Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the Department of Justice concerning H.R. 2810, H.R. 3087, and H.R. 3375. These bills are generally designed to extend and strengthen the DNA identification system. The major elements of the proposals include: (1) authorizing assistance to the states to clear their backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples, (2) providing necessary assignments of responsibility and grants of authority to collect DNA samples from federal, military, and D.C. offenders, and (3) authorization of appropriations to federal agencies for related costs.

The Department of Justice and the Administration strongly support the objectives of this legislation. We commend the leadership the sponsors of these bills and the Subcommittee have shown in addressing these important issues.

In my testimony today, I wish to emphasize the following major points:

First, there currently exists at the state level a backlog of several hundred thousand unanalyzed DNA samples that have been collected from convicted offenders. These samples are worthless in solving crimes until they are analyzed and the resulting information is entered into state DNA databases and the national DNA identification index. We have accordingly included in our budget requests $30 million over a two-year period for assistance to the states in clearing this backlog. Congress has in fact provided the requested $15 million for FY2000, and we are about to make the initial grants under this existing program.

The bills pending before the subcommittee contain generally similar authorizations of assistance to the states for backlog reduction, but they were formulated prior to the establishment of the existing program. Hence, their provisions are in some respects inconsistent with the current program’s design and administration. For example, the program established under the appropriations legislation is administered by the National Institute of Justice in consultation with the FBI -- but the bills’ provisions regarding the program’s administration are inconsistent with this assignment of responsibility. The Subcommittee should accordingly take care that the formulation of the legislative provisions enhance and ensure the completion of the existing program, rather than incorporating inconsistent features which could have the unintended effect of disrupting or interfering with the program.

Second, there is another backlog problem at the state level – hundreds of thousands of forensic (i.e., crime scene) samples that the states have not analyzed. The use of DNA testing to solve crimes involves matching DNA in crime scene samples with DNA profiles in the convicted offender databases. Hence, the timely analysis and indexing of forensic samples is also critical in using the DNA technology to solve crimes. H.R. 3087 and H.R. 3375 address this problem by authorizing additional assistance targeted at clearing the backlog of unanalyzed forensic samples. We support the establishment of such a program, and look forward to working with the sponsors and the Subcommittee in developing the optimum design for the program.

Third, there is a significant gap in the existing DNA identification system. All 50 states currently collect DNA samples from convicted offenders for purposes of analysis and inclusion of the resulting information in state databases and the national DNA identification index. However, there is no statutory authority for the collection of DNA samples from federal, military, and D.C. offenders. H.R. 2810 and H.R. 3375 seek to provide the necessary authority for that purpose.

We have a number of recommendations concerning the optimum formulation of this part of the legislation. We are particularly concerned that the authority to collect samples from federal, military, and D.C. offenders not be confined to limited offense categories set by statute. Rather, the offense coverage question would more appropriately be left to implementing regulations. The regulatory approach would more reliably ensure adequate coverage of offenders from whom samples should be collected; it would avoid litigative challenges that could otherwise be expected as to whether particular offenses are covered by statutory offense category definitions; and it would more readily allow adjustments to the covered categories in light of developing experience.

In recommending broader authority in the area of offense coverage, we note that there are strict, statutory confidentiality rules governing the DNA identification index. These rules and other features in the design of the existing system provide strong safeguards against misuse of DNA information or other adverse effects on offenders who refrain from the commission of additional crimes. Moreover, the genetic markers used for forensic DNA testing are not associated with any known physical or medical characteristics, providing further assurance against the use of offender DNA profiles for purposes other than identification.

We also have concerns about certain provisions in the bills which require expungement of information from the national DNA identification index and/or state databases, and recommend that such provisions not be included in the legislation.

Fourth, the bills before the Subcommittee authorize additional funding that will be needed by federal agencies to carry out the proposed expansion of the system to include federal, military, and D.C. offenders. The Administration’s FY2001 budget request includes $5.3 million and 5 positions (with recurring operating costs of $1 million annually thereafter) to carry out this reform. These funds are essential in order to carry out the proposed incorporation of federal, military, and D.C. offenders into the system.

Before turning to the specifics of the proposed legislation, I will briefly describe the background of the DNA identification system and prior legislative action in this area.

The development of DNA identification technology is one of the most significant advances in criminal identification methods since the advent of fingerprinting. Recognizing the

promise and importance of this new technology, Congress enacted provisions relating to DNA identification in subtitle C of title XXI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. These included provisions for the establishment of a national DNA identification index, the establishment of quality assurance standards and measures, and assistance to the states in creating effective DNA identification programs. Congress further encouraged state DNA identification efforts through the enactment of section 811(b) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which authorized grant funding for states that require convicted sex offenders to provide DNA samples. At the present time, all 50 states have enacted legislation to collect DNA samples from certain categories of offenders and to make this information available for criminal identification purposes.

Notwithstanding the rapid development of the DNA identification system over the past several years, there are serious impediments to the full implementation of the system that require legislative attention. The expansion of laboratory capacity for the analysis of DNA samples has not kept pace with the collection of such samples from convicted offenders, resulting in a backlog of several hundred thousand DNA samples collected by the states which have not yet been analyzed. Until these samples are tested and the resulting DNA profiles are entered into the convicted offender databases, they are worthless for criminal identification purposes. Every day this situation continues is another day in which serious offenders who could have been identified through matching with DNA database information remain at large to commit further crimes.

The Department accordingly proposed a two-year $30 million dollar program to assist the states in reducing this backlog. As noted above, this program has been funded at $15 million for FY2000, and the Administration is requesting the same amount to continue the program in FY2001. Provisions relating to such an assistance program appear in all three bills before the Subcommittee, and the Senate last year passed similar legislation (sponsored by Senator Kohl and Senator DeWine) as part of title XV of S. 254.

There is also a hole in the system for federal, D.C., and military offenders. In section 811(a)(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Congress sought to fill this gap, authorizing the expansion of the national DNA identification index to include information on federal and D.C. offenders. However, it has not been possible to implement this decision, in the absence of statutory authority and funding to collect and analyze DNA samples from these offenders. The Department accordingly proposed new legislation to provide the necessary authority in a report submitted by the FBI to Congress near the start of 1999. H.R. 3375 and H.R. 2810 contain provisions to provide the necessary grants of authority which are similar in general design to the Department’s original proposal, as does the legislation passed last year by the Senate in title XV of S. 254.

With this much background, I will now address the specific issues raised by the bills before the Subcommittee:

I. BACKLOG REDUCTION ASSISTANCE

Let me start my discussion of the backlog problem with a concrete example. In the early months of 1999, a woman in Miami was brutally raped and murdered. A DNA profile was developed from crime scene evidence, but running the profile through the state DNA database produced no match. Three months later, another woman was brutally raped and nearly beaten to death, and Michael Everett was arrested on the second charge. Because of certain similarities between the two cases, Everett’s DNA profile was compared to the crime scene evidence profile in the first case, and was found to match. Although a DNA profile for Everett had been entered in the state database, no match had been obtained after the first crime because a more advanced DNA technology had been used in analyzing the crime scene evidence, and Florida had not yet been able to reanalyze its convicted offender samples using that technology. Hence, Mr. Everett went unapprehended until he attacked his second victim. Significantly, this occurred despite the fact that Florida is one of the most successful and efficient states in the country in using the DNA database to solve crimes.

More and more often, law-enforcement officers and laboratory directors are having to explain to victims that the perpetrators in their cases should have been apprehended before they were victimized, but were not because of the DNA backlog. As the foregoing example indicates, the backlog problem includes samples that need to be reanalyzed using newer technology, as well as samples that have been collected but have not been analyzed at all.

Viewing the issue more broadly, databases at the local, state, and national levels consist of two major indices: a convicted offender index which contains the DNA profiles of individuals convicted of qualifying offenses determined by the states, and a forensic index which consists of DNA profiles developed from crime scene evidence, such as rape kits or blood found at the scene of crimes for which no suspect has been identified. To identify a person as the perpetrator of a crime in such a case, both a convicted offender sample and a crime scene sample must be analyzed, and the resulting DNA profiles must be found to match. However, in both areas – analysis and indexing of convicted offender samples and analysis and indexing of crime scene samples -- serious backlog problems exist at the present time.

A. The Convicted Offender Backlog

From the initial passage of state legislation creating DNA databases, laboratory capacity for the analysis of convicted offender DNA samples has not kept pace with the collection of those samples. The initial legislation created an immediate volume and type of offender sample analysis that state laboratories were not originally designed to perform. The inability of laboratory capacity to keep pace with the volume of samples has resulted in a backlog of hundreds of thousands of DNA samples taken from convicted offenders sitting in storage facilities in laboratories. Samples often remain in storage for years, even after a convicted offender is released from prison. If the released offender commits new crimes, the database is of no value in identifying him so long as the sample taken from him has not been analyzed and profiled in the database.

The dimension of this initial problem has increased because of the expansion of covered offense categories. Many states began by including only the profiles of individuals convicted of sexually assaultive crimes and homicides. Given the success of the databases, however, states are rapidly expanding their offense coverage to include more crimes, such as robbery and burglary. Several states have recently extended their databases to include all felonies. The broadened offense coverage has increased the demand for sample analysis.

Moreover, as noted above, the backlog problem includes samples that must be reanalyzed using more automated technology, as well as those that have never been analyzed at all. When the national component of the DNA identification system administered by the FBI was originally created, an older method of analysis -- "RFLP technology" – was used to profile both crime scene and offender samples. However, a newer technology – "PCR technology" – offers numerous advantages. Hence, the FBI decided to convert the national CODIS database to PCR. As a result, over 250,000 samples originally profiled and entered into CODIS need to be re-analyzed and re-entered.

The development of convicted offender DNA databases now assists in the identification of perpetrators in cases in which there would otherwise be no identifiable suspect. This is accomplished by analyzing DNA derived from forensic (crime scene) samples, and matching the resulting DNA profile to the profiles in an offender database. In addition to protecting the public by solving the crime and facilitating the apprehension of the offender, this capacity to effect an early and certain identification of the perpetrator means that fewer innocent persons are subject to the stigma of investigation or potentially to the injustice of a wrongful arrest and conviction.

The effective utilization of this uniquely powerful tool in no-suspect cases, however, requires both a well-populated convicted offender database, and a well-populated forensic database (the latter containing DNA profiles from crime scene samples). As discussed above, the convicted offender databases are not well-populated because of the backlog of unanalyzed convicted offender samples.

The forensic databases are also not well-populated. As with the backlog of convicted offender samples, the backlog of crime scene samples results primarily from limited laboratory capacity. Currently, forensic laboratories must prioritize their DNA cases by first analyzing DNA samples in cases which are scheduled for trial. Next in line in priority are cases in which known suspects exist, but in which the DNA must be analyzed to make an arrest, or in some cases to release a suspect who may be innocent from custody. Not until those cases are analyzed are laboratories able to address no-suspect casework or analysis of convicted offender samples.

The backlog of forensic crime scene DNA samples prevents the prompt solution of crimes and apprehension of offenders. Moreover, the unavailability of prompt analysis for crime scene samples can make it permanently impossible to bring serious offenders to justice. If crime scene evidence is not profiled before the limitation period for prosecuting the offense expires, the opportunity is lost forever.

A recent survey performed by the Police Executive Research Forum at the request of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence indicates that in many instances police do not even submit rape kits to crime labs when they have no suspect because they believe the cases will never get analyzed. The report estimates that over 180,000 rape kits currently sit in evidence storage lockers throughout the country unanalyzed for DNA evidence. Every day, many become unprosecutable because they are time barred.

Another serious effect of failing to analyze and enter crime scene DNA evidence is the loss of the "crime scene to crime scene" match potential. Even if a perpetrator’s DNA profile is not contained in the convicted offender database, the forensic (crime scene DNA) database can still "search" against itself. While this does not directly identify the perpetrator, it may link one or more cases together by matching the perpetrator’s DNA at the various crime scenes. In these instances, agencies can share information from their individual investigations and often develop a suspect with the new collaborative information.

The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, charged by the Attorney General with the improvement of the use of DNA technology throughout the criminal justice system, has identified the elimination of the DNA backlogs as an urgent priority. In line with the Commission’s recommendations, the Administration successfully requested for FY2000 $15 million supporting a two-year initiative to reduce the backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples that have been collected by the states. It is anticipated that in excess of 230,000 backlog samples can be profiled and entered into the system upon completion of the first round of funding. An additional $15 million will be requested for the second year of the program in 2001.

The three bills before the Subcommittee all include provisions for convicted offender backlog reduction assistance. Some features of these provisions, however, are not consistent with the administration or design of the existing program, and could have unintended disruptive effects.

For example, the program established under our FY2000 appropriations legislation is administered by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in consultation with the FBI – but the pending bills’ provisions would require that the FBI administer the program. NIJ is a component of the Office of Justice Programs which administers many grant programs and has scientific expertise relating to DNA identification testing and the effective administration of grants to state and local agencies in this area. To resolve the difference concerning responsibility for the program – FBI vs. NIJ – we would recommend amending the proposed bills to provide that the Attorney General is to develop and administer the program. This will provide flexibility to utilize the capacity and resources of NIJ, the FBI and other Justice Department components most effectively to assist the states.

As a more general observation, there does not appear to be a need for detailed statutory provisions setting forth the specifications for a backlog reduction program for convicted offender samples. The program has already been funded and designed, and it is currently being carried out. Hence, relatively simple statutory provisions authorizing the continuation of the program and necessary funding for that purpose should be sufficient.

We would recommend, however, at least one significant change in the existing program. The FY2000 appropriations language requires that funding go directly to the states. As a result, state procurement processes must be followed by the grantees in dealing with laboratories that analyze their samples. Substantial economies of scale are lost because these laboratories have to increase their price per sample to include marketing and administration costs to all 50 states, and valuable time is lost in procurement processes that should be spent actually analyzing the convicted offender samples.

The process would be streamlined and simplified if allocated funds were not distributed directly to the states, but rather if the states were given vouchers which they could redeem at approved laboratories that would be the direct grantees of the funding. We expect that the efficiency of a voucher system would increase the number of samples analyzed through FY2001 funds by 20-30% in comparison with FY2000.

In addition, H.R. 3087 and H.R. 3375 provide a critical element that has not been addressed in prior legislation. As discussed above, the backlog of unanalyzed crime scene DNA samples also impedes the effective utilization of DNA identification to solve crimes. H.R. 3087 and H.R. 3375 authorize assistance to the states in addressing this problem. We would be pleased to work with the sponsors and the Subcommittee in developing the optimum formulation of such a proposal.

II. SAMPLE COLLECTION FROM FEDERAL, D.C., AND MILITARY OFFENDERS

The Department of Justice has previously transmitted proposed legislation to Congress to provide the authorities and assignments of responsibility which are needed to collect DNA samples from federal, D.C., and military offenders. See FBI Laboratory Report to Congress: Implementation Plan for Collection of DNA Samples from Federal Convicted Offenders Pursuant to P.L. 105-229, Appendix A (Dec. 1998) (hereafter, "FBI Report").

H.R. 2810 and H.R. 3375 – as well as the legislation passed last year by the Senate in title XV of S. 254 – contain DNA sample collection provisions for federal, D.C., and military offenders which are generally similar to the Administration’s proposal. Common features of the various proposals include: (1) specification of categories of offenders from whom DNA samples will be collected through FBI regulations, (2) collection of DNA samples by the Bureau of Prisons from federal and D.C. offenders in its custody, (3) collection of DNA samples from federal offenders released under supervision by the responsible supervision agencies (i.e., federal probation offices), (4) collection of DNA samples from D.C. offenders released under supervision by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, and (5) establishment by the Department of Defense of a comparable DNA sample collection system for military offenders.

The pending bills, however, include to varying degrees certain features that are more limited or less clear then our original proposal, and that would reduce the value of the proposed reforms or cause other problems. Our specific recommendations are as follows:

Section 5 of H.R. 3375 authorizes the expansion of the DNA identification index to include information on missing persons, including analyses of DNA samples voluntarily contributed from relatives of missing persons, and authorizes $2,835,000 for that purpose in FY2000. Section 6(b)(4) makes a conforming amendment in the list of permitted inclusions in the index (42 U.S.C.14132(a)) to include the analyses of DNA samples voluntarily contributed from relatives of missing persons.

We support this measure, which will facilitate the identification of missing persons, and the remains of missing persons, which may be unidentifiable by other means. In fact, the FY2000 appropriation for the FBI includes $2,835,000 and five positions to develop and operate a missing persons database. Hence, this reform has already been endorsed and authorized by Congress.

B. Offense coverage

The Department’s original proposal did not impose any statutory limitation on the categories of federal, D.C., and military offenders from whom DNA samples can be collected. Rather, the pertinent categories would be specified in FBI regulations without pre-set limitations. Under this approach, the system could readily be modified in light of developing experience concerning the utility of collecting samples from particular types of offenders. If given regulatory discretion on this issue, we would expect initially to collect samples from sex offenders, violent felons, and persons convicted of burglaries, and potentially to consider additional categories at later times as warranted by practical experience or empirical findings regarding the utility of such coverage in solving crimes. The formulation of the Department’s proposal follows the approach of existing law – section 811(a)(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 – which authorizes the FBI to expand the DNA identification system to include federal and D.C. offenders, with no pre-set limits on covered offense categories.

The approach of the pending bills is more restrictive and regressive in comparison with existing law. Under H.R. 3375, sample collection would only be authorized for persons convicted of "crimes of violence" at the felony level under a particular statutory definition (18 USC 924(c)(3)). H.R. 2810 is also restrictive, limiting potential sample collection to persons convicted of "serious violent felonies" under the narrow definition provided in the "three strikes" recidivist sentencing law, together with persons convicted of certain child pornography production and burglary offenses. The potential scope of offense coverage would accordingly be narrower under the pending bills than that provided in a growing number of state systems, as well as narrower than that allowed under current federal law and under our original legislative proposal.

The formulation of the bills on this issue may reflect a belief that the proposed new restrictions would exclude only non-dangerous offenders who have committed relatively minor crimes. However, such an assumption would not be well-founded. Child molestation offenses, for example, are not necessarily included under a restrictive statutory definition of crimes of violence. Indeed, such crimes may not even be felonies. Many sexual abuse cases involving child victims are pleaded down to misdemeanors because the victim cannot bear the additional trauma of a trial. Moreover, in some sexual abuse cases, the offense is only a misdemeanor even if the offender is fully convicted for what he did. For example, in the absence of force or threats, a prison guard who makes female prisoners submit to sexual acts or contact by exploiting his authority over them may be prosecutable only for a misdemeanor. See 18 U.S.C. 2243(b), 2244(a)(4) (misdemeanor to engage in sexual act or contact with ward); 18 U.S.C. 2244(b) (misdemeanor to engage in sexual contact without victim’s permission). The collection of DNA samples from such offenders would not be allowed under the bills’ restrictions.

In assessing the question of permitted offense coverage, it is important to understand that taking DNA samples and entering related information on offenders in the DNA identification index is a regulatory measure carried out for law enforcement identification purposes, comparable to fingerprinting or photographing. If an offender’s records are included in the index, he is protected by the strict confidentiality rules in the DNA statutes (42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(3), 14133(b)-(c)), which allow information in the index to be used for law enforcement identification purposes and virtually nothing else. Moreover, the genetic markers used for forensic DNA testing were purposely selected because they are not associated with any known physical or medical characteristics, providing further assurance against the use of convicted offender DNA profiles for purposes other than identification. An offender suffers no adverse effects later in life from the inclusion of information on him in the index – unless DNA matching shows him to be the source of DNA found at the scene of another crime or crimes.

For similar reasons, we disagree with H.R. 2810's failure to include adjudicated juvenile delinquents among the categories of persons from whom samples could be collected, and for whom information can be included in the DNA identification index. This omission would bar the collection of samples from juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent in federal proceedings, regardless of the seriousness of their conduct. Moreover, about half of the states currently do collect samples from adjudicated delinquents. Regardless of what approach is adopted for federally adjudicated juveniles, states that collect samples from juveniles should be able to enter the resulting DNA analyses and records in the national index.

As a matter of policy, a seventeen-year-old who is adjudicated delinquent for molesting a child or committing a rape presents potentially the same future danger to public safety as an older person who commits such a crime. If he commits additional offenses later in life, the public interest in being able to solve these crimes and apprehend the perpetrator is the same, regardless of the age at which he commenced his course of criminal conduct. Of course justice systems often incorporate stronger protections of confidentiality and privacy for juveniles than for adult offenders -- but all information in the DNA identification index is subject to strict confidentiality rules which ensure that no one will know about it, and the individual will suffer no adverse effects later in life, unless his DNA profile in the index matches that of DNA found in crime scene evidence. In light of these protections, we see no basis for excluding sample collection and indexing of information for juveniles who engage in conduct that would warrant such treatment if engaged in by an adult.

Finally, it is important to understand that the perpetrators of violent crimes frequently have varied criminal histories, including both violent and nonviolent offenses. In many cases, the DNA sample which (for example) enables law enforcement to identify the perpetrator of a rape has not been collected in connection with an earlier rape conviction, but as a result of the perpetrator’s prior conviction for some other type of crime that was not intrinsically violent. See FBI Report at 15. Hence, even if the identification of violent offenders is seen as the principal focus of the DNA identification system, achieving this objective effectively requires casting a broader net. The approach of existing law and the Department’s proposal, which does not impose pre-set statutory limits on covered offenses, is optimal from this standpoint.

C. Expungement

H.R. 2810 and H.R. 3375 both contain proposed rules requiring expungement of information from the DNA index in cases where a person’s conviction is reversed or expunged. We recommend against the enactment of statutory rules as proposed in these bills. As discussed above, the index is subject to strict confidentiality rules which allow use of the information for law enforcement identification purposes and virtually nothing else. By way of comparison, other records which may be useful for law enforcement identification purposes, such as fingerprint records, are normally not disposed of in case of reversal of a conviction.

We have particularly serious concerns about the far-reaching expungement provisions of H.R. 2810, which require the automatic expungement of information from the DNA identification index in case of reversal of a conviction, and attempt to impose the same requirement on the states through a funding eligibility condition. There is no existing means for carrying out such a requirement at the federal level, and the proposed funding eligibility condition for the states would have the immediate effect of making all states ineligible for the DNA backlog reduction assistance funding. Seventeen states have no expungement provisions for DNA records. In the 33 states that currently have provisions for expungement of DNA records, all of the state laws require that the expungement process be initiated at the request of the person seeking such relief. This is necessary because laboratories that store this information would not be aware that a person’s conviction has been reversed. In other words, the laboratories that house the DNA databanks and databases are generally not the central state repositories of criminal history record information and, in many cases, do not even have access to such criminal history information.

D. Drafting of provisions relating to military offenders

The Department’s original proposal included a provision which would allow the Secretary of Defense to arrange to have DNA samples collected by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or federal probation offices from military offenders who are under their custody or supervision. This reflects the fact that some military offenders are housed in BOP facilities (rather than military prisons) and that military offenders who are paroled from BOP facilities are supervised by federal probation offices (rather than the military parole supervision systems). In such cases, it is likely to make more sense for BOP or the probation offices to collect the samples, rather than requiring the Department of Defense to do it directly. However, H.R. 2810 and H.R. 3375 have no corresponding provision.

The drafters of these bills may have believed that this situation was adequately addressed by a provision that the Secretary of Defense may waive the collection of a DNA sample from an individual if another person or agency collects such a sample from the individual "under subsection (d)." However, the cross-referenced subsection (d) directs the Bureau of Prisons and the probation offices to collect samples from persons convicted of "qualifying offenses," which are defined to include only federal and D.C. crimes. Hence, the current formulation of the bills does not include adequate grants of authority to enable BOP and the probation offices to collect samples from military offenders who come under their jurisdiction. The proposal should be amended so that this authority is clearly provided.

As a final point of clarification, the penalty provisions in H.R. 2810 and H.R. 3375 for military offenders who fail to cooperate in sample collection should be revised. The provisions are partially unclear, referring to punishment of an individual as a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They should be revised to refer to punishment of the individual’s failure to cooperate as such a violation.

At the level of detail, there are some additional drafting issues which merit attention. For example, it is important to make it unequivocally clear that the proposed sample collection authority for federal, military, and D.C. offenders applies to the existing inmate and supervised offender populations, as well as to offenders convicted after the enactment of the legislation, and to make it clear that the agencies responsible for sample collection have the authority to specify the time and manner for collecting samples. We would be pleased to work with the sponsors and the Subcommittee in ensuring the optimum formulation of the legislation.

The Administration’s FY2001 budget request includes $5.3 million and 5 positions (with recurring operating costs of $1 million annually thereafter) for FBI costs resulting from expansion of the DNA identification system to include federal, D.C., and military offenders. As noted above, this funding is essential to carry out the proposed expansion of the system.

H.R. 2810 and H.R. 3375 authorize the following funding for the agencies that would incur additional costs as a result of the proposed expansion: (1) $6.6 million in fiscal year 2000 and necessary sums in fiscal years 2001 through 2004 for the Department of Justice, to cover both the Department’s own costs and to reimburse costs incurred by the Judiciary, (2) necessary sums for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) in fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and (3) $600,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $300,000 in each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004 for the Department of Defense.

The following information may be helpful to Congress in assessing the funding requirements for implementing the proposed expansion of the DNA identification system. The major costs involved are:

1. Direct Justice Department costs. The FBI will be responsible for analyzing DNA samples collected from federal and D.C. offenders. In addition, the FBI will provide sample collection kits to be used by the various agencies that will collect samples from these offenders (BOP, federal probation offices, and CSOSA). It is estimated that these costs and other costs involved in establishing and operating a database including federal and D.C. offenders will require an initial funding enhancement of $5.3 million and 5 positions, and annual recurring costs thereafter of $1 million. See FBI Report at pp. 27-28. These amounts are included in the Administration’s FY 2001 budget request. The Bureau of Prisons will also have some direct costs in collecting samples from prisoners in its custody. However, it is expected that this function will be carried out by the Bureau’s medical personnel, and that a separate appropriation will not be necessary for this purpose.

2. Federal probation and CSOSA costs. The federal probation offices and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia will incur costs in collecting samples from offenders under their supervision. As noted above, these costs will be partially defrayed through the FBI’s provision of sample collection kits to these agencies. In addition, the FBI appropriation in the Administration’s budget request includes $80,000 for "contract services" which could be used to defray other sample collection costs of the probation offices and CSOSA. See FBI Report at p. 28. However, to the extent that these agencies’ other sample collection costs exceed the limited amount that may be available for this purpose out of the proposed appropriation to the FBI, additional funding will be needed for these agencies to carry out the sample collection required by the legislation. As noted above, the authorization figure in the bills is higher than the Administration’s corresponding budget request ($6.6 million vs. $ 5.3 million). The difference may reflect (wholly or in part) the expectation under the bill that the authorized amount will cover the probation offices’ costs as well as direct Justice Department costs.

3. The Department of Defense. The Department of Defense (DOD) stands on a different footing from the other affected federal agencies, since it is not expected that the FBI will provide sample collection kits to DOD or analyze samples collected from military offenders by DOD. Hence, the Department of Defense will bear the full cost of sample collection and analysis in relation to such offenders. The authorizations proposed in the bills for the Department of Defense are consistent with the amounts that are expected to be needed for these purposes.

In closing, I wish again to commend the sponsors of the legislation and the members of the Subcommittee for their attention to these important issues. Addressing the critical issues of backlog reduction; expansion of the DNA identification system to include federal, military, and D.C. offenders; and provision of necessary funding for that purpose, will add immeasurably to the justice system’s effectiveness in apprehending offenders and protecting the public from crime.

I would be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.