Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act.

Katie's Law is named for Katie Sepich, a bright, vivacious 22-year- old from New Mexico who was brutally assaulted, raped, and murdered in 2003. Police were able to extract the DNA profile of her killer from underneath Katie's fingernails, but they got no match in the offender database. When they finally did get a hit on the attacker's DNA 3 years later, they discovered that the murderer had been arrested repeatedly after 2003, but because he was never convicted, he was not required to submit a DNA sample for the database. Had New Mexico required arrestees to submit a DNA sample, Katie's killer would have been apprehended and taken off the street years earlier.

Katie's Law applies the lesson that New Mexico and now 24 States across the country have learned: arrestee testing works. This bill would create a new category of grants for States that collect DNA from arrestees for certain felonies. By joining the 25 States, plus the Federal Government, that already collect DNA from arrestees, additional State participation will make the national DNA index system more effective in helping to solve violent crimes. It does so without authorizing any new spending and while protecting civil liberties by putting in place strong expungement requirements.

We passed very similar legislation in 2010 with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. In the few short days we have left before the end of this year, we have a window to potentially send this bill to the Senate, where we'll also attract bipartisan support. I believe we should take that opportunity.

It has been argued by my colleague that we should wait to consider this bill until the Supreme Court rules on Maryland v. King, the case in which the Maryland State Supreme Court overturned the State's arrestee testing statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. I would simply note that three Federal courts of appeals and the State Supreme Court of California have looked at arrestee testing, and all have found it constitutional. The Supreme Court also took the unusual step of staying the order of the Maryland court. In his order staying the Maryland decision, Chief Justice Roberts writes:

Collecting DNA from individuals arrested for violent

felonies provides a valuable tool for investigating unsolved

crimes and thereby helping to remove violent offenders from

the general population. Crimes for which DNA evidence is

implicated tend to be serious, and serious crimes cause

serious injuries. That Maryland may not employ a duly enacted

statute to help prevent these injuries constitutes

irreparable harm.

This is a practice that is used in 25 States and by the Federal Government. It is not new. I'm confident the practice will be upheld by the Court. And even if we are wrong, the Court will decide this case long before any grant funding would be dedicated to help States build arrestee collection laws, so no funding would be wasted.

I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague, Chairman Smith, who has been so supportive of this effort and has done such a marvelous job chairing the Judiciary Committee. I also want to acknowledge Ranking Member Conyers and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Bobby Scott, for their great work on the committee and subcommittee. I also want to thank my colleague from Washington (Mr. Reichert), who knows firsthand the power of DNA evidence from his years as a sheriff. And finally and most importantly, I thank Katie's family and her mother, Jayann Sepich. Jayann has endured every parent's worst nightmare. Her determination and dedication are inspiring. And when Katie's Law is signed into law-- and it will be--it will be a testament to her work and her love for her daughter.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass Katie's Law.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for his leadership on this.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 6014. Today, Katie Sepich, pictured here, tells us a lot. She is fun, loving, vibrant, outgoing. She was leader in her age group. She made things happen. Katie, beginning in January of 2002, was in her last year of grad school. During that year, in one of the last conversations with her daughter, Jayann Sepich--her mom--asked her the same question that many of us receive from our parents: What are you going to do when you graduate with your master's degree in business? The reply was the same one that many of us have given: I'm not sure, but I want to change the world.

That's what each one of us as parents aspires to develop in our children--it's what each one of us tries to train them for--and Katie was at the point of decision. She was on her way until her journey of life was brutally interrupted by someone who raped her and strangled her. Then he burned her body and left her body abandoned at a dumpsite.

Now, there was a full DNA sample under Katie's fingernails, attesting to Katie's character, but the uploaded DNA did not match anything in the government database. Meanwhile, Gabriel Avila was arrested 6 weeks after the murder; but because New Mexico and the Federal Government had no laws, no DNA sample was taken, and so no match was made. For 3 years, Mr. Avila walked free on the streets of America and on the streets of New Mexico after having committed this horrendous crime, but there was nothing to link them until New Mexico passed a statute very similar to this one that we are passing today.

It simply said that we are going to collect DNA samples when we have people who are under the suspicion of violent crimes. It is no different than my fingerprints, which are available to anyone who wants to look. They were taken by the U.S. Government when I entered into the United States Air Force. I understand the constitutional concerns, but I also understand the pain of families who have no answers. After New Mexico passed this law, Mr. Avila committed another violent crime. This time, by New Mexico law, they had to take his DNA sample, and immediately they matched that now-3-year-old crime that took Katie's life.

All this bill does is simply help provide funds to States to take these DNA samples. The U.S. Government will put them in the database and compare them. They're the 21st-century version of fingerprints.

One in six American women is a victim of rape or attempted rape, and 90 percent of the people who commit the crimes are repeat offenders like Mr. Avila; yet they walk free because we care more for the rights of perpetrators than of victims. This bill will not prevent violent crimes, but it will help stem the tide of the repeat offenders.

Dave and Jayann Sepich, Katie's parents, have worked tirelessly, first to get the bill through New Mexico and then to get it to the attention of the Federal Government. The bill stands poised here on the floor of the House of Representatives today, asking that we as Americans and we as legislators take a stand on behalf of the families who have young daughters and young sons who want to change the world; and maybe, just maybe, we will do something right here.

Katie's legacy will live on no matter what we do here today, because of her parents and because of her sacrifice. I humbly suggest that we would want to pass this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012, or Katie's Law, has laudable goals of helping to prevent violent crime, exonerating the innocent, giving our police access to cutting-edge forensic techniques, reducing the cost of criminal investigations, and giving victims of violent crime and their families the answers and closure they deserve. All of this can result from the enhanced DNA collection provided for in this bill.

I voted for Katie's Law last Congress, and the goals of Katie's Law are goals that I wholeheartedly support, but unfortunately, right now is not the time to pass the law. This bill would enable the Attorney General to provide grant money to States if they implement a process for DNA testing upon arrest and preservation of the DNA profile.

The last time I voted for the bill, or one similar to it, I viewed the collection of arrestee DNA as essentially the same from a constitutional point of view as the collection of fingerprints, which are collected and preserved in a database for arrestees, whether there is a conviction or not. Since then, however, serious questions have been raised about the constitutionality of arrestee DNA collection and the preservation of that information in a database where there has been no subsequent conviction.

These constitutional questions are currently before the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in that case in November, and we're taking this bill up now before the Supreme Court has had a chance to hear the case and issue its decision. In just a couple of months, the Supreme Court will have decided the King case, and we'll know whether

or not it's constitutional to preserve this data and how the States can collect it from people upon arrest and what to do with that information. With the decision at hand, we can then craft a program that encourages States to implement DNA collecting and testing systems that fully comply with whatever the Supreme Court rules in the King case.

Whereas I believe that the Supreme Court will find this proposed bill constitutional, it just makes sense that we wait until the decision is rendered before we pass the bill. For that reason, I will oppose the bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the bill, a former prosecutor and valued member of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I think the chairman has the right to close, and I would yield him time if he has any concluding comments. He apparently doesn't have any further comments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Ranking Member Scott.

This is an unusual circumstance in which the Fourth Amendment, which protects individual privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, has hardly been mentioned. Another thing that is curious about this measure is that there hasn't been a hearing on the bill, not a single hearing. Now, I suppose we should just skip over that. Oh, by the way, the Supreme Court of the United States has a case which is testing the issue of the appropriateness of collecting the DNA of arrestees, which will soon reasonably be decided.

As one who supports the goals of this legislation--its objectives to apprehend offenders and provide relief to victims--it seems like, in our haste, we've tossed procedure into the waste basket. I just can't understand why we can't examine the constitutionality of the practice of DNA in an appropriate manner, and that's what Maryland v. King would do. I know it's being used in other places, but I have never participated in legislation that attempts to become law while the matter is still in the Supreme Court, about to be decided. Maybe if I looked hard enough, we could find some cases in which that may have happened.

When you combine all of these unusual circumstances, as a former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I would urge that we follow the recommendations of our ranking member and have this matter brought before the committee in a more proper and orderly way. I hope that we can ensure the constitutionality of H.R. 6014 since that test is about to be submitted before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6014, the ``Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012,'' or ``Katie's Law.''

I want to begin by noting that I support the important goals of this legislation, which are to apprehend offenders and provide relief to victims.

But we must not allow our criminal justice system to circumvent the protections of the Constitution so that criminal offenders are caught at all costs.

It is critical that we adhere to the Constitution and consider any measure that possibly conflicts with it through a deliberate process.

Unfortunately, there has not been nearly enough process to ensure that H.R. 6014 is constitutional.

For example, there has neither been a single hearing on this bill, nor has the Judiciary Committee marked up this measure.

As many of you know, the constitutionality of collecting DNA from arrestees is an unresolved question under the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals' privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

In fact, the constitutionality of the practice of DNA testing upon arrest is currently before the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King. We should at least wait until the Court decides this issue before we rush to pass this legislation.

I voted for Katie's law in the last Congress, and I support the goals of Katie's law, but right now is not the time to pass this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6014) to authorize the Attorney General to award grants for States to implement minimum and enhanced DNA collection processes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6014, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for sponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan legislation. H.R. 6014, 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 perpetrators of open and unsolved cases. DNA arrestee programs can also prevent crimes by linking career criminals to crimes and locking them up before they have the chance to strike again.

By collecting DNA samples from arrestees and uploading them into the national DNA database, States can empower police and prosecutors to not only solve cold cases but also to apprehend violent criminals before more innocent people are victimized or precious lives are lost. Similar legislation passed the House last Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 357-32.

H.R. 6014 adds a new purpose area to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act to fund State DNA arrestee programs. This is limited, cost-effective legislation that will help States make use of DNA evidence to catch serious criminals at the earliest stage possible.

In the 20th century, law enforcement used fingerprints to link criminals to unsolved crimes. In the 21st century, law enforcement can now use DNA fingerprint technology to apprehend dangerous offenders.

I want to thank my colleague from California, again, Mr. Schiff, for his hard work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who happens to have passed legislation very similar to this when he was in the legislature in Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to, once again, thank my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Schiff) for introducing this bill and for getting us to the point at which we are now--hopefully, on the cusp of passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.