PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 4, 2012
Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Registry Act of 2012 or the SAFER Act of 2012 - Amends the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to authorize the Attorney General to make Debbie Smith grants under such Act to states or local governments to conduct audits of samples of sexual assault evidence that are awaiting testing, provided such government submits an audit plan that includes a good-faith estimate of the number of such samples. Requires between 5% and 10% of Debbie Smith grant funds distributed in FY2014-FY2018 to be awarded for such purpose if sufficient applications to justify such amounts are received by the Attorney General, provided such award doesn't decrease funds for other distribution requirements.
Requires the Attorney General to establish a Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Registry that: (1) allows state and local governments to enter specified information about samples of sexual assault evidence in their possession that are awaiting testing, and (2) tracks the testing and processing of such samples. Requires such a government: (1) to complete a funded audit and enter such information about the sample into the Registry within one year after receiving a grant under this Act; (2) within 21 days after receiving a sample that was not in such government's possession at the time of the initiation of such audit, to enter information about such sample into the Registry; (3) to update the status of a sample within 30 days after any change; (4) to provide that the chief law enforcement officer of such government is the individual responsible for such government's compliance with registry requirements; and (5) to assign each sample a unique numeric or alphanumeric identifier. Exempts from such Registry-requirements samples that are not considered criminal evidence or that relate to a sexual assault for which the prosecution of each perpetrator is barred by a statute of limitations.
Requires the Attorney General to make publicly available on a website aggregate non-individualized and non-personally identifying data compiled from information required to be entered into the Registry, to allow for comparison of backlog data by state and local governments.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires, for each fiscal year through FY2018, not less than: (1) 40% of Debbie Smith grant amounts to be awarded to carry out DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes for inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System, and (2) 75% of grant amounts to be awarded for a combination of that purpose and to increase the capacity of state or local government laboratories to carry out DNA analyses.
People & committees
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX-2] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 6, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6628 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6628 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6628 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6628 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.