Mr. Chairman, as a former Federal prosecutor, I understand how the use of DNA profiles has become a powerful tool in solving crimes. States have taken the lead by expanding the use of DNA in crime-solving efforts.
The distinguished chairman's home in Virginia was the first to pass a DNA data bank law in 1989, requiring all convicted sex offenders to provide a DNA sample. Since then, Virginia has continued to be a leader in this area, expanding their law in 1990 to include all convicted felons, and further expanding it since. As a result of these laws, Virginia has obtained a staggering 2,747 hits by searching their database, solving countless crimes.
Because of the amazing crime-solving successes in Virginia, I introduced legislation in 2002 seeking to mandate an expansion of State collection regimes and an expansion of the Federal database by permitting States like Virginia to upload the increasing number and types of profiles they were obtaining.
At the time only 23 States had enacted legislation requiring DNA from convicted felons. Twenty-seven States, including my own State of California, were 12 years behind what Virginia had accomplished. Since then, I am pleased to report that 42 States have passed laws to require DNA from all convicted felons. It is now time for those last remaining eight States to come on board.
The U.S. Congress is putting a significant amount of money into DNA programs, over $177 million this year alone, with the goal of not just reducing backlogs, but also solving and preventing crimes. The eight States that do not currently collect from all convicted felons are not obtaining the hits that they should and are therefore making the entire system inefficient since cross-State matches are not being made.
These States must modernize their collection. Since these violent offenders know no State boundaries, the failure to upload these samples puts all citizens at risk, and the Federal Government has a compelling interest in making it so.
Statistics show that as many as half of the criminals that commit violent crimes have nonviolent criminal histories. Therefore, offenders who are required to submit DNA when convicted of nonviolent felonies will be identified as they leave DNA behind later at rape and murder scenes.
States originally thought there would be no law enforcement value to collecting samples from convicted felons when the crime was not sexual in nature or not particularly violent. They were wrong. Virginia's offender hits, primarily from previous nonviolent and nonsexual convictions, have aided over 2,700 investigations, including 15 rapes, 255 murders and 521 sex crimes.
Mr. Chairman, I will cite only one of the countless examples we have seen of the tragic consequences of inadequate DNA collection schemes. Some years ago, four Springfield, Massachusetts, women fell victim to a serial rapist and murderer.
The man who later turned out to be the rapist and murderer had prior nonviolent felony convictions for breaking and entering and for larceny. He was sentenced to community supervision. If Massachusetts at the time had required him to give a DNA sample after either of his 1996 convictions, a DNA match could have been obtained after the first rape and murder, thereby preventing the subsequent three tragedies. Massachusetts has since modernized their law to obtain samples from all convicted felons.
Mr. Chairman, the results speak for themselves. DNA databanks are most effective with the inclusion of at least all convicted felons and applied to all forms of cases. While I will withdraw this amendment, as I know the chairman has a point of order, I intend to introduce legislation to make these important changes and would very much like to work with the chairman on it.
Mr. Chairman, I do have a second amendment which I will not speak on now because the chairman was kind enough to let me speak on it earlier, but I would like to take the opportunity immediately after consideration of this amendment to make the formal offer of that amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.