On behalf of Louis Freeh, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, we appreciate the opportunity to share with this Committee an update on the Bureau's activities relating to forensic DNA analysis and more specifically, the Combined DNA Index System or CODIS and our National DNA database.

For a brief historical perspective, toward the end of the 1980's, the Laboratory Division convened a group of Federal, State and local forensic scientists to establish guidelines for the use of forensic DNA analysis in laboratories. This group, know as the Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods or TWGDAM, not only developed the guidelines which formed the basis for our national quality assurance standards but they also proposed the creation of a national DNA database for the storage and exchange of DNA profiles developed from crime scenes. This proposal formed the genesis of the development of our CODIS program - software that enables Federal, State and local laboratories to store and compare DNA profiles electronically and thereby link serial crimes to each other and identify suspects by matching DNA from crime scenes to convicted offenders.

How exactly does CODIS work? For example, a sexual assault is committed and an evidence kit is collected from the victim. A DNA profile of the perpetrator is developed from the sexual assault evidence kit. If there is no suspect in the case or if the suspect's DNA profile does not match that of the evidence, the laboratory will search the DNA profile against the convicted offender index. If there is a match in the convicted offender index, the laboratory will obtain the identity of the suspected perpetrator. If there is no match in the convicted offender index, the DNA profile is searched in the forensic or crime scene index. If there is a match in the forensic index, the laboratory has linked two or more crimes together and the law enforcement agencies involved in the cases are able to pool the information obtained on each of the cases.

One of the underlying concepts behind CODIS is to create a database of the states's convicted offender profiles and use it to solve crimes for which there are no suspects. Recognizing this, as early as the late 1980's, states began to enact laws that required that offenders convicted of sexual offenses and other violent crimes provide DNA samples. These DNA samples were to be analyzed and entered into State DNA databases. As you know, all fifty states now have such DNA database laws. All fifty of these laws cover offenders convicted of sex offenses. Over half of these state laws also include offenders convicted of other violent crimes -such as murder, manslaughter, arson, kidnaping, robbery. Six states now cover all offenders convicted of a felony offense and proposals are pending in at least five other states to expand their databases to all felony offenders. See Attachment A - Chart of Qualifying Offenses. Unfortunately, there is currently a gap in achieving true national coverage since there is no express statutory authority for the collection of DNA samples from Federal offenders, military offenders and offender convicted of crimes committed in the District of Columbia. And I will address this point later in my remarks.

CODIS began as a pilot program in 1990 with a dozen participating State and local laboratories. Today, CODIS is in over 109 laboratories across the nation representing 43 states and the District of Columbia.

Is CODIS successful? Our primary method of gauging the effectiveness of the CODIS program is the number of investigations it assists by either identifying a perpetrator or by linking serial crimes. Thus far, CODIS has assisted in over 1,100 investigations in 24 states. See Attachment B - Investigations Aided.

We congratulate New York State for achieving their first DNA database hit last week. This CODIS hit solved a murder case of a young woman 22 years of age that occurred in 1979. Apparently, the Mount Vernon Police Department recently established a cold case squad, and at the request of the victim's family, submitted evidence from the old homicide to the crime laboratory. This evidence matched the DNA profile of an offender, Walter Gill, whose DNA sample had been taken in December when New York's expanded DNA law took effect. Mr. Gill is currently serving 10 to 20 years for robbery - an offense added to the New York law as of December 1, 1999.

While all 50 states have legislation authorizing the collection of DNA samples from categories of convicted offenders, there is also Federal legislation authorizing the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish a national DNA identification index. Contained within the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was the DNA Identification Act of 1994. This DNA Act has several important objectives – first, creation of a DNA Advisory Board to recommend quality assurance standards to the FBI Director; second, establishment of a national DNA identification index subject to quality assurance and privacy requirements; and third, funding for the CODIS program and for State and local laboratories to enhance or expand their DNA testing capabilities.

The DNA Advisory Board, authorized by the DNA Act, has been in existence for over five years and has recommended quality assurance standards for both forensic DNA laboratories and convicted offender DNA databasing laboratories. The FBI Director has issued these quality assurance standards as national standards for CODIS and participation in the national DNA index. Compliance with these quality assurance standards is also required for laboratories receiving Federal funding for DNA purposes.

The national DNA identification index, authorized by the DNA Act, has been in operation since October, 1998. Today, there are a total of 43 laboratories representing 24 States participating in the national index system. See Attachment C - NDIS Participating Laboratories. In preparation for the national index, the Department of Justice filed a Privacy Act notice announcing the new system of records that would be contained in the National DNA database. Significantly, it should be noted that the DNA records in the National DNA database are protected from unauthorized access through administrative, physical and technical safeguards. For example, DNA records in the National database contain the following information only: an agency identifier for the agency submitting the DNA profile; the specimen identification number; the DNA profile; and the name of the DNA personnel associated with the DNA analysis. It is also important to note that the DNA profiles generated according to national standards do not reveal information relating to a medical condition or disease. The Short Tandem Repeat (STR) core loci selected for use in CODIS were specifically selected as law enforcement identification markers because they were not directly linked to any genetic code for a medical condition.

The DNA Act also specifies the type of information that may be maintained in the National DNA database as well as disclosure requirements on those participating in the National database. Here, we would be remiss if we did not address concerns raised by privacy advocates that the DNA data and/or DNA samples may be used inappropriately or for unauthorized purposes. The DNA Act explicitly defines as follows who can access the DNA data and DNA samples in the National DNA database and for what purposes:

• to criminal justice agencies for law enforcement identification purposes;
• in judicial proceedings, if otherwise admissible pursuant to applicable statutes and rules;
• for criminal defense purposes, to a defendant who shall have access to samples and analyses performed in connection with his/her case; and
• if personally identifiable information is removed, for a population statistics database, for identification research and protocol development purposes, or for quality control purposes. 42 U.S.C.A.§14132(b)(3).

Significantly, the DNA Act provides that access to the National database is subject to cancellation if the quality control and privacy requirements are not met. Compliance with these disclosure and quality assurance criteria are also required as a condition of receiving Federal funds under the Bureau of Justice Assistance' Byrne Grant Program and the National Institute of Justice's Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Grant Program.

Another frequently espoused privacy concern is that some state laws appear to permit more access than that authorized in the DNA Act. Our review of the state DNA database laws indicate that 46 of these laws limit access to these DNA records, either by designating them as confidential or private or specifying authorized purposes similar to the DNA Act. While we would not disagree that some state laws appear to grant more access to the DNA data in their databases, at least half of the states contain provisions that are more restrictive than the DNA Act. And over 60% of the state laws (32 states) contain provisions that penalize the unauthorized disclosure of DNA data and/or DNA samples. Regardless of the specific provisions in state laws, states receiving Federal funding or participating in the National DNA database, and these two categories encompass all 50 states, certify their compliance with the limited access provisions in the DNA Act.

Now turning to the legislative proposals on DNA pending before this Subcommittee, to ascertain the capabilities of the forensic laboratories across the county, the FBI Laboratory has collected data annually from our CODIS sites. Based upon the information reported, it was apparent that the State and local forensic laboratories did not have the current capacities to analyze all the DNA samples collected from the convicted offenders, especially in states where they were collecting retroactively (in other words, collecting from incarcerated offenders or offenders on supervised release as of the law's effective date) or from offenders on probation and parole. See Attachment D - Convicted Offender Samples Collected to date. Obviously, it is important to collect from the retroactive and supervised population of offenders since they either will be shortly released into the community or they are already serving the remainder of their sentences in the community. In addition to these convicted offender samples, it was also apparent that the State and local forensic laboratories did not have the present capabilities to analyze all the biological evidence submitted to them by the law enforcement agencies. Many laboratories would prioritize these cases based upon whether a suspect has been identified and if a trial date was set, leaving those cases for which there was evidence but no identifiable suspect unanalyzed. This last group - cases without suspects - is what CODIS was specifically designed to help solve.

During the past decade, much of the country's attention was focused on obtaining the authority to collect samples from convicted offenders. To that goal, we acknowledge Senator DeWine and his State Identification System grant program which required, as a condition of eligibility, that a state have a law requiring the collection of a DNA sample from convicted sex offenders. Realizing the potential of this DNA technology, over half of the states have already returned to their Legislatures to expand the scope of their original DNA database laws. And also during this time, legal challenges to these laws have worked their way through the Federal and state court systems in 16 states with the result that each of these state laws has ultimately been upheld as constitutional. Our one remaining impediment to achieving truly national coverage for the National DNA database is the lack of express legislative authority for the collection of DNA samples from offenders convicted of federal crimes, military crimes and crimes committed in the District of Columbia. There is no reason why offenders convicted of crimes under the Federal, military or D.C. Codes should be afforded the opportunity to escape detection if they have also committed crimes under state jurisdiction. The FBI Laboratory has benefitted from the experiences of the states as they have implemented their DNA laws and is eager to close this gap in national coverage.

In studying those states where CODIS appears to be most effective, we have identified several factors that contribute to a successful DNA database program. First is enactment of a comprehensive DNA database law that covers the retroactive and supervised offender populations. To their credit, all 50 States have enacted laws authorizing the collection of DNA samples from certain categories of convicted offenders. We hope that the federal, military and D.C. offenders will be addressed by the pending Federal legislation. Second, ensure that DNA samples are collected from all eligible offenders and that those samples are analyzed and entered into CODIS. We know from our annual CODIS survey that the majority of states' analyses efforts are unable to keep pace with the collection of these convicted offender samples. Convicted offender samples, unlike casework, have been shown to be more amenable to automation and thus high throughput so that the per sample analysis costs of these samples is significantly less than casework samples. We would expect that the backlog reduction assistance authorized in current and pending Federal legislation would correct this imbalance and enable the states to have these samples analyzed and entered into CODIS so that if one of these convicted offenders reoffends, he/she will be identified for that first offense.

Third, and equally as important as the analysis of the convicted offender samples, is the analysis of the biological evidence collected from crime scenes, regardless of whether a suspect has been identified in that case. A large national database containing the DNA profiles of convicted offenders alone will not solve crimes. To maximize the potential of DNA as a law enforcement investigative tool, Federal, State and local forensic laboratories should develop the capacities to analyze all the cases (containing biological evidence) submitted to them. Here again, the additional funding contained in the pending Federal legislation should permit the development of such in-house capacities.

And fourth, compatible analysis methods must be used for both convicted offender and casework samples. With the acceptance of the 13 core STR loci as the national standard, this final factor for success has been institutionalized. To ensure the integrity of the National DNA database and the protection of privacy interests, we suggest continuation of the requirement that State and local laboratories receiving Federal funding comply with these national standards in accordance with the DNA Identification Act of 1994.

The FBI Laboratory is committed to the support of the CODIS program and will continue to work with State and local forensic laboratories to achieve the full potential of this investigative tool.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee and provide this update on CODIS and the National DNA database.

***

FBI Laboratory's First Cold Hit

The FBI Laboratory's first cold hit in the National index involved six sexual assault cases that the Laboratory had analyzed for the District of Columbia. The Laboratory linked these sexual assaults to one perpetrator, although still unknown. DNA profiles from several sexual assault cases submitted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement were linked in the National index to the six D.C. sexual assault cases. A few months later, the Florida Laboratory identified a individual involved in a drug related shooting for these sexual assault cases - and, in turn, solving the six D.C. sexual assault cases. As a footnote, three additional sexual assault cases analyzed for D.C. were linked to this same individual. The CODIS system solved nine D.C. and three Florida rapes.