Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Chair regarding the votes that I missed on the following dates:

May 12, due to the passing of my mother, Ivalita Jackson, I missed the following votes:

Rollcall vote No. 259, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 260, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 261, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 262, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 263, I would have voted no;

Rollcall vote 264, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 265, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 266, I would have voted ``aye''.

I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 259-266 on Wednesday, May 12, 2010.

I was not able to cast my votes during roll call 259-266 because I was in bereavement of the passing of my mother, Ivalita Jackson. Had I been present, for rollcall vote 259, on agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1344, ``Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,'' I would have voted ``aye''; for rollcall vote 260, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 5014, `` To clarify the health care provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that constitutes minimum essential coverage,'' I would have voted ``aye''; for rollcall vote 261, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended, H. Con. Res. 268, ``Supporting the goals and ideals of National Women's Health Week, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted ``aye''; for rollcall vote 262, on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 5116, ``Gordon Amendment No. 1,'' I would have voted ``aye''; for rollcall vote 263, on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 5116, ``Hall of Texas Amendment No. 6,'' I would have voted ``no''; for rollcall vote 264, on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 5116, ``Markey of Massachusetts Amendment No. 10,'' I would have voted ``aye''; for rollcall vote 265, on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 5116, ``George Miller of California, Amendment No. 12,'' I would have voted ``aye''; for roll call vote 266, on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 5116, ``Reyes of Texas Amendment No. 13,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

Tuesday, May 18, due similarly to the passing of my mother:

Rollcall votes 273 to 275, motion to suspend the rules, rollcall vote 273, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 274, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 275, I would have voted ``aye''.

I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 273-275 on Tuesday, May 18, 2010.

I was not able to cast my votes during roll-call 273-275 because I was in bereavement of the passing of my mother, Ivalita Jackson. I would like to state for the record how I would have voted had I been present.

For rollcall vote 273, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 2288, ``Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Improvement Act of 2009,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 274, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 4614, ``Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 275, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, H. Res. 1327, ``Honoring the life achievements, and contributions of Floyd Dominy,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

On the 20th of May, due to the passing of my mother, I missed the following votes:

Rollcall vote 284, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 285, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 286, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 287, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 288, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 289, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 290, I would have voted ``aye''.

I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 284-290 on Thursday, May 20, 2010.

I was not able to cast my votes during rollcall 284-290 because I was in bereavement of the passing of my mother, Ivalita Jackson. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present.

For rollcall vote 284, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 5327, ``To authorize assistance to Israel for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system,'' I would have voted ``aye''.

For rollcall vote 285, on motion to suspend the rules agree to, H. Res. 1256, ``Congratulating Phil Mickelson on winning the 2010 Masters golf tournament,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 286, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to, H. Res. 1336, `` Congratulating the University of Texas men's swimming and diving team for winning the NCAA Division I national championship,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 287, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 1361, ``Recognizing North Carolina Central on its 100th anniversary,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 288, on ordering the previous question, H. Res. 1363, ``Granting the authority provided under clause 4(c)(3) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the Committee on Education and Labor for purposes of its investigation into underground coal mining safety,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 289, on agreeing to resolution, H. Res. 163, ``Granting the authority provided under clause 4(c)(3) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the Committee on Education and Labor for purposes of its investigation into underground coal mining safety,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 290, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 5128, ``To designate the Department of the Interior Building in Washington, District of Columbia, as the Stewart Lee Udall Department of the Interior Building,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

Accordingly, I continued to miss time on the passing of my mother on May 24, and I missed rollcall votes 291 to 293.

I would have voted, on rollcall vote 291, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 292, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 293, I would have voted ``aye''.

I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 291-293 on Monday, May 24, 2010.

I was not able to cast my votes during rollcall 291-293 because I was in bereavement of the passing of my mother, Ivalita Jackson. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present.

For rollcall vote 291, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 278, ``Expressing the sense of Congress that a grateful Nation supports and salutes Sons and Daughters in Touch on its 20th Anniversary that is being held on Fathers Day, 2010, at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, the District of Columbia,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 292, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 1017, ``Chiropractic Care Available to All Veterans Act,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 293, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 5330, ``To amend the Anti-trust Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend the operation of such Act for a 5-year period ending June 22, 2015, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted ``aye''.

On Tuesday, May 25, accordingly, I missed the following votes pursuant to the earlier statement:

Rollcall vote 294, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 295, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 296, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 297, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 298, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 299, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 300, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 301, I would have voted ``aye''.

I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 294-301 on Tuesday, May 25, 2010.

I was not able to cast my votes during rollcall 294-301 because I was in bereavement of the passing of my mother, Ivalita Jackson. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present.

For rollcall vote 294, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 5145, ``Assuring Quality Care for Veterans Act,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 295, on motion to suspend the rule and agree to H. Res. 437, ``Expressing support for designation of May 2010 as Mental Health Month,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 296, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H. Res. 1382, ``Expressing sympathy to the families of those killed by North Korea in the sinking of the Republic of Korea Ship Cheonan, and solidarity with the Republic of Korea in the aftermath of this tragic incident,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 297, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H. Res. 584, ``Recognizing the importance of manufactured and modular housing in the United States,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 298, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H.Res. 3885, ``Veterans Dog Training Therapy Act,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 299, on motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 2711, ``Special Agent Samuel Hicks Families of Fallen Heroes Act,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 300, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H. Res.

1189, ``Commending Lance Mackey on winning a record 4th straight Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 301, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H. Res. 1172, ``Recognizing the life and achievements of Will Keith Kellogg,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

May 26, I was unavoidably detained on official business. I missed rollcall vote 302. I would have voted aye;

Rollcall vote 303, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 304, I would have voted ``aye''; and

Rollcall vote 305, I would have voted ``aye''.

I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 302-305 on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to cast my votes during rollcall on Wednesday, May 26, 2010, because I was away from the office on official business. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted, had I been present.

For rollcall vote, 302, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1347, ``Honoring the workers who perished on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, extending condolences to their families, and recognizing the valiant efforts of emergency response workers at the disaster site,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 303, on motion to suspend the rule and agree to H. Res. 1385, ``recognizing and honoring the courage and sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 304, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H. Res 1316, ``Celebrating Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 305, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H. Res. 1169, ``Honoring the 125th anniversary of Rollins College,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, or Katie's Law. First of all, I want to thank my colleagues, Representative Schiff and Representative Reichert, for all their hard work on this important piece of legislation. Most of all, I want to thank Jayann and Dave Sepich, constituents of mine from Carlsbad, New Mexico, for bringing this important issue to my attention and for crusading tirelessly to help pass arrestee DNA laws nationwide.

This bill is named for their daughter, Katie Sepich, who was brutally raped and murdered in Las Cruces, New Mexico, in 2003, at the age of 22. Jayann and Dave have bravely taken this devastating and horrific experience that most people, including myself, could never imagine, and have turned it into something that will save lives and help families across the country. If this law had been on the books in New Mexico at the time of Katie's murder, her case would have been solved 3 months after her death when her killer was arrested for breaking into the home of two women after watching them through a window. Instead, Katie's killer was not identified until over 3 years after her murder and was left to roam the streets for much of that time.

Since Katie's murder in 2003, New Mexico has passed a State law allowing law enforcement to collect DNA from those arrested for certain felonies. Twenty-two other States as well as the Federal Government have passed similar laws. I have introduced my version of Katie's Law at the Federal level to make sure that this life-saving law that is in effect in my home State of New Mexico and 22 others is the standard for every State.

The Katie's Law I have introduced will incentivize States to, at the very least, match certain arrestees to the national DNA bank, the Combined DNA Information System, or CODIS, by providing the States that comply with a 5-percent increase in their Byrne/JAG funds. There is no requirement for retention of the DNA record after it is checked against CODIS. Katie's Law will also further incentivize those States which not only match arrestees but also contribute to the CODIS with a 10-percent increase in Byrne/JAG funds. Not only do these incentives encourage States to implement arrestee DNA laws, but they provide much needed support to local law enforcement as they work to keep our streets safe.

DNA has rightly been called the fingerprint of the 21st century. By simply swabbing a person's cheek and then coding junk DNA with only 13 indicators, law enforcement can accurately identify perpetrators of a crime without regard to race or criminal history. This practice protects the privacy of arrestees, since any identifying information, such as genetic predisposition to disease, is not coded for use by law enforcement. In addition, my bill contains an expungement clause to make sure there is a way for DNA to be removed from CODIS should a person not be convicted of the crime for which they were arrested.

The full potential of DNA as a crime-solving tool cannot be realized if we're not collecting DNA from those arrestees for certain violent crimes. Statistics show that 70 percent of America's crimes are committed by 6 percent of America's criminals. This means many of those who have committed some of the most heinous crimes in our society are repeat offenders.

One study conducted in Chicago tracked the known criminal activity of eight individuals and determined that 60 violent crimes, including 53 murders, would have been prevented if the eight individuals' DNA had been taken on their first felony arrest. Similarly, a serial killer and rapist from California named Chester Turner raped and murdered at least 12 women between 1987 and 1998, during which time he was also arrested a total of 18 times. Had Turner been swabbed for DNA when he was arrested on January 26, 1987, he would have been linked to his first victim, and 11 women would still be alive today. These women are not just names in a police report. They are real people with aspirations, with families, with husbands, with people who love them, and they didn't have to die. Worse still, an innocent man named David Jones was wrongfully convicted of three of the Turner murders and served 11 years in prison before he was finally absolved.

Considering the potential for false identification and the number of repeat offenders in our criminal justice system, it's only common sense that if someone is arrested for a crime like rape, murder, or kidnapping, we make sure we identify them fully before we release them back onto the streets. We use fingerprints for this very purpose, and we should use the modern equivalent, junk DNA.

Katie's Law simply allows law enforcement to treat DNA evidence left at the scene of a crime as they do fingerprints. The fact is that the science has advanced, and we should allow law enforcement to use all of the technology available to them, including the fingerprints of the 21st century, to reduce expensive and unjust false convictions, bring closure to victims by solving cold cases, better identify criminals, and keep those who commit violent crime from walking the streets.

Jayann and Dave have experienced something that no parent should ever have to, the loss of a child. We have the power through advanced DNA collection to make one less parent grieve for a child, one less husband grieve for a wife, or one less child lose a parent.

I ask that you support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4614, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of. The Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act authorizes incentive grants to States that implement programs to collect DNA samples from felony arrestees. DNA arrestee programs provide an important law enforcement tool to identify the perpetrators of open and unsolved cases. DNA arrestee programs can also prevent crime by linking suspects to crimes and locking them up before they have a chance to strike again.

Katie Sepich's case clearly demonstrates the value of collecting DNA from felony arrestees. Just 3 months after brutally raping and murdering Katie in 2003, Gabriel Avilla committed an aggravated burglary for which he was convicted in 2004, absconded from his sentencing, and was apprehended again in 2005. His DNA was finally taken and matched to Katie's case--a match that could have been obtained just 3 months after Katie's murder, saving valuable law enforcement resources and providing some closure to Katie's families and friends.

New Mexico's DNA arrestee law was passed in 2006. Twenty-one other States now have similar laws, including my home State of Florida. Florida's DNA arrestee program solved a 25-year-old murder when the suspect was arrested last May--and his DNA collected--on felony drug charges. In New York, DNA collected following a drunk-driving arrest linked a suspect to three rape/homicides dating back over 20 years.

By collecting DNA samples from arrestees and uploading them into a national DNA data base, or CODIS, States can empower police and prosecutors not only to solve cold cases but hopefully apprehend violent criminals before more innocent people are victimized and precious lives are lost. H.R. 4614 provides incentive grants to States that implement and use DNA arrestee programs.

The amended version of this bill before us today makes several important improvements to the bill. First, it removes the provision that would have penalized States that do not have arrestee programs by deducting 5 percent

of their Federal grant money. Second, it creates a two-tiered system for incentive grant awards based upon whether the State has a ``minimum'' or ``enhanced'' arrestee program, which I hope will provide greater flexibility to States receiving those grants. Third, the amended bill places a cap on the authorization level, limiting it to 10 percent of the amount appropriated for the Byrne/JAG grant program.

I support these improvements to the bill. However, I also recognize there are other areas where the bill could also be improved. A significant hurdle to States implementing DNA arrestee programs is the cost. In Georgia, for instance, where legislation was introduced earlier this year to require DNA collection from arrestees, it would cost as much as $7 million a year to operate the program. Unfortunately, Georgia will not be eligible for an incentive grant under H.R. 4614 until it fully implements a DNA arrestee process. A possible solution would be to allow States, such as Georgia, to use grant funding to implement their DNA arrestee law, where the costs are arguably their highest.

In addition, H.R. 4614 awards incentive grants to States with DNA arrestee programs not just once, but year after year after year. Perhaps the emphasis should be on those States that have not yet enacted or implemented a DNA arrestee program. Because this grant increase is compulsory under this bill, the Justice Department will be required to administer the additional bonus to States even if Congress does not appropriate additional funds for the program. There is concern that this may ultimately result in depleting Byrne/JAG funds from certain States, thus creating a penalty to States without the DNA arrestee law. I hope to work with all concerned parties and resolve the lingering issues as this legislation moves forward.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), a former sheriff and cosponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers.

Madam Speaker, I want to personally thank Mr. Teague from New Mexico and Mr. Reichert from Washington for their leadership on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4614) to amend part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for incentive payments under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program for States to implement minimum and enhanced DNA collection processes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010, otherwise known as Katie's Law, will help prevent violent crime, help exonerate the innocent, give our police access to cutting-edge forensic techniques, and reduce the cost of criminal investigations. More importantly, Katie's Law will help victims of violent crime and their families get answers and the closure that they need.

Katie's Law encourages the States to adopt effective DNA collection procedures. States that meet the minimum standards set by the bill are entitled to a 5 percent bonus in Byrne/JAG funding for State and local law enforcement. States that adopt the enhanced standards are entitled to a 10 percent bonus. These funds are in addition to funds awarded through Byrne/JAG. States that do not adopt collection procedures that meet the new Federal standards are not penalized in any way. Katie's Law also directs the Attorney General to report to Congress once a year on the progress made by the States in adopting new collection procedures.

Katie's Law is named for Katie Sepich, who is remembered as a vibrant young woman and a graduate student at New Mexico State University. In the summer of 2003, Katie was brutally raped and murdered just outside her home. Katie's parents, Jayann and Dave Sepich, waited for 3 long years as the investigation continued, without producing any strong leads. In January, 2006, thanks to the efforts of the Sepich family, the New Mexico State legislature passed a measure to require the collection of DNA evidence in the investigation of certain felonies. Months later, investigators linked a DNA sample from Katie's attacker to a sample taken from a repeat violent offender who had been in and out of police custody for years. Confronted with the evidence, the suspect pled guilty to the crime and is now serving 69 years in prison without parole.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the law enforcement officers who solved this crime. But consider the fact that Katie's assailant was arrested for aggravated burglary just weeks after attacking Katie. If a DNA sample from that individual had matched evidence from the crime scene, the case might have been solved years earlier; police officers could have saved thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours; and Katie's family might not have spent 3 painful years in investigatory limbo.

Katie's Law provides the resources necessary to solve crimes sooner. This measure passed the House with overwhelming support last Congress, and has cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. I commend my colleagues, Harry Teague and Adam Schiff, for their tireless work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4614.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Teague).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how many further speakers the floor manager has remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield for as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

DNA is perhaps the most powerful and most reliable tool at the disposal of criminal investigators today. As a former Federal prosecutor during the early days of the DNA revolution, I have seen firsthand the power of DNA to prove the guilt or innocence of a suspect.

In 2008, I proposed an amendment to the Debbie Smith Act reauthorization that would have put in place a 10 percent bonus in Byrne/JAG grants for States to collect DNA profiles from anyone arrested for certain serious felonies. It passed the House with a strong bipartisan vote, but the clock ran out in the Senate. I could not be more pleased that Congressman Harry Teague has taken up the banner on this issue. I hope this year we can finally get it across the finish line.

You have heard the tragic story of Katie Sepich, for whom this bill is named. Katie was a bright, vivacious 22-year-old from New Mexico who was murdered in 2003. Police were able to extract the DNA profile of her attacker from beneath Katie's fingernails, but they got no match to anyone in the offender database. When they finally did get a hit on the attacker's DNA, they discovered that the murderer had been arrested repeatedly for burglaries after 2003, but because he was never convicted, he was not required to submit a DNA sample for the database. Had New Mexico had arrestee testing at the time, Katie's killer would have been taken off the streets years earlier.

There are 23 States, including my home State of California, that have now adopted DNA collection upon arrest or indictment for at least some violent felonies. By doing so, these States increase the power of the national database to solve crimes. The bonus in Federal law enforcement grants provided by Katie's Law will encourage additional States to adopt arrestee testing law. The legislation preserves civil liberties protections by requiring the FBI and the States to expunge the DNA of suspects who are acquitted.

We know the power of this technology. We also know the cost of delay, the cost of an inadequate database, and it is simply this: that as we wait to run these samples or if we miss the opportunity to test the samples of those arrested for violent felonies, we know with a virtual statistical certainty that people we could take off the street, people that have committed rape or committed murder, will, in the interim between the time we do take the sample of the arrestee or between the time we do erase the backlog, will go on to murder others, to rape others. And what a tragedy it is when we have this tool not to utilize it to its full extent.

I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership on this issue. Harry Teague has been a great champion. Congressman Reichert has been a great champion, and we are indebted to their leadership on this. This legislation is the product of years of work and debate in Congress. It will help law enforcement use DNA to solve crimes, and it will keep in place existing civil liberties protections. So hats off to Representatives Teague and Reichert for their leadership on this issue and to Chairman Conyers and to Chairman Scott for their support as well. I urge its adoption.