U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

54–535 PDF 2010

HELP FIND THE MISSING ACT OR BILLY’S LAW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 3695 

JANUARY 21, 2010 

Serial No. 111–99 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

[Vacant] 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JANUARY 21, 2010 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 3695, the ‘‘Help Find the Missing Act’’ or Billy’s Law’’ ............................... 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 26 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 27 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Christopher S. Murphy, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Connecticut 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 32 

Ms. Janice Smolinski, Cheshire, CT 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35 

Ms. Kristina Rose, Acting Director, National Institute of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39 

Stephen L. Morris, Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information 

Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 43 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 46 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Maxine Waters, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ........................................................ 56 

Letter to the Honorable Bobby Scott, Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security, from Ronald Weich, Assistant Attorney 

General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 60 

(1) 

HELP FIND THE MISSING ACT 

OR BILLY’S LAW 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:04 a.m., in 

room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert 

C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Conyers, Waters, Wasserman 

Schultz, Quigley, Gohmert, and Poe. 

Staff present: (Majority) Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Liliana Coronado (Fellow) Federal Public Defender Office 

Detailee; Joe Graupensperger, Counsel; Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member; (Minority) Caroline Lynch, Counsel; and Justin Long, Counsel. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will now come to order. And I am 

pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security about H.R. 

3695, thr ‘‘Help Find the Missing Act,’’ also known as ‘‘Billy’s Law.’’ 

Today we will discuss the problem of missing persons in this 

country and mechanisms that have been established and which can 

be strengthened so that not only law enforcement but also private 

citizens can do more to find those who go missing. 

Every year, tens of thousands of Americans go missing and are 

never found by their loved ones. This is a staggering statistic. But 

each of these statistics is more than a mere number. They are real 

people with real problems, and each unsolved missing case is a 

tragedy. 

With us today to tell us about one such case is Janice Smolinski, 

whose son Billy went missing in 2004 and who has not been found. 

Her ordeal represents one of the many thousands and gives us an 

idea of what a family goes through to find a missing loved one. 

Fortunately for us, she has used her experience to help others by 

trying to make available more information about missing persons 

to both law enforcement and to the families and friends of those 

who are missing. 

It is important that law enforcement have all of the appropriate 

information about the missing person so they can do their jobs to 

find them. 

2 

It is equally important that families be able to access information 

about missing persons and unidentified remains of persons so that 

they can search the information that may help solve their own 

cases. 

The FBI’s NCIC has for many years contained databases for 

missing persons and for identified remains of persons. These databases contain information submitted to—submitted by Federal, 

State and—and local law enforcement agencies. 

The missing persons file is comprised of entries for missing individuals listed various—listing various personal characteristics such 

as name, gender, race and dental records. 

The unidentified persons file mainly consists of descriptive information about deceased and unidentified bodies in various States 

ranging from the recently deceased to skeletal and partial remains. 

For years these databases were crucial to law enforcement efforts 

to find missing persons and link some missing persons with remains that were initially unidentified. But they were not open to 

the public’s use and assisting private efforts at finding missing persons. 

Because of this restriction, the Justice Department National Institute of Justice established similar databases but open to the 

public in 2007. This new system is called NamUs, N-A-M, capital 

US, and similarly consists of two databases, one for missing persons and one for unidentified remains. 

Information in NamUs is available and searchable online by anyone, most notably the families of missing persons. Under some circumstances, the public may even contribute information to the program to make it even more comprehensive. 

Today we will discuss a bill that has been introduced to reinforce 

these databases, and I look forward to hearing from our two panels 

of witnesses on how H.R. 3695 will strengthen these databases and 

encourage submission of more information to them so that even 

more—so that they may be even more useful to both law enforcement and members of the public. 

Today we have two panels of witnesses who will discuss the 

missing persons. We will hear from legislators and from others involved. 

And at this point I will yield to the gentleman from Texas, the 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Judge Gohmert. 

[The bill, H.R. 3695, follows:] 

3 


HR3695-1.eps
4 


HR3695-2.eps
5 


HR3695-3.eps
6 


HR3695-4.eps
7 


HR3695-5.eps
8 


HR3695-6.eps
9 


HR3695-7.eps
10 


HR3695-8.eps
11 


HR3695-9.eps
12 


HR3695-10.eps
13 


HR3695-11.eps
14 


HR3695-12.eps
15 


HR3695-13.eps
16 


HR3695-14.eps
17 


HR3695-15.eps
18 


HR3695-16.eps
19 


HR3695-17.eps
20 


HR3695-18.eps
21 


HR3695-19.eps
22 


HR3695-20.eps
23 


HR3695-21.eps
24 


HR3695-22.eps
25 


HR3695-23.eps
26 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman. 

Reuniting a missing person with their family or identifying the 

remains of a lost loved one are very important law enforcement priorities. 

I look forward to learning more about what can be done to utilize 

the technology and funds to track missing persons and identify unknown and unidentified remains. 

Every year tens of thousands of Americans go missing, never to 

be seen by their loved ones again. In 2009 there were more than 

100,000 missing persons records active in the FBI’s National Crime 

Information Center database. 

Simultaneously, medical examiners’ and coroners’ offices across 

the country are holding tens of thousands of unidentified remains. 

Estimates indicate that 40,000 sets of unidentified remains are 

being held. 

But as of January 2009, the FBI’s NCIC database contains only 

7,000 records of unidentified remains. This means that medical examiners’ and coroners’ offices are not recording in the NCIC database many of the unidentified remains they hold. 

And consequently, it is likely that many missing person cases remain open for failure to connect missing person profiles with unidentified remains being held. 

Certainly, this disconnect between missing person cases and unidentified remains should be resolved. Additionally, modern technology and Internet should be utilized in State-Federal efforts to 

track missing persons and identify previously unidentified remains. 

The ‘‘Help Find the Missing Act,’’ or ‘‘Billy’s Law,’’ seeks to address these concerns by increasing funding for a national online repository and reporting system called NamUs, the National Missing 

and Unidentified Persons System. 

The goal is to have coroners, medical examiners, law enforcement 

agencies and even the public all reporting information and getting 

information from one centralized Web site, NamUs. 

Presently, there are many Federal, State, local and nonprofit 

databases designed to help, but these databases are not sufficiently 

accessible, and they do not do a good job of sharing information 

amongst each other. 

There is a great need for coordination among these databases 

and agencies. For this reason, NamUs was established by the Department of Justice in 2007 pursuant to President Bush’s DNA initiative to provide two databases, one for missing persons and one 

for unidentified remains. 

NamUs enables the public to access, search and contribute toward these databases. It also enables medical examiners and coroners to link their information on unidentified remains with Federal 

and State law enforcement information on missing persons, so long 

as medical examiners, coroners and law enforcement have enough 

funding and technology to regularly utilize NamUs and share this 

information with the FBI’s NCIC database. 

To encourage medical examiners, coroners and law enforcement 

agencies to regularly use NamUs, ‘‘Billy’s Law’’ provides the attorney generals incentive grant programs for medical examiners and 

coroners. 

27 

Permissible uses of the funds include database training according 

to best practice, the hiring of additional personnel, purchase of new 

technology. It authorizes $2.4 million for each of the fiscal years 

2010 through 2014 in order to maintain the NamUs databases and 

coordinate data-sharing between the NCIC database and NamUs. 

I am interested to learn whether the witnesses have suggestions 

for efficient and effective reforms not proposed in ‘‘Billy’s Law.’’ It 

does seem clear that we need to improve the reporting, sharing and 

analyzing of information, but I want to be careful and ensure that 

funds are used wisely. 

Welcome the witnesses here today. Appreciate your being here. 

Appreciate the testimony. We received written testimony. I am 

going to have to leave the hearing early, but I have been—I reviewed last night the written testimony, and I am extremely interested as a former district judge, as my friend Congressman Poe, 

Ted Poe from Texas. 

And so we appreciate everybody’s efforts to be here. We know 

you are not here for the money you get for being a witness, because 

there is none. You are here because of what is in your heart, and 

we appreciate that very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert. 

The gentleman from Michigan, the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We welcome Mr. and Mrs. Smolinski here, and we want you to 

just know how this function goes on in Judiciary Committee. See, 

this is a special Subcommittee. You have got a veteran trial lawyer 

as the Chairman, and you have got two judges just in case we lawyers stray off. 

And so between Poe and Gohmert, this is the perfect place for 

this subject matter to come up. And the last thing you ought to 

know is that procedurally we all describe the bill, explain it, so 

that there is nothing for the authors to do. 

By the time we finish, everybody has heard the bill described repeatedly. And that makes their testimony, hopefully, even briefer 

than it was going to have been. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a nice try, 

but I am not sure they are going to accommodate us. 

Our first panel will consist of two of our colleagues, Congressman 

Chris Murphy and Congressman Ted Poe, who have introduced 

H.R. 3695, the bill we are discussing today. 

Congressman Murphy represents the 5th District of Connecticut, 

the home of Billy Smolinski. He is in his second term and is a 

member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Oversight 

and Government Reform Committee. 

Congressman Poe represents the 2nd District of Texas. He is in 

his third term and a distinguished Member of the—of this Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee as well as serving as a 

Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

We will receive your testimony at this time, beginning with Mr. 

Murphy. 

28 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CONNECTICUT 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Chairman Scott. 

And that was a valiant attempt, Mr. Conyers. I will attempt to 

keep this as short as possible. 

First, I would like to thank the Subcommittee, Ranking Member 

Gohmert and the full Committee and the leadership of Chairman 

Conyers for their prompt attention to this matter. I know how seriously you take this, and that is evidenced by the fact that we are 

here today, not very long after the introduction of this legislation. 

The picture I have to paint for you today is admittedly grim. As 

has been mentioned, every year thousands of Americans go missing, often never to be seen by their loved ones again. 

In fact, as we have heard, there are over 100,000 unsolved missing persons cases open at any given time. And there are approximately 4,400 unidentified human remains found on an average 

year. 

Now, those numbers are too high, but just as intolerable are the 

roadblocks that family members are facing when trying to help law 

enforcement find a missing love one. 

This legislation is named after Billy Smolinski of Waterbury, 

Connecticut. He went missing on, excuse me, August 24, 2004 at 

the age of 31. I will let Billy’s mother, Jan, share her family’s experience with you today. 

The Smolinskis’ story is tragic, but their family’s pursuit of justice and their desire to change the system for the better is nothing 

less than heroic. 

You will hear their story straight from Jan, but I can tell you 

this. No one should ever have to face the systematic failures, the 

frustrations and the heartbreak that the Smolinskis and thousands 

of other families have endured in their search to find their loved 

ones. 

H.R. 3695, which I am proud to introduce with, really, Congress’ 

leading champion on the issue of missing persons, Congressman 

Ted Poe, tackles three major problems with our Nation’s missing 

persons system. 

First, many law enforcement agencies, medical examiners and 

coroners—they don’t have the resources to report missing adults 

and unidentified remains. 

In fact, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics census that 

they took of these officials, 80 percent of those surveyed reported 

rarely or never using the existing unidentified remains database. 

Second, there really is no central database to report both missing 

persons and unidentified remains. Instead, there are a myriad of 

unconnected Federal, and State, and local and nonprofit databases. 

This means that a missing persons report may be entered into 

one database, while a person’s remains may be listed in another, 

making it almost impossible for family members to try to connect 

those missing pieces. 

Third, many local law enforcement personnel just don’t know 

about these databases or how to best handle these cases when they 

come in to law enforcement in the first place. 

29 

‘‘Billy’s Law’’ addresses these three problems. First, the legislation provides for the first time statutory authorization for the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, known, as Mr. 

Scott said, as NamUs, the Web-based database that was created in 

July 2007 by the Department of Justice—the only Federal missing 

persons and unidentified remains database that the public can access and contribute to, and yet it is currently not a congressionally 

authorized program. 

Second, the bill connects this database, the public database, 

NamUs, with the FBI’s existing database that is accessible just to 

law enforcement. This will create a more comprehensive database 

and streamline the reporting processes. 

Third, it creates a competitive grants program to incentivize reporting to this new connected database. Funds could be used to develop and implement training on how to best use the databases and 

respond to these cases. 

And finally, the legislation requires the Department of Justice to 

issue information about the databases and best practices for responding to these cases. 

As you will hear from the Smolinskis, part of the problem is that 

many local law enforcement agencies don’t really know how to best 

interact with families coming forward with these potential missing 

persons cases. 

‘‘Billy’s Law’’ is supported by 21 bipartisan co-sponsors and a 

host of organizations, including the National Center for Missing 

and Exploited Children, the National Organization of Police Associations and the National Association of Medical Examiners. 

Most important, it is supported by countless families throughout 

the country who have hit brick wall after brick wall in attempting 

to locate a missing loved one. 

I am so grateful to you, Chairman Scott, Chairman Conyers, for 

your prompt and enthusiastic response to the introduction of this 

legislation. Its passage will fulfill the wishes of the Smolinskis and 

thousands of other families who want to make sure that their personal nightmares are never repeated. 

I thank you and I look forward to answering any questions that 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Thank you Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gohmert, as well as the Members of the Subcommittee, for holding today’s hearing on H.R. 3695, the ‘‘Help Find 

the Missing Act, or Billy’s Law.’’ 

The picture I have to paint for you today is admittedly grim. Every year thousands of Americans go missing, often never to be seen by their loved ones again. 

In fact, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are over 100,000 unsolved missing persons cases open at any given time. Approximately 4,400 unidentified human remains are also found in an average year. Those numbers are too high, 

but just as intolerable are the roadblocks that family members face when trying to 

help law enforcement find a missing love one. 

This legislation is named after Billy Smolinski of Waterbury, Connecticut. He 

went missing on August 24, 2004 at the age of 31. I will let Billy’s mother, Jan, 

share her family’s experience with you today. The Smolinskis story is tragic, but 

this family’s pursuit of justice, and desire to change the system for the better, is 

nothing less than heroic. You’ll hear their story straight from Jan, but I can tell 

you this: no one should ever have to face the systematic failures, frustrations, and 

heartbreak that the Smolinskis have endured in their search to find Billy. 

30 

H.R. 3695, which I was proud to introduce with a great champion of the issue of 

missing persons, Congressman Ted Poe, tackles three major problems with our nation’s missing persons system. 

First, many local law enforcement agencies, medical examiners, and coroners 

don’t have the resources to report missing adults and unidentified remains. In fact, 

according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics census of medical examiner and coroners’ 

offices, 80 percent of those surveyed reported rarely or never using the FBI’s unidentified remains database. 

Second, there is no central database to report missing persons or unidentified remains. Instead, there is a myriad of unconnected federal, state, local, and non-profit 

databases. This means that a missing persons report may be entered into one database, while the person’s remains may be listed in another. 

Third, many local law enforcement personnel do not know about the federal missing persons databases or how to best handle these cases. 

Billy’s Law addresses these three problems. 

First, the legislation for the first time provides statutory authorization for the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System. Also known as NamUs, the webbased database was created in July 2007 by the Department of Justice. It is the 

only federal missing persons and unidentified remains database that the public can 

access and contribute to and yet it is currently not a Congressionally authorized 

program. 

Second, the bill connects NamUs with the FBI’s database. This will create a more 

comprehensive database and streamline the reporting process for law enforcement. 

Third, it creates a competitive grants program to incentivize reporting to the connected FBI/ NamUs databases. Funds could be used to develop and implement 

training on how to use the databases and respond to these cases. 

Finally, the legislation requires the Department of Justice to issue information 

about the databases and best practices for responding to these cases. 

Billy’s Law is supported by 19 bipartisan cosponsors and a host of organizations 

including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Organization of Police Associations, and the National Association of Medical Examiners. Most important, it is supported by countless families throughout the country 

who have hit brick wall after brick wall in attempting to locate a missing loved one. 

I am so grateful to you, Chairman Scott, for your prompt and enthusiastic response to the introduction of this legislation. Its passage will fulfill the wishes of 

the Smolinskis’ and thousands of other families who want to make sure that their 

personal nightmares are never repeated. 

Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Judge Poe? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TED POE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Gohmert, 

Chairman Conyers. It is my pleasure to testify in support of this 

common-sense piece of legislation. 

First, I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Chris Murphy 

from Connecticut, for taking up this cause and asking me to work 

with him, but also would like to thank the Smolinskis for being 

here and sharing this story and moving forward to this legislation 

so that it will be presented before Congress. 

We should always remember that in the criminal justice system 

when a victim is—becomes a victim of a crime, the system sometimes continues to victimize the families of that victim. One such 

way is the fact that many times victims have no idea what has 

happened—or the victims’ families have no idea what has happened to their loved one, and that causes frustration and quite a 

bit of heartache in just not knowing. 

31 

So our system, our justice system, must seek justice not only for 

defendants of crime but for victims and their families as well to 

have the scales of justice totally balanced. 

This legislation authorizes funding for the National Missing and 

Unidentified Persons System which will serve as a unique database 

that can be searched and cross-referenced. 

The database was created by the Department of Justice in 2007 

and loved ones of the missing can add information to profiles in 

that database, making those databases stronger. This system will 

allow Federal, State and local law enforcement officers to more 

quickly locate information about missing persons and enable them 

to also solve crimes much faster. 

Having served as a chief felony prosecutor in Houston, Texas for 

8 years and a felony court judge for 22 years, I know firsthand the 

toll that violent crime puts on family members and friends. They 

go through a lot of stress and heartache. 

And a person that has lost a loved one to a violent crime is forced 

to bear a terrible burden. This burden is made worse when the 

family is not able to determine exactly what has happened to the 

loved one. 

Often, families have to wait for many months or years, or forever, until they can find final disclosure. Brave men and women of 

our local police forces do everything they can within their power. 

This legislation, however, will make their ability to work together 

with the victims’ families much easier. 

Shortly after I was elected to Congress, I started the Victims’ 

Rights Caucus, and this caucus supports legislation for policies 

that will help victims of crime in the United States. 

This legislation is such a bill, and the members of the Victims’ 

Rights Caucus will support this legislation. 

We must remember, however, that violent crime is not the only 

reason an adult might go missing. A physical or developmental disability such as Alzheimer’s disease or dementia may cause an adult 

to go missing. 

Also, after catastrophic disasters in our country many people go 

missing. Such occurred in Hurricane Rita in my congressional district, where many families were separated, and it took days, weeks 

and sometimes months to find family members because of the database problem that we currently face. 

So today we have a mixture of Federal, State and local and nonprofit databases that can be used to help identify remains. However, we must go to each one of these, or a family must go to each 

one of these, entities to find all of the information. 

So it is important that we make it much easier to have one simple database, and this legislation authorizes that one central database in NamUs, and I would like to submit the rest of my statement for the record. 

And once again, I want to thank Congressman Chris Murphy 

from Connecticut and the Smolinskis for pushing this legislation, 

and the Chairman for bringing such a quick hearing to this Subcommittee. 

And I will yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Poe follows:] 

32 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TED POE, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

It is my pleasure today to testify in support of a common sense piece of legislation 

that should have been passed years ago. First, I would like to thank my colleague, 

Congressman Murphy for taking up this worthy cause, and for asking me to work 

with him on this legislation. Also, I would like to thank Janice Smolinski for being 

here and sharing with us the story of her son Billy. As we analyze this piece of legislation, it is imperative for us to remember how important this bill is to people like 

Janice Smolinski. 

H.R. 3695 authorizes funding for the National Missing and Unidentified Persons 

System which will serve as a unique database that can be searched and cross-referenced. This database was created by the Department of Justice in 2007. Loved 

ones of the missing can add information to profiles in the database, making them 

stronger. It is my belief that this new system will allow federal, state, and local law 

enforcement officers to quickly locate information about missing persons enabling 

them to solve crimes faster. 

Having served as a chief felony prosecutor in Harris County, Texas for 8 years, 

as well as a felony court judge for over 22 years, I know firsthand the toll that violent crime puts on our communities. The friends and family of the victims go 

through tremendous stress and heartache. A family that has lost a loved one to violent crime is forced to bear a terrible burden. This burden is made even worse when 

the family is not able to determine what exactly happened to their loved one. Often, 

families have to wait for many months, or years, until they can finally find closure. 

The brave men and women of our local police forces do everything within their 

power to solve all violent crimes, and their work should be commended. However, 

crimes cross state lines. A victim may be taken far from home by his or her kidnappers. H.R. 3695 will give our law enforcement officials the tools they need to quickly 

solve crimes that cross state lines and bring closure to families and swift justice to 

criminals. 

Shortly after I was elected to Congress, I started the Victims’ Rights Caucus. This 

Caucus supports legislation and advocates for policies that will help victims of crime 

in the United States. H.R. 3695 is such a bill. I am proud to be a part of this bill, 

and I urge all members of this subcommittee to support it, and I will urge all members of the Victims Rights Caucus to support it as well. 

However, we must remember, violent crime is not the only reason an adult might 

go missing. A physical or developmental disability such as Alzheimer’s disease or 

dementia may cause an adult to go missing. A large scale disaster such as Hurricane Katrina may cause large numbers of adults to be reported missing. Many children and adults in my congressional district were reported missing in the confusion 

following the evacuation before Hurricane Rita. In situations like these, quick access 

to national databases is the key to finding these missing persons. 

Today, we have a mixture of many federal, state, local, and non-profit databases 

that can be used to help identify remains. However, these systems are not fully connected to each other. Information that is contained in one database might not be 

contained in another. Most of these databases do not allow the public to search or 

add information. We need a unified, national, system that can collect and gather information from multiple sources and allow this information to be easily searched by 

law enforcement across the country. Social media and sites like Wikipedia have 

shown us how much information can be shared and compiled in one place, by multiple individuals, if it is managed properly. It is my belief that the NamUS database 

can be just such a clearinghouse for information about missing adults and children. 

H.R. 3695 would authorize $2.4 million dollars a year for the Attorney General 

to maintain the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUS). Additionally, H.R. 3695 would require the Attorney General to share all of the information on missing persons and unidentified human remains that currently is found in 

NCIC to be shared with the NamUS database. H.R.3695 contains protections to ensure that sensitive information is not shared with NamUS as it will be a public 

database. Then, from this point forward, we will have one database which is easily 

searchable by both law enforcement and the public, to serve as a nationwide information clearing house on the missing. 

Every year in this country, tens of thousands of Americans go missing. In 2004, 

there were an estimated 40,000 sets of human remains being held by medical examiners or coroner offices across the country. According to the National Institute of 

Justice, only 6,000 of such cases have been entered into the National Crime Information Center’s Unidentified Person File of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. To 

address this problem, H.R. 3695 creates incentives for state and local law enforceVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Sep 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\012110\54535.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
33 

ment officials to report information about the missing to NCIC, NamUS, and the 

National DNA Index System. 

Clearly, a unified, easily accessible, national database is needed to allow information to be more easily shared and help law enforcement find missing adults and children as fast as possible. H.R. 3695 is a common sense piece of legislation that 

should be supported by the members of this subcommittee. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Are there questions, Mr. Gohmert? 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, do you have any questions? Thank you. 

Thank you very much. We will now have our second panel. Appreciate the testimony from our colleagues. 

As our next panel is coming forward, they will be introduced. 

Our first witness in the second panel will be Janice Smolinski. She 

lives in Cheshire, Connecticut, in Mr. Murphy’s district. She and 

her husband of 39 years, William Sr., raised two children, Billy and 

Paula, on a small farm. 

On August 24th, 2004 her life changed forever when Billy went 

missing at the age of 31. In her search for her son, she encountered 

many problems with the missing persons system, and she has dedicated her life not only to finding her son but also helping others 

in similar situations. 

Our second witness will be Kristina Rose, acting director of the 

National Institute of Justice. She oversees research, development 

and evaluation of the Department of Justice. She is also responsible for agency-wide special projects and initiatives that cut across 

both social and physical sciences. 

She was the senior—previously the senior advisor to the director 

of the NIJ, providing advice and guidance on criminal justice policy 

and management. 

Our final witness will be the FBI deputy assistant director, Stephen Morris. He has been with the FBI for more than 21 years, 

working in field offices in El Paso, Dayton and Houston. As the 

chief of programs, support section, he was assigned to the Criminal 

Justice Information Services Division and managed the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting and Law Enforcement Online programs. 

In 2008 he was appointed deputy assistant director of the Policy 

Administrative and Liaison Branch. 

So we will begin with Ms. Smolinski. Ms. Smolinski, can—is your 

microphone on? Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF JANICE SMOLINSKI, CHESHIRE, CT 

Ms. SMOLINSKI. Thank you for having the courage to tackle the 

tragic disconnect in our country’s effort to find missing Americans. 

The Help Find the Missing Act has been named ‘‘Billy’s Law’’ in 

honor of our son who went missing 5 years ago. 

It is my husband Bill and my greatest effort—hope that the legislation, so well crafted by Representatives Murphy and Poe, will 

be signed into law in order to help bring answers and peace to the 

thousands of families wrestling with the horror of having a loved 

one go missing. 

We hope that sharing our family’s story can shed light on this 

national nightmare and illustrate the urgent need to pass ‘‘Billy’s 

34 

Law.’’ With over 100,000 people missing in this country, our family’s story is not a unique one. 

Our son’s name is William Smolinski Jr., and his whole life we 

called him Billy. He was funny and a bit of a goofball, always trying to surprise us with a joke or a trick. 

Billy was a hard worker who drove a tow truck, owned a small 

house in the south end of Waterbury and loved his 3-year-old German shepherd, Harley. 

Everything changed on August 24th, 2004 when Billy vanished 

at the age of 31. In our search to find our son, we encountered a 

Pandora’s Box, and when we opened it, we unleashed the nightmare plaguing the world of the missing and the unidentified dead. 

Our nightmare began when a neighbor called to say that Billy 

had left his dog unfed and locked inside his house. Billy’s truck 

was parked oddly in the driveway, in a spot he had never used before. 

We are a very close family and we knew something had happened. We called the police, and they told us to wait 3 days to see 

if Billy showed up and, if he didn’t, to file a missing persons report. 

After waiting the 3 days, we filed the report and expected the police to launch an aggressive investigation. When the police did 

nothing, we organized our own search with friends and family. We 

even hired a private investigator. 

As the days passed, we knew something terrible had happened 

to our son. Yet we still couldn’t get the attention of the local police 

department. They dismissed Billy as a walkaway case. 

The police were not only slow to respond but they also didn’t report—properly report the case. It took 4 years for a report to be 

correctly filed with the National Crime Information Center. 

Moreover, not only did they lose seven separate DNA samples, 

but they also didn’t know about the National DNA Index System. 

In fact, it wasn’t until the FBI took over the investigation, 2 years 

after Billy vanished, that the proper reports and DNA samples 

were collected and filed. 

Eventually, we uncovered information that led us to believe Billy 

had been murdered in Woodbridge and buried in Seymour. The 

only person who has ever been arrested in this case is me. When 

we tried to hang missing person flyers on telephone poles in 

Woodbridge, the police arrested me. The charge was later dropped. 

Though much time has passed, we still haven’t been able to find 

justice for our Billy. We have tried to change the system so no family would have to endure the anguish that we have lived through. 

Reform has begun in Waterbury and in many other police departments in Connecticut. With H.R. 3695, we have the opportunity to 

make changes nationwide. 

With the incentive grants program created in the bill, police 

training can finally catch up to modern technology while emphasizing sensitivity protocols. Police want to have better resources to 

solve missing persons cases, and ‘‘Billy’s Law’’ will help them with 

that. 

Authorizing NamUs will help empower family members to search 

for their missing loved ones. As you can tell, looking for your missing loved one becomes a full time job. It consumes you. You have 

to continually hound the police, knock on doors, make phone calls, 

35 

visit the media, make fliers, create Web sites, network, speak up, 

and check on information entered into databases to make sure it 

was created correctly. 

NamUs makes this process easier as you can both enter information yourself and search the database. Moreover, the connected 

NCIC-NamUs database that the legislation creates increases the 

chances of finding answers. 

Uncertainty is a cancer that crushes the spirit of loved ones left 

behind, destroys marriages and tears at the tissue of family bonds. 

The stress of having a missing loved turns some to substance 

abuse, creates health problems and drives people into bankruptcy. 

Unless there is some form of resolution, the heartache never 

truly goes away. This legislation is long overdue, and the missing 

community applauds his efforts. 

This act is named after my son, but it is not for him or the 

Smolinski family. This act is for every American, and it is the ultimate act in homeland security. 

Thank you again. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Smolinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANICE SMOLINSKI

Good morning and thank you Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, and 

Members of the Subcommittee for having the courage to tackle the tragic disconnect 

in our country’s effort to find missing Americans. 

The Help Find the Missing Act has been named ‘‘Billy’s Law’’ in honor of our son 

who went missing from Waterbury, Connecticut five years ago. It is my husband Bill 

and my greatest hope that the legislation, so well crafted by Congressman Murphy 

and Congressman Poe, will be signed into law in order to help bring answers and 

peace to the thousands of families wrestling with the horror of having a loved one 

go missing. 

My husband and I are uncomfortable in the spotlight, but we hope that sharing 

our family’s story can shed light on this national nightmare and illustrate the urgent need to pass Billy’s Law. With over 100,000 people missing in this country, our 

family’s story is not a unique one. 

Our son’s name is William Smolinski Jr., and his whole life we called him Billy. 

He was funny, and a bit of a goof ball, always trying to surprise us with a joke or 

a trick. 

Billy was a hard worker who drove a tow truck, owned a small house in the South 

End of Waterbury, and loved his three-year-old German Sheppard, Harley. 

Everything changed on August 24, 2004 when Billy vanished at the age of 31. In 

our search to find our son we encountered a Pandora’s Box, and when we opened 

it, we unleashed the nightmare plaguing the world of the missing and the unidentified dead. 

Our nightmare began with a phone call. A neighbor called to say that Billy had 

left his dog unfed and locked inside his house. Billy’s truck was parked oddly in the 

driveway, in a spot he had never used before. We are a very close family and immediately knew something extraordinary had happened. We called the police and they 

told us to wait three days to see if Billy showed up, and if he didn’t, to file a missing 

persons report. 

After waiting the three days, we filed the report, and expected the police to launch 

an aggressive investigation. When the police did nothing we organized our own 

search with family and friends. We even hired a private investigator. As the days 

passed we knew something terrible had happened to our son. 

Yet we still couldn’t get the attention of the local police department. They dismissed Billy as a voluntary runaway case. 

The police were not only slow to respond, but they also didn’t properly report the 

case. It took four years for a report to be correctly filed with the National Crime 

Information Center (NCIC). Moreover, not only did they lose seven separate DNA 

samples, but they also didn’t know about the National DNA Index System (NDIS). 

In fact, it wasn’t until the FBI took over the investigation—two years after Billy 

vanished—that the proper reports and DNA samples were collected and filed. 

36 

Eventually we uncovered information that led us to believe Billy had been murdered in Woodbridge, Connecticut, and buried in Seymour. 

In fact, according to international homicide expert Bill Hagmaier, a great leader 

in fighting for reform, a majority of the missing aren’t just missing, they have been 

murdered. 

However, to this day, the only person who has been arrested in this case is me. 

When we tried to hang missing person flyers on telephone poles in Woodbridge, the 

police arrested me. The charge was later dropped. 

Though much time has passed, we still haven’t been able to find justice for our 

Billy. We have tried to change the system so no family would have to endure the 

anguish that we have lived through these past five years. Reform has begun in Waterbury and in many other police departments around Connecticut. 

With H.R. 3695, we have the opportunity to make changes nationwide. With the 

incentive grants program created in the bill, police training can finally catch up to 

modern science and technology, while emphasizing sensitivity protocols. Police want 

to have better resources to solve missing persons cases and Billy’s Law will help 

them with that. 

Authorizing the Department of Justice’s National Missing and Unidentified persons System (NamUs) will help empower family members to search for their missing 

loved ones. As you can tell, looking for your missing loved one becomes a full time 

job. It consumes you. You have to continually hound the police, knock on doors, 

make phone calls, visit the media, make fliers, create websites, network, speak up 

and check on information entered into databases to make sure it was created correctly. NamUs makes this process easier as you can both enter information yourself 

and search the database. Moreover, the connected NCIC/NamUs database that the 

legislation creates increases the chances of finding answers. 

Uncertainty is a cancer that crushes the spirit of loved ones left behind, destroys 

marriages and tears at the tissue of family bonds. The stress of having a missing 

loved turns some to substance abuse, creates health problems and drives people into 

bankruptcy. Unless there is some form of resolution, the heartache never truly goes 

away. 

Congressman Murphy’s effort gives families like mine hope for a better, more certain tomorrow. This legislation is long overdue, and the missing community applauds his effort. This act is named after my son, but it’s not for him, or the 

Smolinski family. 

This act is for every American, and is an ultimate act in Homeland Security. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing today. I look forward to answering any 

questions you may have. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Smolinski, and thank 

you for dedicating yourself to use your case to help others. 

Ms. SMOLINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Rose? 

TESTIMONY OF KRISTINA ROSE, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Gohmert and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to 

discuss the Department of Justice’s Missing and Unidentified Persons System, otherwise known as NamUs, and to affirm our strong 

support for H.R. 3695, or ‘‘Billy’s Law.’’ 

We commend Congressman Murphy and Congressman Poe for 

sponsoring ‘‘Billy’s Law,’’ and thank the Subcommittee for their interest in NamUs. 

I am especially grateful to Janice Smolinski for her courageous 

efforts to raise an awareness of the need to report and share information about missing persons. 

My name is Kristina Rose, and I am the acting director of the 

National Institute of Justice. I am proud to be here with Stephen 

Morris. He and his colleagues at the FBI have been valuable partVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 Sep 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\012110\54535.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
37 

ners in supporting State and local efforts to find and share information about missing and unidentified persons. 

We established NamUs to respond to an overwhelming need for 

a central reporting system for unidentified human remains. 

Our Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that, as of 2004, more 

than half of the Nation’s medical examiners’ offices had no policy 

for retaining records, such as x-rays, DNA or fingerprints, on unidentified human remains. In addition, it is estimated that on any 

given day there are 100,000 active missing persons cases. 

NamUs is the first national system for solving missing persons 

cases and unidentified dead that was developed by and for those 

who use it—by law enforcement, medical examiners, coroners and 

the public. 

The creation of NamUs has provided unparalleled opportunities 

for true partnerships among these groups, especially with the families of the missing and unidentified dead. 

NamUs engages the public to work alongside State and local 

agencies to help resolve cases, increase public safety and provide 

resolution for families and for loved ones. 

NamUs also serves as a central online repository for other missing persons’ Web sites, for State clearinghouses, for contact information, legislation and other resources from around the country. 

So now, instead of having to search newspapers or call morgues 

around the country to find information about unidentified persons, 

families and loved ones can turn to NamUs. 

NamUs was implemented in three stages. In June of 2007, we 

launched the first database, for unidentified dead. And then in January of 2009, we completed the second phase, for a database on 

missing persons’ information. In July of last year, the third phase 

of NamUs became active, and that was the cross matching. 

The system now automatically searches for similarities between 

the unidentified dead cases and the missing person cases every 

time a new case is published to the system or when a new case is 

opened. The system alerts NamUs case managers when potential 

matches are found so that they can follow up. 

And in just a short period of time, NamUs has become an extremely valuable tool. All 50 States have missing person case reports in NamUs. Law enforcement officers in 50 States are registered, and medical examiners in 48 States, Puerto Rico and the 

District of Columbia are also using the system. 

And NamUs has already made a difference in people’s lives. Last 

year, NamUs was used to identify the remains of a man recently 

found dead as those of a boy that was reported missing in Virginia 

in 1995. 

Another example is a man who disappeared in Connecticut last 

April. His aunt entered information about him in NamUs, and the 

following month a body was found. And using the information entered by the aunt, the body was identified as that man who disappeared in April. 

And while the information uncovered by NamUs unfortunately 

confirms deaths, it brings much needed resolution to families and 

friends. 

38 

Now, while we are very, very proud of what NamUs has accomplished so far, we are also striving every day to make it better. And 

that is why we enthusiastically support ‘‘Billy’s Law.’’ 

This legislation would specifically authorize NamUs as well as 

lead to substantial improvements in how information is shared between NamUs and the NCIC. 

We are also hopeful that the bill will provide a strong incentive, 

through the proposed grant program, for States to provide critical 

information to NCIC and NamUs shortly after a case is reported. 

Please be assured that the department will continue to expand 

and improve its efforts to help law enforcement, medical examiners, coroners and the public find missing persons and identify 

human remains. 

We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on ‘‘Billy’s 

Law.’’ And this concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy to answer any 

questions that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rose follows:] 

39 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KRISTINA ROSE


Rose-1.eps
40 


Rose-2.eps
41 


Rose-3.eps
42 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I would like to recognize the fact that Ms. Waters had come in, 

and Mr. Quigley has joined us. 

Mr. Morris? 


Rose-4.eps
43 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN L. MORRIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, WASHINGTON, 

DC 

Mr. MORRIS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman—Ranking Member Gohmert, I see, 

has left briefly—and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Stephen L. Morris, and I am a deputy assistant director at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, 

otherwise known as CJIS, located in Clarksburg, West Virginia. 

It is my pleasure to join my colleague, Kristina Rose, from the 

National Institute of Justice, and especially Bill and Janice 

Smolinski, in thanking you for this opportunity to appear before 

the Subcommittee to discuss the ‘‘Help Find the Missing Act,’’ or 

‘‘Billy’s Law.’’ 

It is indeed my honor to provide testimony today regarding the 

FBI’s National Crime Information Center and its relationship to 

the Department of Justice’s National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, or NamUs. 

Both of these systems play a vital role in locating and identifying 

missing and unidentified persons. As you know, the National Crime 

Information Center, commonly known as NCIC, has a computerized 

database of criminal justice information available to virtually every 

law enforcement agency nationwide, 24 hours a day, 365 days a 

year. 

Established in 1967 primarily to assist law enforcement in apprehending fugitives and locating stolen property, the NCIC’s role has 

clearly expanded over the last 42 years. 

Currently, the NCIC database consists of 19 files, comprised of 

seven property files and 12 person files. All these files contain more 

than 10 million records. 

Of the 12 person files within the NCIC, there are two that are 

impacted by ‘‘Billy’s Law’’—one, the missing person file, and two, 

the unidentified person file. 

The missing person file, which was created in 1975, contains approximately 98,000 records, and the unidentified person file, which 

was established in 1983, contains approximately 7,000 records. 

Since its inception, NCIC, like all other CJIS information-sharing 

programs, has operated under a shared management concept 

known as the CJIS Advisory Policy Board, or APB, as we refer to 

it. 

This board represents the interests of more than 17,000 local, 

State, Federal and tribal law enforcement agencies accessing CJIS 

systems throughout the United States. Through various Subcommittees, working groups and a voting board, the CJIS APB enables CJIS systems users to make recommendations to the FBI director regarding policy and operational enhancements to those 

CJIS systems. 

Essentially, the CJIS division serves as a custodian of NCIC 

records and is a steward of NCIC information for more than 

100,000 law enforcement and other authorized users of the NCIC. 

Currently the NCIC averages more than 7 million transactions per 

day. 

44 

Needless to say, the FBI and the CJIS APB recognize the significant role the NCIC has played in the location and identification of 

missing persons. According to one benefit survey conducted by the 

CJIS Division, an estimated 50,000 missing persons were located 

as a direct result of information obtained through the NCIC in a 

single year. 

Throughout its collaborative effort with the APB, the CJIS Division years ago developed a cross-matching capability that automatically compares records within the NCIC missing person, unidentified person and wanted person file any time a record within these 

files is entered or modified by an agency. 

The comparison is performed on a daily basis and generates a 

list of potential candidates which is then provided to the agency entering or modifying a record and to the agency who may own a 

record in the NCIC. 

For example, in 2007 a California police department entered a 

missing person record into NCIC and received an automatic response from the NCIC identifying several candidates from the unidentified deceased records. 

No identification was made from those candidates. However, approximately 30 days later the police department updated their 

original record with some dental information. That information 

generated additional candidates and ultimately resulted in the 

positive identification of a missing person. 

In 2008, based upon unidentified person information entered by 

a police department in Georgia, the NCIC generated an automatic 

response to the Georgia police department and a police department 

in Tennessee identifying a possible match. 

As a result of that notification, the Georgia and Tennessee agencies positively identified the person as a missing person from the 

State of Tennessee dating back more than 10 years. 

Despite these successes, the FBI and the CJIS APB remain 

steadfastly committed to further enhancing and leveraging the 

NCIC to locate and identify missing persons. 

We understand the interest among the Federal Government, law 

enforcement and the medical examiner and coroner communities to 

further leverage the NCIC by sharing missing and unidentified 

person information in a Web-based environment. 

However, we are also mindful of the rights to privacy and civil 

liberties which we must preserve as we explore the possibility of 

sharing law enforcement sensitive information in a publicly accessible environment. 

It is this very tenet that underscores the significant role the 

CJIS APB plays in coordinating this national effort. In fact, in 

2007, the FBI began participating in several NamUs working 

groups and advisory committees. 

And throughout the CJIS APB—or through the CJIS APB we 

started working with the National Institute of Justice in developing 

an interim process for sharing NCIC data with NamUs. 

Although this effort has resulted in several States directly providing data extracts from the NCIC to the NamUs, the FBI and the 

National Institute of Justice recognize the deficiencies and ineffectiveness of this process. We are committed to exploring a more reliable and efficient long-term solution. 

45 

In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for providing the FBI an opportunity to 

contribute to this worthwhile endeavor. 

The FBI looks forward to working with the Members of this Subcommittee, the National Institute of Justice, and our local, State, 

Federal and tribal law enforcement partners in furthering the development and operation of NamUs. 

I look forward to your questions and comments. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:] 

46 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. MORRIS


SLM-1.eps
47 


SLM-2.eps
48 


SLM-3.eps
49 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

We would like to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony. 

I just have a couple of questions. 

Mr. Morris, you kind of alluded to this. Does the bill appropriately limit the kind of information that can be put in to make 


SLM-4.eps
50 

sure that confidential law enforcement or private information is not 

accessible? 

Mr. MORRIS. I think the legislation addresses the discretion that 

law enforcement agencies have in what data should be entered into 

the system. 

I think it sufficiently addresses and acknowledges that there are 

some privacy concerns there by allowing the agencies to basically 

determine what information it wants to share. I think that is the 

beauty of our advisory policy board process. 

Through that forum, we were able to—that board is made up of 

approximately 32 officials, representatives throughout the country 

that represent the multiple jurisdictions that have law enforcement 

data in NCIC. 

And as we raise issues to them, much like what we are talking 

about today, we are able to present those issues and concerns to 

the board and, for lack of a better word, vet that information out 

through the—through the law enforcement community and get 

their input back, and hopefully develop a standard, universal—I 

guess universal standards that we—that allow them to abide by 

their local laws but also meeting the objectives of what we are trying to do here in sharing the information in a national system. 

Mr. SCOTT. Within the system, is there an appropriate protocol 

for preserving DNA evidence? If you have unidentified remains, 

how do you—is there a protocol for preserving the DNA evidence? 

Mr. MORRIS. I don’t believe that we have specifically discussed 

DNA to the level we have the other information. Our laboratory division is—actually manages the FBI’s CODIS and—national 

CODIS system, the national DNA system. We work and collaborate, obviously, with our laboratory division in leveraging the 

CODIS system with our IAFIS system and the different biometric 

systems we have. 

That clearly is something that we will be working with our laboratory division on to see what we will be able to do. Again, the 

CODIS system and the national DNA system is governed and managed by a different set of standards that our laboratory is actually 

the owner of, so I think—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you have an unidentified remains, what happens? Can you get DNA evidence into the system? 

Mr. MORRIS. Into the CODIS system, sir? 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, into the missing persons system so if you have 

a missing person or unidentified remains, they could be identified, 

could they not, by DNA? 

Mr. MORRIS. Right. The NCIC system currently today does not 

house DNA information. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that anticipated, Ms. Rose, in this legislation? 

Ms. ROSE. Actually, the way that it works now is that if—we 

offer free DNA analysis services to persons who enter information 

about the missing person or to the medical examiners and coroners 

who enter information on unidentified remains. 

That DNA is uploaded into CODIS, into the missing persons part 

of CODIS, and then there is an indication in the NamUs system 

as to whether DNA is available. So it is separate from the NamUs 

system, but the indicators are in the system as to whether DNA 

is available. 

51 

Mr. SCOTT. And if someone is missing, could you put in DNA 

from relatives if you don’t have the—— 

Ms. ROSE. Yes, you can. 

Mr. SCOTT.—DNA from the person, so that you could calculate a 

hit? 

Ms. ROSE. Absolutely. That is a very important part of this, that 

reference samples be taken from family members if they don’t have 

a DNA sample from the missing person. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. And there is obviously a backlog of information to be 

input. Is there a provision to input all of the backlogged information? 

Ms. ROSE. Well, I think that the grant program that is outlined 

in the legislation will go a long way toward doing that. One of the 

issues that law enforcement and medical examiner communities 

face right now are a lack of resources or capacity to be able to enter 

that information into the system. 

Providing grant funds to help them do that will exponentially 

help provide that information to the NamUs system and help solve 

additional cases. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there a mechanism to download or make available 

photographs or other tangible information into the system? 

Ms. ROSE. Yes, sir, there is. You are able to do that through 

NamUs. You can generate missing persons posters. There are photographs—where they are available, you can put in multiple photographs if you would like. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there anything we haven’t done in the bill that 

needs to be done? 

Ms. ROSE. Actually, I commend the work that has been done by 

Congressman Poe and Congressman Murphy on this bill. 

We are very supportive and very excited about authorizing 

NamUs, providing funds to help populate the NamUs system, and 

especially working with our colleagues at the FBI to be able to 

share more information between NCIC and NamUs to make it a 

better system. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Smolinski, we are well on our way to helping 

solve the problem for others. 

Ms. SMOLINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. So I think the questions and responses we have had 

have been very encouraging. Thank you. 

Ms. SMOLINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Judge Poe? 

Mr. POE. Once again, I want to thank you, all three of you, for 

being here, and my friend Mr. Murphy for sponsoring this legislation. 

It seems to me over my 30 years in the justice system that the 

number one concern that victims and victims’ family have is information. They want to know what is taking place, even sometimes 

more importantly than what happens to the offender. 

They want to know about the case, the information. And we are 

an information society now. We have the best geeks in the world 

right here in the United States. 

And I appreciate the fact, Ms. Smolinski, that you and your family have persevered, getting arrested—that is awful. And you did, 

52 

like the old saying, call your Congressman, and he responded. He 

has moved this legislation. 

The Committee is moving the legislation, with thanks to Chairman Scott. So the system is working to that extent. I think it is 

a piece of—this is a very good piece of legislation. 

I have a question for you. Myself and Mr. Murphy both are concerned about—you said that you had other such families that you 

have met and networked with. Describe the relationship with those 

families in a similar situation, your relationship with those people. 

Ms. SMOLINSKI. I am on the phone with families, three, four different families a day. This goes back to—when Billy first went 

missing, I met my first mother whose son went missing. 

I think it was the networking, reaching out on the telephone, and 

learning the process, because when my son went missing, I didn’t 

know that there was a disconnect between medical examiners and 

law enforcement. 

I called our medical examiner to see if he knew if a John Doe— 

if a John Doe came in, it may be my son, and if I knew—if he knew 

that he was missing, and he said no. So I had to fax him, reaching 

out through the Internet, and getting my own Web site, and—with 

Facebook and MySpace and all the other different sites, and telephone calls. 

I met families, had very similar situations, but yet they couldn’t 

reach out. They were devastated. And sometimes we have to go out 

and fight for them. 

I have the Quilt of Hope in front of me right now, and these are 

some of the families that I am working with. And each square was 

dedicated to them, and they were able to make the square the way 

they wanted to. 

I think that having the faces out there helps with the families 

to give them psychological encouragement, and they need hope. 

And with NamUs, that is tremendous hope for them, even with the 

psychological—they will be able to work with NamUs and be able 

to watch their case. And if there is something on there, they could 

correct it right away. 

I know with one family recently I have been working with, they 

thought the DNA was in the system, and we checked on it and the 

DNA was not in the system. So we need some kind of centralized— 

you know, so the families will be able to breathe a little bit and 

have some rest. This could happen to anyone. 

You know, if it happened to my 31-year-old son who weighs 200 

pounds, six feet tall—and he was the one that we always thought 

he could defend himself. And in this case, he didn’t, so—thank you. 

Mr. POE. Thanks. 

Just a couple more questions, Ms. Rose and Mr. Morris. There 

is a difference, I think, in our system between information about 

offenders, defendants, potential offenders and all of their privacy 

issues, and victims of crime who disappear. I see a difference in 

how we should treat both of those. 

Do you agree with that or disagree with that philosophy? In 

other words, we should have that information about people who go 

missing much more readily available to the community than, 

maybe, these other issues about offenders and all of that stuff. We 

just have a few—a minute left, so, Ms. Rose and Mr. Morris? 

53 

Ms. ROSE. Well, I think that you make an interesting point, and 

I think the beauty of NamUs here is that we have been able to provide information that has not been available typically to the general public. 

We all know that nobody is going to fight as hard or stay up as 

late into the night looking for missing persons as the families are. 

So being able to make NamUs available to the public and provide 

that unique heart of this database has really been the beauty of 

the system. 

And I think what makes it different, what makes it successful— 

and it has enabled us to get the buy-in not only from the law enforcement community, because they have benefitted very much 

from the involvement of the public—many of our success cases are 

because families, advocates, private citizens have stayed up late 

into the night searching NamUs and have discovered similarities 

between missing and unidentified dead. 

So I would say that being able to provide that information where 

we never have been able to do that before has been a huge benefit 

for this country. 

Mr. POE. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Quigley? 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, my questions were asked and answered, but I, too, want to thank Mr. Murphy and Mr. Poe for their 

efforts here, and the panel, and everyone in this room for their efforts in this extraordinary legislation. Thank you so much. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony 

today. Members may have additional written questions which we 

will forward to you and ask to be—that you would answer them 

promptly so that the answers can be made part of the record. 

We received a letter from the Department of Justice about H.R. 

3695 and I, without objection, will place that in the record. 

The record will remain open for 1 week for the submission of additional material. 

And again, Ms. Smolinski, we would like to thank you particularly for your testimony. This bill would not have taken place without your advocacy. Thank you very much. 

And without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(55) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

56 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY


B-1.eps
57 


B-2.eps
58 


B-3.eps
59 

f 


B-4.eps
60 

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE BOBBY SCOTT, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, 

TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY, FROM RONALD WEICH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

WASHINGTON, DC 


A-1.eps
61 


A-2.eps
62 

Æ 


A-3.eps