U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

95–120 PDF 2015

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 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

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 MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

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 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel 

JOE GRAUPENSPERGER, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

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 

(1) 

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:] 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

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. 
8 

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. 
9 

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 
10 

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 CODIScompatible 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 tech-
11 

nologies 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:] 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

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 tech-
19 

nologies, 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:] 
20 
21 
22 

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 

91⁄2 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 
23 

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:] 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

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 
30 

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. 
31 

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 
32 

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 
33 

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 91⁄2 years? 
34 

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 91⁄2 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? 
35 

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. 
36 

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.] 
(37) 

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. 

f 
38 

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. 

Æ