[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
.
RAPID DNA ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 320
__________
JUNE 18, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
_____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-120 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia SCOTT PETERS, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
MIMI WALTERS, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVE TROTT, Michigan
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
KEN BUCK, Colorado
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
Caroline Lynch, Chief Counsel
Joe Graupensperger, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 18, 2015
Page
THE BILL
H.R. 320, the ``Rapid DNA Act''.................................. 2
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations........ 7
WITNESSES
Amy S. Hess, Executive Assistant Director of Science and
Technology, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Jody Wolf, Assistant Crime Laboratory Administrator, Phoenix
Police Department Crime Laboratory, President, American Society
of Criminal Laboratory Directors
Oral Testimony................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
Natasha S. Alexenko, Founder, Natasha's Justice Project
Oral Testimony................................................. 22
Prepared Statement............................................. 24
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security,
and Investigations............................................. 7
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 29
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and
Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security,
and Investigations............................................. 37
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 38
RAPID DNA ACT
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2015
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
Homeland Security, and Investigations
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F.
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Goodlatte, Chabot,
Buck, Jackson Lee, and Conyers.
Staff Present: (Majority) Christopher Grieco, Counsel;
Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Scott
Johnson, Clerk; (Minority) Joe Graupensperger, Minority
Counsel; Tiffany Joslyn, Deputy Chief Counsel; Kurt May,
Subcommittee Detailee; Eric Williams, Subcommittee Detailee;
and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Subcommittee will be in order.
Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee during votes in the House.
Because we're supposed to have votes in about 30 minutes,
the Chair will forego his opening statement. We'll ask the
other Members not to make opening statements so we can get to
the witnesses, because Representative Jackson Lee has got a
hard departure time at 11:30. And I think after the first votes
we won't be able to get back until that.
[The bill, H.R. 320, follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. This is a very important hearing. I do
have an engagement that I will yield a couple of minutes for
the importance of this hearing. And I thank you so very much
for your courtesies. I would like to have a very brief moment
to make a brief statement about this hearing and put the rest
of my statement into the record.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to thank you for this stated
commitment to the criminal justice reform and the idea of
moving hearings forward and legislation forward.
I welcome this distinguished panel, and particularly their
thoughts on the role that rapid DNA can play in aiding sexual
assault victims and individuals who've been wrongly convicted.
I've worked on this issue, and in fact have legislation that we
hope will be modified enough to join this particular bill.
Finally, my great State of Texas recognized this massive
problem and passed legislation requiring law enforcement
agencies to test all untested rape kits in their storage
facilities. I've worked with the city of Houston and encouraged
the city of Houston, one, to invest in a new DNA lab, and as
well be concerned about these issues.
I'd like to ask unanimous consent for the rest of the
statement to be put into the record.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I extend my
gratitude to you for convening a hearing on this critically important
topic.
I welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses and look forward to
their testimony, in particular their thoughts on the role that rapid
DNA can play in aiding sexual assault victims and individuals who have
been wrongly convicted.
DNA technology has revolutionized the criminal justice system by
significantly decreasing the amount of time it takes law enforcement to
investigate and prosecute criminal offenders.
Equally important, DNA technology has effectively led to the
exoneration of innocent suspects, and has freed men and women who were
convicted of crimes they did not commit.
Due to the effectiveness of DNA technology, there has been
increased demand for its use.
This demand is good, but it has resulted in a substantial backlog
of DNA evidence collected from sexual assault victims--known as ``rape
kits''--nationwide. And the backlog is growing.
Backlogged evidence is neither processed in forensic laboratories
nor is it entered into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).
This means law enforcement may have in its possession evidence that can
prevent future crime, but that evidence is instead collecting dust.
Reducing backlogs of untested DNA evidence is vitally important to
survivors of sexual violence, as I'm confident Ms. Natasha Alexenko
(Alex-ANKO) will attest to today.
Because DNA evidence plays a critical role in identifying rapists
and other violent criminals, it is crucial that it be examined in a
timely manner.
This committee, with my co-sponsorship, worked diligently to
reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act last Congress.
This Act provides funding to handle the hundreds of thousands of
rape kits that are sitting in evidence rooms awaiting processing.
It is completely unacceptable for DNA evidence from sexual assaults
to sit untested for months--or longer--while rapists remain free to
harm other potential victims.
My great state of Texas recognized this massive problem and passed
legislation requiring law enforcement agencies to test all untested
rape kits in their storage facilities.
As of 2013, Texas officials estimated there to be approximately
20,000 untested kits statewide. Out of the 20,000 untested kits, 6,663
were in the greater Houston area.
I am pleased to report that as of February of this year, Houston
completed testing all 6,663 rape kits and uploaded the results to
CODIS. Houston was able to do this using $4.4 million in federal grant
and city funding.
To-date, the testing has yielded 850 matches in CODIS and resulted
in the prosecution of 29 criminal offenders.
In addition to delaying justice for rape survivors, the backlog
halts the exoneration of innocent people and keeps the wrongfully
convicted behind bars.
For example, Michael Phillips of Dallas spent 12 years of his life
in prison for a crime he did not commit.
At the age of 57, Mr. Phillips was a registered sex offender,
wheelchair-bound from sickle cell anemia, and residing in a nursing
home when he received news that Dallas County prosecutors established
his innocence through DNA evidence.
Mr. Phillips was the first person exonerated through the use of
systematic DNA testing, which was proactively conducted by the
prosecutor's office--without a request by Mr. Phillips.
Although Mr. Phillips knew he was innocent, he pled guilty anyway
as part of a plea bargain.
After Mr. Phillips' innocence was established, he stated that when
he was convicted ``. . . it felt like slavery was still going strong
for me . . . the deck was stacked against me from Jump Street--like
100-to-1.''
As a strong advocate for victims of rape, and for persons who have
been unjustly made to answer for crimes they did not commit, I am
pleased that we are examining increased use of Rapid DNA.
Rapid DNA machines are automated and complete work that otherwise
must be done in a more time-consuming manner by labs.
Again, thank you for holding this important hearing and I look
forward to the testimony of our distinguished panel of witnesses.
__________
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you. In the second that I have, I
would like to indicate that we all have been overwhelmed by the
horrific tragedy of persons being killed in their house of
worship. I was moved to tears late last evening and continue to
be, as I'm well aware of the African Methodist Episcopal
Church. We pray for their families, and at this time we pray
for the solution and we pray for the fact that we all can live
in this great Nation in peace and recognition of each other's
human dignity.
I'm going to take a moment and would ask for a moment of
silence for those who were lost in South Carolina.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. We have a very distinguished panel
today, and I'll begin by swearing in our witnesses before
introducing them.
If you would please all rise.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Let the record show that all of the witnesses answered in
the affirmative.
I'm going to be giving an abbreviated introduction of each
of the witnesses. Then you'll be recognized for 5 minutes.
Amy Hess is the executive assistant director of science and
technology at the FBI. Ms. Jody Wolf is the assistant crime
laboratory administrator for the Phoenix Police Department
Crime Laboratory. And Ms. Natasha Alexenko is the founder of
Natasha's Justice Project, which is a nonprofit whose mission
is to eliminate the Nation's rape kit backlog crisis.
Without objection, your written testimony will be put in
the record, and each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes.
And I think you know what the green, yellow, and, particularly,
the red light mean.
Ms. Hess.
TESTIMONY OF AMY S. HESS, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Ms. Hess. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Sensenbrenner,
Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members of Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to provide an update today on our
efforts relating to rapid DNA and for your continued support of
the men and women of the FBI.
Over the last three decades we've been developing our
Combined DNA Index System, or CODIS program, in order to better
assist Federal, state, local, and international forensic
laboratories. As new DNA technologies have emerged, we have
been vigilant in demanding they provide the quality and
integrity expected of a nationwide law enforcement database,
and must be implemented pursuant to the FBI's Quality Assurance
Standards in accordance with the Federal DNA Identification Act
of 1994.
One of the underlying concepts of CODIS was to create a
database of the DNA profiles of convicted offenders and use it
to identify suspects for crimes in which there are no suspects.
But this tool, which was initially expected to benefit the
investigation of sexual assault cases, has proven to have
broader applications. States observed this firsthand and sought
to expand coverage of their databases beyond convicted sexual
offenders; first, to individuals convicted of other violent
felonies, then to all felony offenders, and now to persons
arrested for sexual offenses, or in many states persons
arrested for any felony offense.
The FBI Laboratory works closely with the DNA and CODIS
communities, as well as other stakeholders, such as laboratory
accrediting bodies, law enforcement, defense attorneys, and
prosecutors, to evaluate new technologies and procedures. Any
efforts to enhance CODIS involve significant consultation with
the affected stakeholders, software development, testing,
evaluation, implementation planning, and user training.
Today CODIS is installed in approximately 200 forensic DNA
laboratories nationwide. The FBI provides the CODIS software to
laboratories which are accredited, which follow the FBI's
Quality Assurance Standards, that are audited annually, and
that agree to comply with the Federal DNA Act for participation
in the National DNA Index System, or NDIS.
To date, CODIS has generated over 285,000 investigative
leads for law enforcement. All 50 States, Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Army's Criminal Investigation Laboratory, and the FBI
contribute DNA records to and participate in NDIS, which
contains almost 14 million offender or arrestee DNA records and
over 630,000 forensic or crime scene DNA records.
The FBI uses the term ``Rapid DNA analysis or technology''
to describe the fully automated, hands-free process of
developing a CODIS Core Short Tandem Repeater, or STR, profile
from a reference sample buccal swab. The process consists of
automated extraction, amplification, separation, detection, and
allele calling without human intervention. Our objective is to
generate a CODIS-compatible DNA profile and to search these
profiles within 2 hours against unsolved crime profiles while
an arrestee is in police custody.
Rapid DNA technology has been designed for use within and
outside the forensic DNA laboratory, as the instruments are
self-contained machines which require no human intervention
beyond the loading of the DNA samples and analysis cartridges.
With legislative authority, the FBI envisions Rapid DNA
integration occurring in two phase. Phase one involves the
booking station CODIS enrollment and searching of Rapid DNA
profiles, which will eliminate the weeks to months it currently
takes for arrestee samples to be mailed, received, inventoried,
and analyzed for registration in the CODIS system. Phase two is
the hit notification to booking stations and investigative
agencies, which is expected to conserve valuable investigative
resources and identify perpetrators before they are released
back into their communities at the completion of the normal
booking process.
Since 2008 we've partnered with the Departments of Defense
and Homeland Security in the development of point-of-collection
DNA analysis for the production of CODIS DNA profiles within a
2-hour period. In addition, the Scientific Working Group on DNA
Analysis Methods empaneled a Rapid DNA Committee to evaluate
whether additional quality measures were needed for records
produced by Rapid DNA instruments. Based on their
recommendations, the FBI issued an addendum to our Quality
Assurance Standards to provide a foundation for the
implementation of Rapid DNA within accredited forensic DNA
laboratories.
The Federal DNA Act currently requires that DNA records
maintained at NDIS be generated by accredited laboratories in
compliance with the FBI's Quality Assurance Standards. But
Rapid DNA technology has been designed for use by law
enforcement agencies at the point of booking. Thus, statutory
authorization for the use of FBI-approved Rapid DNA instruments
by criminal justice agencies would be needed before the DNA
records generated at police booking stations can be searched at
NDIS.
In addition to the legislative, validation, testing,
evaluation, standards, and software issues, we must address
issues relating to NDIS approval and certification of the
instruments, as well as training of law enforcement personnel.
These issues must be resolved prior to implementation so this
new technology is used in a manner which maintains the quality,
integrity, and sterling reputation of our database.
In conclusion, CODIS has demonstrated its value as an
investigative tool for 25 years, and we are committed to
maintaining its effectiveness. The FBI is also committed to
identifying new technologies which could enhance the CODIS
program, and we are pursuing Rapid DNA technology because we
believe the efficiencies obtained from the real-time analysis
of an arrestee's DNA sample has tremendous potential to improve
public safety and focus law enforcement investigative
resources.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hess follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
Ms. Wolf.
TESTIMONY OF JODY WOLF, ASSISTANT CRIME LABORATORY
ADMINISTRATOR, PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LABORATORY,
PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINAL LABORATORY DIRECTORS
Ms. Wolf. Good morning, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking
Member Jackson Lee, and Members of the Committee. My name is
Jody Wolf, and I am the president of the American Society of
Crime Laboratory Directors. On behalf of the 600 laboratory
directors represented by ASCLD and over 15,000 crime laboratory
practitioners represented by the Consortium of Forensic Science
Organizations, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the topic of Rapid DNA technology and provide comments
on House Resolution 320, the Rapid DNA Act of 2015.
The introduction of Rapid DNA technology has been an
exciting one for the forensic science community. Several of our
members helped with the initial technology development, and
several more are currently participating in pilot programs to
evaluate how best to implement this novel technology within the
criminal justice system.
Rapid DNA is designed to deliver a DNA profile from samples
such as known reference standards within a few hours, and is
most commonly associated with the placement in law enforcement
booking stations for the analysis of arrestee samples and entry
into CODIS. The potential of this technology is promising, and
both ASCLD and CFSO support the continued development of this
novel application.
As I stated earlier, several of our members are currently
participating in pilot programs and validation studies to
develop best practices for the widespread deployment of these
systems. Overviews of these programs and studies are provided
in the written testimony offered to this Committee. As
policymakers anticipate the implementation of this technology,
it is critical the following issues are considered.
First, rigorous validations performed by crime laboratory
scientists and researchers are critical to demonstrating the
efficacy of this technology and not marketing materials.
Currently, these devices are best suited for use with single-
source, high-quantity biological samples such as reference
standards of blood or saliva from known individuals, thus
limiting its usefulness for complex crime scene samples of more
than one person.
These instruments also currently can't analyze trace
amounts of DNA. Consequently, these instruments are not
designed for the routine testing of evidence types found in
rape kits and will not help with the reduction of rape kit
backlogs.
Secondly, this technology must be compliant with current
industry standards and guidelines as provided by the FBI and
the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods, thus
ensuring its operability with the CODIS database. SWGDAM and
the FBI Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing
Laboratories have provided best practices and standards for
almost 20 years. ASCLD looks to these groups for guidance with
Rapid DNA technologies, and we encourage vendors to seek full
compliance with these standards or any new standards or
guidelines developed by this group.
Third, ASCLD recommends that a careful cost-benefit
analysis be performed prior to its widespread implementation.
The purchase price for most Rapid DNA devices currently exceed
$200,000, and the estimated per sample cost is $250. By
comparison, FORESIGHT, a national study of crime laboratory
operational costs, led by the West Virginia University,
reported the median cost is less than $85 per sample using
traditional laboratory methods for the DNA analysis of a
database or known reference standard.
Clearly, the current costs of traditional DNA databasing is
significantly less than using the Rapid DNA technology. As a
result, funding levels for existing grant programs aimed at
increasing analytical capacity for crime laboratories and
reducing backlogs will need to be increased to allow crime
laboratories and their stakeholders the opportunity to best
meet the needs of their jurisdictions for DNA analysis.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly for crime
laboratories and practitioners, is the technology transfer from
the vendors to operational facilities. While the FBIis
currently working on supporting the IT infrastructure necessary
for its implementation in booking stations, it is important
that other measures are also taken to validate this technology
in the community.
ASCLD has been at the forefront of these activities and
presented three Rapid DNA webinars addressing these topics
during the past year, including Rapid DNA presentations during
its annual symposiums, and has charged its Forensic Research
Committee with developing guidance and best practices for its
membership.
ASCLD and CFSO support Rapid DNA legislation, with
revision, in order to ensure the existing integrity and
security of the National DNA Database system is maintained, to
authorize the FBI as the Federal law enforcement agency tasked
with oversight of CODIS and establishing forensic DNA Quality
Assurance Standards, and include a definition of Rapid DNA
analysis and instruments utilizing NDIS-approved analytical
platforms, chemistries, and expert interpretation systems.
As we reviewed H.R. 320, we had concerns with some of the
definitions, the practical implementation of blind proficiency
testing, and the protection of confidential information within
the database. ASCLD and CFSO stand ready to aid in moving the
legislation forward, once modified, for the universal adoption
of this technology.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we encourage the development of
partnerships between law enforcement agencies, crime
laboratories, and regulatory agencies for a careful and well
thought out approach to the implementation to this promising
technology. We believe that a methodical and measured approach
to its deployment is vital to the criminal justice system in
order to deliver the best forensic science possible.
Again, I thank the Committee for its time today, and I
would be happy to answer any questions.
[The testimony of Ms. Wolf follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
Ms. Alexenko.
TESTIMONY OF NATASHA S. ALEXENKO, FOUNDER,
NATASHA'S JUSTICE PROJECT
Ms. Alexenko. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking
Member Jackson Lee, and Members of the Committee. I cannot tell
you how honored and humbled I am to be here today before you
speaking and sharing my testimony. I'm here, of course,
representing myself, but I also bring with me the strength and
determination of so many survivors of sexual assault who are
aware I am here speaking before you today, and we all ask the
same thing, and that is please use our cases as a cautionary
tale so that we can end this violence and to use anything that
we can to make our country a safer place.
I'm a survivor of sexual assault. At 20 years old I was
raped, robbed, and sodomized at gunpoint by an unknown
assailant. It was devastating. Not only did it devastate me,
but it changed my life forever. It affected my mother, the
individuals that lived in my apartment building, my future
friends. It basically completely altered the course of my life.
I submitted to a rape kit test, which is basically a very
invasive gynecological exam. I knew that it was my duty as a
citizen to aid law enforcement in any way that I could to put
this perpetrator behind bars. Unbeknownst to me, my rape kit
sat collecting dust for 9\1/2\ years, along with 17,000 other
rape kits in New York City. And we know now this is just the
tip of the iceberg, certainly a situation that's occurring
throughout the Nation.
But what happened in the nearly 15 years before the man
that raped and robbed me, Victor Rondon, was caught, when his
profile was finally, after nearly 15 years, uploaded to CODIS
and a match was made to the DNA in my rape kit, this man was a
mobile serial predator. He committed a variety of crimes. He
wasn't a specialist. He didn't stick to sexual assault. He was
as burden on law enforcement, on human dignity, he was a burden
on taxpayers, all because we did not catch him in time.
And essentially this story remains true for the same of all
my other survivors that I know, and that is criminals are
exploiting us in more ways than one, and serial predators move
to avoid, using our time delay as a weakness. They are using
our time delay to get away with things. Victor Rondon committed
crimes in eight different States across this country and
created a host of victims in his wake. He's currently behind
bars, thanks to the dedication of law enforcement, and I'm
proud to have been the complaining witness and testify against
him. But I will let you know that after all those years, even
15 years later, the first time I saw Victor Rondon in all that
time, I fainted at the sight of him, because to a survivor time
has many meanings. It stands still in one way, and 30 days can
seem like a very long time.
I feel like public safety should always take priority. I
feel that we have a way to eliminate a lot of the crimes that
are occurring. I feel, again, that if you don't take my tale as
a cautionary tale, then it was all for nothing. It's so
important for me to share my story. It's not easy. It's not
easy to stand here and talk about the fact that I was raped,
robbed, and sodomized, not a story that I enjoy telling, but if
it helps take one perpetrator off the street, then it's
certainly worth it.
Now, of course I'm not a law enforcement professional, I'm
not a scientist, and I do not possess a law degree, and I
cannot speak specifically to the language in this provision.
But what I can tell you as a survivor is DNA testing is
essential and that time matters. For nearly 15 years I was on a
constant state of high alert knowing that this violent criminal
was walking the streets. And I have to tell you that I faced a
lot of guilt thinking that I didn't 100 percent do my part for
the citizens of this country to find this perpetrator and put
him way.
Today I'm here to talk about the other side of the DNA
Database system and crucial new technologies that may reduce
the amount of time needed to bring answers to victims of crime
and safety to the citizens of this country. I hope that you
will take this seriously. I have complete faith in the FBI, and
I know that their testing methodology is stringent. We have to
respect this technology. But it's important to implement
methods that will no longer delay justice.
I thank you for your time, and, once again, I am very
honored to be here today.
[The testimony of Ms. Alexenko follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you for your very moving
testimony.
We will now have questioning of the witnesses under the 5-
minute rule. The Chair will withhold his questions to see if we
have time at the end.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, is recognized
first.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing and for introducing H.R. 320, the Rapid
DNA Act. I'll submit my opening statement for the record as
requested, but I do want the witnesses and the other
participants in this hearing to know how important I think it
is that we address this issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary
Thank you Chairman Sensenbrenner for holding this hearing and for
introducing H.R. 320, the ``Rapid DNA Act.''
We work on many important issues at the Judiciary Committee, but
there are few issues more important than making sure that innocent
arrestees are promptly released and that culpable suspects are not re-
released to strike again. Rapid DNA has the potential to do both and,
as such, can be an important tool for law enforcement and a key
component of this committee's ongoing efforts on criminal justice
reform.
Under current technology, it is possible to test the DNA of
arrestees as soon as they are in custody, and determine within hours
whether they match the DNA profile from the crime scene, or from other,
earlier crimes. This technology would also enable police to check the
federal DNA database to see if an arrestee matches the DNA profile from
previous crimes for which a DNA sample exists, but no known suspect has
been identified. Rather than waiting weeks for a DNA sample to be
processed and risk releasing a suspect back into the public to
potentially re-offend, police would be able to determine at initial
booking if the suspect is a person of interest in other crimes.
I look forward to hearing from the FBI about how this technology
has progressed, what steps need to be taken to implement this
technology, and whether this legislation is necessary to permit the use
of this technology. I also understand that we have a member on the
panel from an accredited lab that has used Rapid DNA technology in her
lab. I look forward to hearing about her experience with the technology
as well as hearing about her lab's experience with DNA identification
samples.
Finally, I look forward to hearing from Ms. Natasha Alexenko. I
know she has been at the forefront of DNA issues as they apply to
victims of sexual assault. This committee has worked tirelessly to fund
rape kit testing to reduce the backlog, yet to the frustration of
everyone on this committee, the backlog still remains. This is
unacceptable. While Rapid DNA cannot be used at this time for forensic
analysis, such as rape kits, I believe that using Rapid DNA for
identification purposes could help clear up state labs to focus their
efforts on forensic analysis, including rape kits testing.
Thank you all for your time in appearing before us to discuss this
important issue, and for your insight on this technology.
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. Ms. Wolf, let me start with you. Can you
speak about the average turnaround time in your office for DNA
identification samples versus forensic samples, including how
long does each sample take to actually analyze, and do you know
what those numbers are like on a national basis?
Ms. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte. That's a very
interesting question that you've proposed, and it's one that we
deliberate over at great length in the forensic science
community. And many of our members participate in the FORESIGHT
study I mentioned in my opening remarks where we partner with
the West Virginia University to look at those very issues.
Within the Phoenix Police Department laboratory, we are not
a databasing laboratory which is responsible for analyzing
arrestee or offender samples, and so that's a different
question than comparing it to the analysis of forensic samples.
And so I'll answer your question in a general nature for the
technology that we have available for databasing.
Typically the platform that we use is called an ABI 3500
xL, which has the capability of processing 24 samples in one
injection. If you use a direct amplification kit, which allows
us to increase the efficiency or allows us to speed up the time
line in which we can process those database samples or
reference standards, that run of 24 samples takes about 45
minutes. The data has to be taken off the system, and if you're
utilizing an expert interpretation software system, then you
can create or review those profiles and create an entry into
the CODIS database.
So if we look at a comparison between the technology of
Rapid DNA to existing functionality of systems that are already
NDIS approved, an ABI 3500 has the capability in a full run to
run about 90 samples, and then you add on controls and
standards. That would take about 7 to 8 hours utilizing direct
amplification, review using an expert system software----
Mr. Goodlatte. I'm going to cut you short. Would this
legislation help to speed this up a lot?
Ms. Wolf. Well, comparing 90 samples utilizing Rapid DNA
would take almost 27 hours. Processing it using a traditional
existing technology would take 7 to 8 hours. So the limitation
with the Rapid DNA is that you can only run five samples at a
time, whereas on current technology we can run 24 samples at a
time. To process 90 samples utilizing Rapid would take 27
hours. Using existing technology would take 7 to 8. Same
result.
Mr. Goodlatte. So do you think that this is a good thing
for people to have the option here or not?
Ms. Wolf. It depends on your goal. The advantage that Rapid
DNA has is that you have that answer while the person is still
in the booking station. With traditional databasing, there is a
delay because you have to transport the sample from point of
collection to a laboratory for analysis.
Mr. Goodlatte. Okay. Let me interrupt. I have a couple
questions for Ms. Hess and Ms. Alexenko.
Ms. Hess, is this bill likely to change the amount of DNA
testing going on or just the speed and source of that testing?
Ms. Hess. Yes, sir. Actually right now we see the
efficiencies in the speed of the testing, not in the amount.
The amount of testing clearly depends on how the States have
enacted laws as to whether they are drawing from convicted
offenders or arrestees, individuals charged or not charged with
crimes, but arrested. So the amount doesn't change, but the
speed will.
Mr. Goodlatte. And, Ms. Alexenko, it is good to see you
again, and I am very pleased that you keep coming back to this
Committee to stand up for this very important thing. And you
were very helpful to us with the Debbie Smith reauthorization,
and I'm glad to have you back here today as well.
From your perspective, are we making progress on the rape
kit backlog problem?
Ms. Alexenko. You know, I really have come to a recent
moment of clarity, and really the rape kit backlog is really a
symptom of a bigger disease. And certainly we're making
progress. There's just been so much--the reauthorization of
Debbie Smith, the 41 million--I mean, it is amazing the
commitment our leaders are showing with different legislation.
We still have a long way to go. I think that a lot more
understanding needs to be made on criminals, on how important
it is to get these rape kits tested. And I think it really
needs a shift, a paradigm shift, in the understanding of the
necessity of this technology.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, thank you. And I hope that you keep
working with us so we can see that shift take place.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by thanking my colleague, Sheila Jackson
Lee, for having a moment of silence in connection with the
tragedy that just occurred, and I'm grateful to her for that.
This is an amazing set of witnesses here. And I'm trying to
determine after the few responses that have been given so far
whether we're moving ahead or just merely providing options.
And I think I'll start with Ms. Wolf.
What is your view, is this just something we've got to find
out if it works better and is more efficient and we're at a
preliminary stage of development where we're not really sure
yet?
Ms. Wolf. It's very early on in the testing phase. We have
commercial products that are available for evaluation, and many
of our members are currently looking at them.
One of our members that probably has the most mature
program is from the Arizona Department of Public Safety, and
they began working with a program in 2013 and developed two
different types of initiatives. One was an officer field
testing program and another to test arresting offender samples
within their laboratory. They were able to successfully
validate the program, and it is operational currently.
The spectrum, however, is wide, and we have other members
that are currently in the process of trying to complete a
validation study in which they have experienced challenges in
the completion of those studies. And some of the issues that
they have found with the technology are unacceptable failure
rates and precision concerns. But they are working very closely
with the vendors to overcome those challenges and expect to be
successful in completing the validation studies.
We fully expect that the technology is promising, has full
potential, and will continue to improve so that it can be fully
operational and provide the best assistance to the criminal
justice system as possible.
Mr. Conyers. So it's a good beginning we're off to.
Ms. Alexenko, your testimony, of course, is gripping
whenever it's given by yourself. What do you think right now
candidly about the Rapid DNA testing? Do you have hopes for it,
or do you have some secret reservations about it? Please tell
us.
Ms. Alexenko. Certainly I think that it's a step in a good
direction. I don't necessarily think that this is going to
solve the rape kit backlog per se. But as was mentioned
earlier, I mean, we have an opportunity to quickly identify
someone, an offender's DNA very quickly, and I think that is so
important. In my case it took 15 years for someone to upload my
perpetrator's DNA. Rapid gives us the ability as they are
housed to immediately, as was mentioned earlier, instead of
going to a laboratory, you get that result immediately up into
CODIS and see if there's a match.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Ms. Alexenko. So I think it's important.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much.
Ms. Hess, with your background with the FBI, where do you
think the future lies, and what does it have in store for us
with the Rapid DNA machines?
Ms. Hess. Yes, sir. I would say that this has tremendous
potential, and certainly from the perspective of being able to
take this technology and take it out of the laboratory into a
booking station. But with that comes a lot of responsibility,
as was previously outlined, so that any officer would be able
to use this equipment to the standards that are currently
employed by the forensic laboratories.
Mr. Conyers. Well, I thank you all. I think this is an
important hearing. And I will look forward to seeing some
improvement in this.
I presume DNA machines are admissible as evidence in
criminal trials. Is there any question about that?
Ms. Hess. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question.
Mr. Conyers. Do you agree that Rapid DNA machines can be
used as evidence in criminal trials?
Ms. Hess. Currently, as used in forensic laboratories with
the human intervention, that would be the case. However, they
are not yet mature enough to be used independently without that
human intervention. But that is the goal.
Mr. Conyers. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
I have noticed that we are in for at least two votes on the
floor, which should last 45 minutes. Let me inquire if anybody
wishes to come back and ask questions after the votes are over
with, which would probably be around 11:30.
Mr. Chabot. I can get them in now if that's okay.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Pardon?
Mr. Chabot. Couldn't we get our questions in before we
leave, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. If you are quick, because I would like
to leave by the time of the second bell, and the gentlewoman
from Texas wants to do it as well.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. I'll try to be quick.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I would like to reiterate the
comments of my distinguished colleague from Michigan that we
thank Ms. Jackson Lee for offering a moment of silence. A
horrific, horrific event that took place. Although I wasn't
here for the moment of silence, I appreciate that. I'd like to
express that.
Ms. Hess, is there a current number of total outstanding
rape kits nationally, approximate? And if so, do you know what
the number is?
Ms. Hess. Yes, sir. So as was previously mentioned, there
are thousands of backlogged sexual assault kits across the
Nation.
Mr. Chabot. Thousands, did you say?
Ms. Hess. Yes.
Mr. Chabot. That's a pretty vague number really. I think
you just got a sheet there?
Ms. Hess. We don't know the exact number at this time, but
I can get that information.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. That's fine. Is there a State-by-State
breakdown that's available? If you don't have it, is there
somewhere we could get access to something like that? Like, I
would like to know what Ohio is since that's my State.
Ms. Hess. I believe we could get that information.
Mr. Chabot. Okay, if we could get that.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, it will be included
in the record.
Mr. Chabot. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Ms. Wolf, you mention in your testimony that several of
your members are currently participating in pilot programs and
validation studies to develop best practices for the widespread
deployment of these systems. Could you share briefly any
progress that you've reached at this point. And, again, kind of
brief.
Ms. Wolf. Certainly. Our membership, as I mentioned during
my opening remarks, was not only involved in the development of
the technology, but is currently working to evaluate how well
it can work in an operational setting.
And so, as I mentioned, one of the most mature programs
that our members are working on is out of the Arizona
Department of Public Safety's program that they began working
on in 2013. They've completed a validation study of the
instrumentation and have initiated two different types of
programs. One is with a field officer testing program, and
another is with processing arresting offender samples within a
crime laboratory setting, including that human intervention
part of it, before the profiles are uploaded to CODIS.
We have other members that have been working on it since
2014. The California Department of Justice is currently working
to complete their validation study of their programs. They have
encountered some challenges, but they do anticipate overcoming
those challenges. But, again, those challenges go back to
unacceptable failure rates of the runs and as well as precision
concerns during the allele calls.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. If I can cut you off there. Thank you, i
appreciate that, because I'm trying to be quick.
Ms. Alexenko, thank you for your bravery in stepping forth
on this issue and trying to help others that may be in similar
circumstances. Thank you very much for that.
How did you learn that the rape kit was sitting there
untested for 9\1/2\ years?
Ms. Alexenko. Well, certainly I think things are different
now, but I didn't discover until 2003, and I just, frankly,
didn't understand it. I was running under the assumption that,
of course, my rape kit was tested.
Mr. Chabot. Who told you? I mean, how did you learn?
Ms. Alexenko. The prosecutor in the Manhattan County
Attorney's Office called me and told me: We're testing your
kit.
Mr. Chabot. How long was that after the event itself?
Ms. Alexenko. It was 9\1/2\ years.
Mr. Chabot. Nine and a half years.
Ms. Alexenko. So basically to stop the clock on the statute
of limitations, we had to do a John Doe indictment on the DNA.
Mr. Chabot. Was this criminal, was he ever in custody
during that period of time?
Ms. Alexenko. Many times, yes.
Mr. Chabot. So logically, if they had tested it and they
had him in custody, perhaps----
Ms. Alexenko. Absolutely, absolutely.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
courtesies.
And to the witnesses, let me thank you. I think this is
powerful testimony for the importance of what we're trying to
do.
And, Ms. Alexenko, let me thank you for being a friend in
your time of need, and that is very important because there are
so many that have the needs that you're expressing, but they
cannot come. So let me thank you very much.
Let me quickly go to Ms. Hess. And I want to put into the
record again, as of 2013, Texas officials estimated there to be
20,000 untested kits statewide. Out of the 20,000 untested
kits, 6,663 were in the greater Houston area. We got a $4.4
million Federal grant that I worked with the city to get, and
now, as of February of this year, Houston completed testing all
6,663. I venture to say many had been sitting there for a long
time.
So I want to go to Ms. Hess. As I understand the
legislation, it is to integrate this Rapid DNA testing into the
system to possibly allow that technology to be used overall so
that labs can spend their time moving forward on the violent
murders and the rapes and other elements. Does that fit partly,
in your understanding?
Ms. Hess. Ma'am, I'd like to qualify that first by saying
that, as has been stated here, we are really focusing on known
samples, on reference samples. So we are focusing on arrestees,
we're focusing on reference samples, as opposed to crime scene
or sexual assault kit types.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just, with the Rapid DNA
technology, you're saying you're focusing on arrest situations.
Is that what I understand?
Ms. Hess. That's correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And that's what's I'm saying. You're
focusing on arrests and other needs for DNA. The lab then can
move forward on testing these rape kits and murder, and that's
what I'm trying to understand from you. Is that my
understanding?
Ms. Hess. Yes, ma'am, I understand. So the vision is that
once these kits, these instruments, are ready to be deployed in
booking stations, that that will greatly reduce the time and
the resources needed to devote laboratory time toward the
processing of arrestee or reference samples. So those resources
might eventually be used and/or rediverted in the laboratories
to address the crime scene type of a forensic sample.
Ms. Jackson Lee. That's what I was trying to clarify for
this bill. And just one last thing. The FBI Quality Assurance,
you believe that you could have that quality assurance for this
new technology?
Ms. Hess. The Quality Assurance Standards for the known or
reference samples, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Under this Rapid DNA testing, you could
have in place those quality standards?
Ms. Hess. Yes. We currently do have actually Quality
Assurance Standards. An addendum actually was in place since
December for the laboratory, accredited laboratory environment.
And, yes, that would be our goal for reference samples,
correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. Let me finish my
last two questions.
Let me go to Ms. Alexenko. What should be the goal in terms
of the time for analyzing sexual assault kits? What more can we
do? Nine and a half years, it's unspeakable. But what should we
be looking to?
Ms. Alexenko. Well, at present we've been saying 30 days,
within 30 days, but to be frank with you, it's been way too
long that we've been saying 30 days.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm with you.
Ms. Alexenko. I really feel the turnaround time needs to be
expedited. It's too long to wait. A criminal can certainly flee
the area, flee the State. And in some cases, if they go from
one State to another, they may as well have gone to another
country, there's that little communication between the States.
So the sooner the better. I would like to see an ideal
world, I don't know if everyone will agree with me, where it's
like a quick turnaround time, 1 day. Why not?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. We listen to you very keenly.
Ms. Wolf, let me thank you for your expertise. And so this
is just a simple question. You gave us the hours, but I just
want to hear from you as a professional that if time could be
spent on the violent, the sexual predators, and others, and
this system can work, would you as a lab professional be
willing to have that system in place?
Ms. Wolf. You ask a very good question, Ms. Jackson Lee,
and it's an interesting answer because not all accredited
laboratories, while they may participate in CODIS, process
known standards from arrestees and offenders. Those are
databasing laboratories. And in particular my laboratory does
not.
And so the utilization of Rapid DNA, while it would aid
investigative information and help further investigations, it
would not increase capacity for my laboratory. My laboratory is
solely dedicated to processing casework and forensic samples,
crime scene samples. And so while there is value in the
technology, it certainly would not increase capacity within my
laboratory.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you very much. You have given
us factual information. We know that it would help in many
instances. The way your lab is framed, it would continue to do
its work as it is, but it could help in other areas. Is that my
understanding of your statement?
Ms. Wolf. It can certainly provide information that can
further investigations very quickly by providing that
information while the individual is still in custody. And so it
has value. The issue is very complex, and so there are multiple
facets that need to be addressed. And really what we are
looking for is to be able to increase capacity both during the
booking process, as well as on the analytical side in
laboratories that are processing casework samples.
Ms. Jackson Lee. With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you so very
much to the witnesses. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte [presiding]. I want to thank the gentlewoman
for her very active interest in this matter.
And I want to assure all the witnesses that we are very
dedicated to searching for the right answers for how to get
accurate information as quickly as possible and to work through
these backlogs as well, but not to delay getting action on new
cases as they come in. So having a system where state and local
law enforcement and Federal law enforcement are enabled to do
both is what our goal is, and if you will work with us, we
would like to move ahead.
So thank you all for testifying today.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a
moment. I just want to put a sentence on the record.
I have been working on a bill dealing with the DNA focusing
of those who perpetrate violent acts against children, and I
hope that we will continue in a discussion with Mr.
Sensenbrenner, with this Judiciary Committee. This may be a
vehicle where we can combine some of that interest, because
there's some data talking about how many times a day a child is
sexually violated and/or subjected to a violent crime.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentlewoman.
That concludes today's hearing, and I thank all the
witnesses for coming. I know some of you came a long way.
And without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
And this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Good morning, and I would like to welcome everyone to this
morning's hearing on H.R. 320, the ``Rapid DNA Act.'' I authored this
legislation to establish a system for integration of Rapid DNA
instruments into Federal law.
Rapid DNA is a promising new technology that would allow for the
almost immediate DNA analysis of an arrestee. Unlike standard DNA
practices which require sending DNA samples from arrestees out to labs
with a result taking weeks to ascertain, Rapid DNA results take only a
few hours and can be done right at the booking station. Like
fingerprinting, photographing, and other booking procedures which at
the time were novel but have now become routine, Rapid DNA will soon be
standard procedure in police stations throughout the country.
There is only one problem with Rapid DNA technology-- Federal Law.
Our law, written in 1994 when DNA technology was still in its infancy,
prohibits the use of Rapid DNA technology in booking stations. This is
not because of any limitation in Rapid DNA technology, but simply
because at the time, Rapid DNA technology was not even contemplated.
Like the Record, leading to the Cassette, leading to the MP3 player,
technology moves quicker than we can legislate. Now is the time to
change the law to permit Rapid DNA technology.
Rapid DNA machines are compact, approximately the size of copy
machines, and can provide a DNA analysis from a cheek swab sample of an
arrestee within 2 hours. This has two profound implications. First,
arrestees may be exonerated of crimes in 2 hours, rather than waiting
for up to 72 hours for release, or months for more standard DNA
testing. Second, those arrested for a crime, can quickly be matched to
other unsolved crimes where there was forensic evidence left at the
crime scene, but for which there is no identified suspect.
Finally, I believe that Rapid DNA can reduce the backlog we see in
forensic DNA analysis. This committee has spent a great deal of time
and significant work to try and reduce the forensic DNA backlog,
especially in so called `rape kits.' Rapid DNA could not at this time
be use for Rape Kits, but the implementation of Rapid DNA will allow
forensics labs to focus on forensic samples, not on identification
samples which can easily be handled by Rapid DNA machines. I hope this
will reduce the Rape Kit backlog which will also prevent future rapes
from happening.
It is time for Congress to discuss this technology and its usage,
and how to implement Rapid DNA in a manner that aids law enforcement
with their DNA backlogs. The time is now to reform and modernize this
crucial component of a criminal investigation, and it is time for our
Federal Government to catch up to technological advancements.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee
on the Judiciary
Today's hearing focuses on H.R. 320, the ``Rapid DNA Act,'' a bill
that provides for the use of machines to quickly analyze DNA samples of
arrestees in police custody to determine if they match DNA samples
related to unsolved crimes.
I support this proposal, which allows these machines to do work
that previously had to be performed in a more time-consuming matter by
forensic labs, whose resources are better allocated towards eliminating
the backlog of DNA samples already collected and sitting in warehouses.
I have several observations to make about how reducing this backlog
will serve the goals of all concerned.
First, although this Committee worked to reauthorize the Debbie
Smith Act last Congress, there is still an unacceptable backlog of DNA
samples waiting to be tested. National estimates repeatedly highlight
that hundreds of thousands of DNA samples go untested each year.
As the benefits of DNA technology have become more widely
understood and available, police departments and federal law
enforcement have increased their collection of DNA samples.
Consequently, the backlog continues to be a persistent problem,
which hinders our first goal, identifying the guilty. The longer it
takes to identify a violent offender, the greater the risk posed to
future victims.
For example, one of our witnesses today, Ms. Natasha Alexenko, who
heads Natasha's Justice Project, will describe how her attacker was
ultimately caught and proven guilty, using DNA evidence, 14 years after
she suffered unthinkable abuse.
Rapid DNA plays a part by allowing for quicker data entry, which
facilitates quicker matches of offenders to evidence collected at crime
scenes. This decreases the opportunity for violent criminals to pose
continuing threats to our communities.
Also, the DNA backlog undermines the use of DNA testing to
eliminate innocent persons as suspects. If law enforcement agencies
cannot effectively rely on the timely use of DNA technology, they waste
scarce investigative resources pursuing innocent people.
It is important to note that, when an innocent person is accused of
committing criminal offenses his or her life can become a frightening
existence.
In addition to the real threat of imprisonment, an innocent person
is at risk of losing his job, home, as well as the support of family
and friends.
Finally, the backlog compromises our ability to exonerate the
wrongfully convicted. To-date, more than 300 people, including 20 who
served time on death row, have been exonerated as a result of DNA
testing.
The good news is that reform is underway. For example, in major
cities throughout the United States we are seeing sexual assault kits
being tested at increased rates.
For instance, after Detroit discovered 11,341 untested rape kits
within its jurisdiction, the city of Detroit made a commitment to test
every single kit.
As of June 2015, that commitment has resulted in 1,467 DNA matches
and the identification of 326 potential serial rapists. Additionally,
the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office has successfully obtained 15
convictions; while six other suspects currently await trial. DNA from
the tested rape kits in Detroit have been linked to crimes committed in
31 states and the District of Columbia. I know that the Prosecutor is
making every effort to follow up on these DNA matches in order to hold
perpetrators accountable and vindicate the interests of the victims.
The authorization to use Rapid DNA technology will therefore lead
to a number of important benefits for law enforcement, crime victims,
and the innocent. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses who
will provide more details about the bill and these benefits.
[all]