of this compromise package so that all of this bipartisan and bicameral work, as well as all the good that this legislation will do, will reach the President's desk and become law. And again I particularly want to thank Senate Judiciary Chairman Specter and Senators Biden and Kennedy, who worked so hard to help construct a good, fair and balanced compromise. Likewise, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Representative Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee for working with us to conclude these negotiations so successfully.

The staffs of these Members must also be recognized for their tireless work around the clock to bring so many pieces together into a winning package. In particular, the House Judiciary Committee staff has been enormously helpful, including Phil Kiko, Katy Crooks, Brian Benczkowski, George Fishman, Cindy Blackston, Perry Apelbaum, Sampak Garg, Stacey Dansky and Kristin Wells. The Senate Judiciary Committee staff has shown outstanding commitment to this legislation. I want to thank Mike O'Neill, Brett Tolman, Lisa Owings, Joe Jacquot, Juria Jones and Hannibal Kemerer with Chairman Specter; Louisa Terrell, Eric Rosen and Marcia Lee with Senator Biden; and Janice Kaguyutan and Christine Leonard with Senator Kennedy. Last, but by no means least, I want to commend members of my own staff--Bruce Cohen, Ed Pagano, Tara Magner, Matt Nelson and Jessica Berry--for their unfailing support for these provisions, and for their hard work in bringing this compromise package to the floor.

I look forward to both Senate and House passage of this bipartisan, bicameral package to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and the Department of Justice. Mr. President, this is an important piece of legislation that will make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans, and it deserves our full support.

Mr. President, the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, approved by the Senate today contains an important provision that is intended to protect women who have already been victimized once by sexual assault from being assaulted again by either the deadly AIDS virus or the legal system which may deny them potentially life-saving information.

Section 102 of VAWA now encourages States to implement laws that provide victims of sexual assault and rape the opportunity to know if the person indicted for the assault is infected with HIV. This new provision will require the Attorney General to reduce the amount of funding provided under Section 102 by 5 percent to a State or local government that has not demonstrated that laws are in place to allow a victim to request that a defendant, against whom an information or indictment is presented for a crime in which by force or threat of force the perpetrator compels the victim to engage in sexual activity, be tested for HIV disease if the nature of the alleged crime is such that the sexual activity would have placed the victim at risk of becoming infected with HIV. The defendant must undergo the test not later than 48 hours after the date on which the information or indictment is presented, and as soon thereafter as is practicable the results of the test must be made available to the victim. As medically appropriate, the victim may request follow-up testing of the defendant. If a State or local government does not currently allow victims of sexual assault such protections, assurances must be made to the Attorney General that the state legislature will bring their laws into compliance before the end of their next session or within 2 years. The 5 percent penalty will not go into effect until the expiration of the two year extension

The bill will also now allow Federal VAWA funds to be used to pay for HIV testing of sexual assault perpetrators and notification and counseling programs.

These provisions are desperately needed to address a real, grievous injustice that victims of sexual assault are facing in many states.

In the summer of 1996, a 7-year-old girl was brutally raped by a 57- year-old aged man who later told police he was infected with HIV. The little girl and

her 5-year-old brother had been lured to a secluded, abandoned building in the East New York section of Brooklyn. The man raped and sodomized the girl. Her brother, meanwhile, was beaten, tied up, and forced to witness his sister's rape. After the man's arrest, the defendant refused to be tested for the AIDS virus by the Brooklyn District Attorney's office. His refusal to take the test was permitted under State law.

In the spring of 2002, Ramell Rodgers repeatedly raped ``Jane,'' a female New York cab driver at gunpoint. The New York Daily News reported at the time that ``Rodgers is in jail awaiting trial, while `Jane' spends her days vomiting from drugs she takes to stave off sexually transmitted diseases she may have contracted in the attack. Officials say DNA evidence links Rodgers to the March 31 assault. According to sources close to the case, he has even admitted guilt. But he is not required to be tested for diseases until he is formally convicted.''

``Jane'' is determined to change the law to protect others who have been victimized by rape and sexual assault. Disguised in a scarf, wig sunglasses, she spoke at a New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers press conference:

As a precaution, I have to take ``four different medicines

[to help protect against HIV, chlamydia, herpes and other

STDs], and I was told that, unless this guy volunteers for

the test, I had to wait until he was convicted.'' She added:

``If you are assaulted, you should have the right to know

whether or not this person has infected you with anything.

One November evening in 2002, Doris Stewart, who was then 64, was awakened from her sleep when she heard a knock at her front door. When she went to the door, a man forced his way inside, then raped, sodomized and robbed her. Stewart's assault was just the beginning of her emotional distress. She harbors fears that her assailant may have HIV, but she has no way of knowing with certainty because Alabama is another of the few States that do not require testing of rape suspects for HIV. Stewart, who was advised by rape counselors to wait about 2 months before being tested, lived with fear of the unknown for months because it can take at least 3 to 6 months for HIV to be detected after infection. ``Everybody I talk to thinks it's so unfair that there's no law in Alabama,'' said Stewart who has attempted to change the state law to protect future rape victims.

There are countless stories of other women and children who have been victims of rape and sexual assault who have been denied access to this potentially life saving information. In some circumstances, rape defendants have even used HIV status information as a plea bargaining tool to reduce their sentences.

As a practicing physician, I believe that its is vitally important that those who have been raped do not also become victims of HIV/AIDS, and that requires timely medical attention including prompt testing of the defendant. Treatment with AIDS drugs in the immediate aftermath, usually within 72 hours, of exposure can significantly reduce the chance of infection. However, because of the toxicity and long-term side effects, these drugs should not be administered for long periods without knowing if HIV exposure has occurred.

Victims can not rely solely on testing themselves because it can take weeks, sometimes months, before HIV antibodies can be detected. Therefore, testing the assailant is the only timely manner in which to determine if someone has been exposed to HIV. Furthermore, rapid tests are now available that can diagnose HIV infection within 20 minutes with more than 99 percent accuracy.

The American Medical Association supports this policy because ``early knowledge that a defendant is HIV infected would allow the victim to gain access to the ever growing arsenal of new HIV treatment options. In addition, knowing that the defendant was HIV infected would help the victim avoid contact which might put others at risk of infection.''

While the HIV infection rate among sexual assault victims has not been studied, the National Rape Crisis Center estimates the rate is higher than the general population because the violent nature of the forced sexual contact increases the chances of transmission.

I was very disappointed that the National Center for Victims of Crime, NCVC and the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, opposed this provision. NCVC claimed that ``mandatory testing of sex offenders may not be in the best interest of the victim/survivor.'' The ACLU claimed that ``forced HIV testing, even of those convicted of a crime, infringes on constitutional rights and can only be justified by a compelling governmental interest. No such interest is present in the case of a rapist and his victim because the result of a rapist's HIV test, even if accurate, will not indicate whether the rape victim has been infected.''

The medical facts are quite obvious why knowledge of HIV exposure is vital to victims of sexual assault and it is astonishing that anyone would argue otherwise.

Claims that providing this information to victims would compromise ``privacy'' are also quite shocking. Exactly whose rights are being protected by denying a victim of sexual assault the right to know if she has been exposed to the deadly AIDS virus when she was raped? If sufficient evidence exists to arrest and jail a rape suspect, the victim should have the right to request that the suspect be tested for

Mr. President, I applaud the sponsors of this bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act for their tireless leadership in the campaign to end the abuse of women. In particular, I thank them for their foresight in incorporating the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 ``IMBRA'' as one of its subtitles. This important piece of legislation, which I introduce with Senator Maria Cantwell in the Senate, is intended to address Congress' concerns about a significant and growing problem: the high incidence of violent abuse of foreign women brought to this country as fiancees or spouses by American men whom they meet through for-profit international marriage brokers ``IMBs,'' commonly known as ``mail-order bride'' agencies.

After learning from the Tahirih Justice Center and other front-line experts about the terrible circumstances in which many of these women find themselves, I convened a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 2004 to call attention to the abuse and exploitation of women and their children through this industry. Since it comes as a great surprise to many people that such agencies actually exist in the modem day, that are legal in this country, and that they are on the rise, not the decline, I want to share some further background that will explain why it is so important that Congress has acted today to compel the industry and its clients to clean up their act.

First, this is an increasing problem. The IMB industry has exploded in recent years, greatly facilitated by the Internet. According to statistics from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, an estimated one-third to one-half of all foreign fiancees admitted to the U.S. each year--9,500 to 14,500 women in 2004 alone--and many thousand more admitted foreign wives, have met their American husbands through IMBs. The number of foreign fiancees admitted to the U.S. more than doubled between 1998 and 2002, and continues to climb.

Second, the industry bears significant responsibility for women's vulnerability to abuse, and has done little if anything on its own initiative to safeguard them. Over a half-decade ago, the then- Immigration and Naturalization Service concluded in a report to Congress that, ``with the burgeoning number of unregulated international matchmaking organizations and clients using their services, the potential for abuse in mail-order marriages is considerable.'' The INS study further noted that American men who use IMBs tend to seek relationships with women whom they feel they can control. Moreover, the marketing and business practices of IMBs also heighten the risk of abuse by feeding this perception. Agencies often advertise the women they recruit as being submissive to male clients, who might pay up to several thousand dollars to gain access to those women. Other industry practices, from ``satisfaction guarantees'' or ``shopping cart'' features on agency web sites to so-called ``romance tours'' overseas that virtually line up several hundred women recruits for inspection by a dozen male clients during a single ``mixer,'' make perfectly clear that the woman is the commodity provided for the male client's consumption. An inevitable and dangerous sense of ownership by the men in their costly investments can develop. Several highly publicized murders of women by husbands whom they met through IMBs highlight a growing nationwide trend of abuse. A 2003 survey conducted by the Tahirih Justice Center found that over 50 percent of programs providing legal services to battered immigrant women nationwide had served women battered by men whom they had met through IMBs.

Third, women who are recruited by IMBs are at a tremendous informational disadvantage that a brutal predator can exploit. These foreign fiancees and spouses often are unable to obtain reliable information about the criminal and marital histories of their American fiancees and spouses, and are unaware of the legal rights and resources available to victims of domestic violence in the U.S. An all-too-common result is that women from across the globe are exploited across this country, as a brief memorandum from the Tahirih Justice Center explains, and which I will have printed in the Congressional Record.

The information requirements established by this subtitle are designed to require disclosure of the kinds of criminal convictions in the background of a petitioning American fiance or spouse that indicate he could be prone to domestic violence. This will enable a foreign woman to make an informed decision about coming to this country for marriage to an American man, in advance, with her safety and that of her children in mind. The provisions of this subtitle would also provide her with information about where she can turn for help, including vital safety nets and social services available to domestic violence and sexual assault victims, if she experiences abuse at the hands of her American fiance or spouse.

A simple but incredibly powerful premise drives these provisions: that this information can help a woman help herself, help her save herself or her child from becoming the next victim of a predatory abuser. Through this information and other safeguards, this important legislation will help prevent those intent on doing women harm from perverting and subverting both the institution of marriage and the immigration process to find new victims overseas.

So again, I thank my colleagues for their inclusion of these vital protections, and thank them, too, on behalf of the women and children whom they have spared today from tragedies tomorrow.

I ask unaminous consent the memorandum be printed in the Record.