Order Code RL32824
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Federal Crime Control: Background,
Legislation, and Issues
Updated May 6, 2005
Lisa M. Seghetti, Coordinator,
Celinda Franco, Cindy Hill, Garrine Laney, and M. Ann Wolfe
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Federal Crime Control:
Background, Legislation, and Issues
Summary
States and localities have the primary responsibility for prevention and control
of domestic crime, while the federal government’s role is limited. As crime became
more rampant, the federal government has increased its involvement in crime control
efforts. Over a period of 20 years, Congress enacted five major anti-crime bills and
increased appropriations for federal assistance to state and local law enforcement
agencies. Since the terrorist attacks, however, federal law enforcement efforts have
been focused more on countering terrorism and maintaining homeland security. Amid
these efforts, however, Congress continues to address many crime-related issues.
Many have attributed the increased attention the federal government gave to
crime issues in the 1980s and 1990s to rising crime rates. The violent crime rate
began to increase in the 1960s, peaking in the late 1980s and mid-1990s and began
to decline in the late 1990s, continuing to the present day. The decline in the violent
crime rate coincides with national attention being focused away from domestic
crimes and more on securing the homeland against terrorism. The declining violent
crime rate coupled with the recent terrorist attacks have led Congress to focus federal
funding to first responders, while federal funding to state and local law enforcement
for more traditional crime fighting activities has seen a mix of increases and
decreases. The 108th Congress consolidated two popular grant programs into a newly
created grant program, but funded at a lower level — raising questions about the
amount and shape of federal support to state and local law enforcement in the future.
Other crime-related issues have also surfaced in recent years. For example, the
federal sentencing guidelines were called into question when the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down a provision in law that made them mandatory. Congress may consider
legislation that would address the Court’s concern with respect to the guidelines.
Congress may also revisit the issue of sentencing disparity with respect to crack and
powder cocaine. In addition to sentencing-related issues, other crime-related
legislation may be the subject of oversight or further refining by Congress. For
example, legislation that seeks to raise the standards of crime labs may continue to
be an interest to the Congress, reflecting the wide variability in quality in the labs.
Recently passed legislation aimed at protecting the public from sex offenders
has come into question with respect to its effectiveness. Congress may want to
examine more closely registration and notification laws and the sufficiency of federal
funding for state registration enforcement. Other possible issues include providing
oversight to the Department of Justice with respect to the development of national
standards for preventing sexual assaults in prisons. Additionally, Congress may
consider broadening the federal definition of hate crimes. Congress has begun to
consider a measure (H.R. 1279) that would broaden the scope of the federal
government’s role in prosecuting violent crimes committed by members of youth
gangs. With respect to gun control, Congress may consider legislation that would
extend the semiautomatic assault weapons ban, which expired last year, as well as
legislation that would regulate gun shows, among other things. This report will be
updated as legislation warrants.

---

Contents
Recent Legislative Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Post 9/11 Era and Crime Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Federal Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Federal Funding to State and Local Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Crime Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
DNA Testing for Law Enforcement Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
DNA Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Post-Conviction DNA Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Death Penalty Representation Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Prison Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Federal Prison Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Sex Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Youth Gangs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Hate Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Consolidation of Certain Office of
Justice Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Crime Victims Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Other Possible Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Federal Sentencing Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Gun Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A: Funding Trends for Selected DOJ Grant Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Edward Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Program . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program . . . . . . 22
The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program . . . . . . 22
Appendix B: List of Selected Crime-Related Legislation Enacted in the
108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Torture Victims Relief Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-179) . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2003
(P.L. 108-182) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

---

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003
(P.L. 108-193) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act (P.L. 108-275) . . . . . . . 24
Boys and Girls Club of America (P.L. 108-344) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-277) . . . . . . 25
The State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act of 2004
(P.L. 108-372) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act
of 2004 (P.L. 108-414) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
List of Figures
Figure 1. Violent Crime Rate, 1965-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2. Byrne Formula Grant Appropriations, FY1994 to FY2004 . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 3. LLEBG Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 4. COPS Appropriations, FY1995 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

---

Federal Crime Control:
Background, Legislation, and Issues
Recent Legislative Developments
The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005 (H.R. 1279) was
reported out (with amendments) of the House Judiciary Committee on May 5, 2005.
Among other things, the measure would amend current law to include a new section
that would define a criminal street gang. It would also subject several categories of
gang-related offenses to mandatory minimum sentences. H.R. 1279 would authorize
appropriations for gang-related investigations and grant programs to assist state and
local prosecutors to combat violent crimes, among other things.
Introduction
The 108th Congress considered, and in some cases passed, a variety of crime-
related legislation. This report focuses on some of the legislation considered (and in
some cases acted upon) in the 108th Congress that may continue to be of interest to
the 109th Congress as well as other crime-related issues. Following is a list of
possible issues the 109th Congress may consider with respect to crime-related matters
that are covered in this report, including:
! oversight of the federal grant programs that assist states and
localities in testing DNA samples in relevant criminal cases,
including those cases where the defendant has already been
convicted of a crime;
! oversight of federal assistance to states for the purpose of improving
death penalty representation;
! reforming the Federal Prison Industries system;
! oversight of federal assistance to states to reduce the incidence of
prison rape;
! assessing the effectiveness of sex offender registration and
notification laws and the adequacy of federal assistance to states for
such programs;
! the federal role in combating youth gangs;
! the federal role in combating hate crimes;
! oversight of the consolidation of several federal grant programs that
assist state and local law enforcement efforts to prevent and control
crime;
! reauthorization of the Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) program;

---

CRS-2
! amending the Constitution to include an amendment on crime
victims rights;
! reforming the federal sentencing system, including addressing the
sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine;
! reauthorization of the ban on the manufacture, transfer, or
possession of semiautomatic assault weapons; and
! regulating of gun shows.
This report focuses on crime-related issues that may be of interest to the 109th
Congress.1 This report, however, does not cover issues related to homeland security,
terrorism, abortion and drug control.2
Background
Traditionally, states and localities have the primary responsibility for prevention
and control of domestic crime, while the federal government’s role is limited. As
crime became more rampant and diverse (i.e., transnational and white-collar crimes),
the federal government increased its involvement in domestic law enforcement
through a series of grant programs to encourage and assist states and communities in
their efforts to control crime. Over a period of 20 years, Congress enacted five major
anti-crime bills3 and increased appropriations for federal assistance to state and local
law enforcement agencies. Moreover, prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) had seen an expansion of its role
in fighting domestic crime as Congress began to add more crimes that were
previously under the sole jurisdiction of state and local governments to the federal
criminal code.4 Within the past several years, however, some federal assistance to
state and local law enforcement has declined and federal post 9/11 law enforcement
efforts have focused primarily on protecting the nation against terrorist attacks, as
discussed below.
1 Appendix B lists other crime-related measures that were passed in the previous Congress.
2 For information on these topics, please see the CRS website at [http://www.crs.gov/] for
related reports and the following issue briefs: CRS Issue Brief IB95095, Abortion:
Legislative Response, by Karen J. Lewis and Jon O. Shimabukuro; and CRS Issue Brief
IB10113, War on Drugs: Legislation in the 108th Congress and Related Developments, by
Mark Eddy.
3 See for example, the Crime Control Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473); the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1986 (P.L. 99-570); the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690); the Crime Control
Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647); and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994 (P.L. 103-322).
4 Beginning in 1986 and continuing well beyond the passage of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322), Congress passed legislation that made
some crimes a federal offense (in addition to their existing state violation). These crimes
had been under the sole jurisdiction of states.

---

CRS-3
Post 9/11 Era and Crime Control
With somewhat lower levels of funding, federal crime control efforts focus on
fighting domestic crime and providing state and local law enforcement with
supplementary resources (i.e., funding for hiring, equipment and training). The
Department of Justice (DOJ) administers several federal grant programs for state and
local law enforcement that are aimed at preventing or controlling crime. In addition
to these programs, DOJ has authority over several federal law enforcement agencies,
including the FBI; the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA); the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the U.S. Marshals Service. While the 107th
Congress passed legislation that reauthorized many of the programs and agencies that
fall under the DOJ’s jurisdiction,5 many of these programs and agencies will be up
for reauthorization in the near future.
Federal Law Enforcement. As stated previously, since the terrorist attacks,
federal crime control efforts have primarily focused on counterterrorism measures
and providing state and local law enforcement with tools and resources to fight
terrorism. At the federal level, law enforcement agencies like the FBI reorganized
to focus its resources on terrorism-related investigations. While officials in the FBI
contend that the shift in focus has not impacted its ability to carry out its traditional
role of investigating domestic crime, resources may have been diverted away from
traditional crime fighting areas to strengthen counterterrorism capabilities, leaving
a deficit only state and local law enforcement can fill. Whether or not the FBI’s
focus on counterterrorism measures interferes with its ability to carry out its
traditional role remains an issue. According to the Government Accountability
Office (GAO), “data examined are inconclusive about the effect of the shifts in the
FBI’s priorities after September 11 on federal efforts to combat drug, white-collar,
and violent crime.”6
Federal Funding to State and Local Law Enforcement. State and local
law enforcement agencies had seen a steady increase in federal support during the
1980s and 1990s. Since the terrorist attacks, however, some federal funding to state
and local law enforcement for traditional crime fighting activities has declined. For
example, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program and the COPS
program have seen a mix of slight increases and decreases in appropriations over the
past five years (see Appendix A). Appropriations for the Edward Byrne Memorial
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance formula grant program, however, had
remained constant over the past five years until it was consolidated with the LLEBG,
see discussion below and in Appendix A. The Edward Byrne Memorial State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Discretionary grant program, however, has seen
an increase in appropriations (see Appendix A). While some federal funding for
state and local law enforcement has declined somewhat in recent years, federal
5 See the Department of Justice Reauthorization Act, P.L. 107-273.
6 U.S. Government Accountability Office, FBI Transformation: Data Inconclusive on
Effects of Shift to Counterterrorism-Related Priorities on Traditional Crime Enforcement,
GAO-04-1036, Aug. 2004.

---

CRS-4
funding to state and local law enforcement for counterterrorism-related training and
equipment has increased since the terrorist attacks.7
Crime Statistics
While many attributed the increased attention the federal government gave to
crime issues in the mid to late 1980s and throughout the 1990s in part to the rising
crime rate, questions about police effectiveness in responding to the problem and
limited funds at the state and local levels have also been cited. Crime statistics are
collected at the state and local levels and disseminated by the federal government.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR) program compiles data from monthly
reports transmitted directly to the FBI from local police departments or to state
agencies that compile such data and then report the data to the FBI. Of interest to law
makers are the two indexes of crimes that are the basis for the UCR and are detailed
in it. The Part I Index includes the four major violent crimes of homicide and
nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. The Part
II Index includes the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft
and arson.
According to the UCR, Part I Index crimes (violent crimes) began to increase
sharply in the 1960s, peaking in the late 1980s to mid 1990s and began to decline in
the late 1990s, continuing to the present day (see Figure 1). The UCR shows that
violent crime continued to decline in 2003, with the exception of the murder rate,
which increased by 1.3% in 2003.8 Despite an increase in homicide, the UCR
suggests that the nation’s violent crime declined 3.2% in 2003 when compared to the
previous year. Violent crime in urban areas (cities with more than one million
inhabitants) had an even greater reduction (6.5 %) when compared to 2002 data.
7 For additional information on federal funding for first responders, see
[http://www.congress.gov/erp/legissues/html/isdhs6.html].
8 The 2003 UCR contains the latest data available.

---

CRS-5
Figure 1. Violent Crime Rate, 1965-2003
800
750
729.6
713.6
700
650
596.6
600
550
558.1
506.1
487.8
500
475
450
400
363.5
350
300
250
200
160.9
150
100
50
0
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2003
Year
Source: FBI’s UCR for each respective year (see 1965, 1970, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2002 and
2003 Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice, Crime in the United States Uniform
Crime Report).
The decline in the crime rate has led recent Congresses, in part, to take another
look at federal funding for state and local law enforcement, as discussed below.
Despite the declining crime rates, however, Congress continues to pass “get tough”
measures for certain categories of offenders by increasing existing penalties or
creating new categories of penalties (i.e., mandatory minimum sentences), as also
discussed below.
Following is a discussion of recently enacted legislation and selected ongoing
issues with respect to the legislation that may be of interest to the 109th Congress.
DNA Testing for Law Enforcement Legislation9
The analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence has been an important
tool in law enforcement. DNA analysis has significantly changed the way crime
scenes are investigated and how prosecutions are conducted. The FBI started its
DNA database in 1988. Since then, the FBI has led law enforcement agencies
throughout the United States to standardize DNA analyses to be entered into the
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).
9 See CRS Report RL32247, DNA Testing for Law Enforcement: Legislative Issues for
Congress, by Cindy Hill.

---

CRS-6
The collection of DNA for use in criminal investigations has grown much faster
than the capacity to analyze it. As a result, many publicly funded laboratories across
the country have been experiencing tremendous difficulty in meeting the demand and
reducing the backlog of requests. Meanwhile, all states and the District of Columbia
have enacted legislation to require DNA samples to be taken from those convicted
of certain criminal offenses. During the 1990s and more recently, congressional
concern over the need for federal assistance to crime laboratories led to the enactment
of several measures, including the Justice for All Act in the 108th Congress.
Among other things, the Justice for All Act (P.L. 108-405) improves and
expands DNA testing capacity of crime laboratories. The act authorizes funding for
training relevant law enforcement personnel in the collection, handling, and use of
DNA evidence and creates several grant programs related to DNA training,
education, research and development among other things. While participation in
these grant programs is voluntary, in order to receive funding, state and local
government crime laboratories are required to receive professional accreditation
within two years of passage of the act and must undergo external audits to
demonstrate compliance with the standards established by the FBI at least every two
years. With respect to maintaining the privacy of DNA evidence, the act expands the
criminal code provisions that criminalize unauthorized disclosure of DNA
information and sets penalties for such violations.

The act also requires the Attorney General to appoint a Commission to assess
the needs of the forensic science community, provide a forum for the exchange and
dissemination of ideas and information regarding forensic science technologies and
techniques, and make recommendations to the Attorney General regarding such
technologies.
The act authorizes funding for various DNA activities administered by the FBI.
It also authorizes funding to promote the use of DNA technology to identify missing
persons and unidentified human remains; and requires each entity that receives such
funding to submit the DNA profiles of missing persons and unidentified human
remains to the National Missing Persons DNA Database of the FBI.
DNA Backlog
The Justice for All Act reauthorizes an existing grant program that provides
funding to states to assist with eliminating certain types of DNA backlogs. The act
amends current law10 by providing formula grants to state and local governments to
perform DNA analysis of samples collected from convicted individuals and violent
crime scenes, including sexual assaults. It also amends current law11 by allowing
states to include in the CODIS the DNA profiles of persons whose DNA samples
have been collected under applicable legal authorities, including those authorized by
state law as well as all felons convicted of federal crimes and qualifying military
10 See the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-546).
11 See the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132).

---

CRS-7
offenses. CODIS “keyboard searches” are also permitted by authorized state or
federal users.12
The issue of raising the standards of state and local crime laboratories to that of
the FBI standards may continue to be an interest of the Congress. Under the Justice
for All Act, state and local crime laboratories that desire to receive federal funding
to test DNA samples are required to be accredited through a private source and such
accreditation is required to meet the FBI’s standards. While it is not clear how many
crime laboratories there are in the United States,13 experts approximate that there are
between 400 and 450 crime laboratories,14 of which only 174 meet the FBI standards
for testing DNA technology.15 Concerns may continue to exist with respect to those
laboratories that are not accredited and the potential for DNA evidence tested in the
non-accredited laboratories providing inaccurate results. With respect to the newly
created grant programs, Congress may choose to exercise its oversight role in making
sure the programs are meeting their objectives.
Post-Conviction DNA Testing
In recent years, there has been an increasing number of offenders sentenced to
death at the state level who have been exonerated through DNA testing. While most
states have made provisions for post-conviction DNA testing, they do not currently
permit new trials based on newly discovered evidence more than three years after
conviction. Title IV of the Justice for All Act, the Innocence Protection Act, amends
current law by requiring the Attorney General to provide DNA testing of material
evidence for federal prisoners who assert their innocence. Among other things, the
act sets forth conditions under which federal prisoners could obtain post-conviction
DNA testing and a requirement that the government preserve such biological
evidence, unless otherwise specified under the act. In addition to federal post-
conviction DNA testing, the act requires the Attorney General to establish a grant
program for states to “... to help defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing.”16
The act also established incentive grants to states to encourage DNA testing of
offenders sentenced to death by an accredited laboratory. As a condition for
receiving the grant, states must develop plans to ensure that there is prompt DNA
12 A keyboard search is an online effort to match a DNA sample that can be collected under
state law but not added to CODIS (e.g., an arrest sample) with a DNA sample in CODIS
(e.g., samples collected from convicted offenders or at a crime scene).
13 According to Keith Kenneth Coonrod, Chair of the Consortium of Forensic Science
Organizations, “We actually don’t know how many forensic laboratories exist in the United
States as many facilities never before considered as crime laboratories are now providing
forensic examinations in one or more forensic disciplines and therefore, should be
included.” U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, DNA Crime Labs: The Paul
Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act, 107th Cong., 1st sess., May 15, 2001
(Washington: GPO, 2001).
14 Ibid.
15 Conversation with the FBI’s Congressional Affairs Office, Jan. 2005.
16 P.L. 108-405, §412.

---

CRS-8
testing of people who may have been wrongly convicted, while at the same time
ensuring that procedures are in place to discourage frivolous testing. In addition to
the grant program, the act establishes post-conviction DNA testing standards and
procedures for federal offenders who could not have obtained such forensic testing
at the time of their trials.
The act requires the Attorney General to submit DNA test results to the National
DNA Index System under the following circumstances:
! if the current test results are inconclusive;
! if the results show that the offender was the source of the DNA
evidence; or
! if the results show that the offender’s DNA matches the DNA
collected from another offense.
The act requires that if the results from the DNA sample of the offender do not match
the DNA evidence sample or that of another offense, the DNA sample of the offender
must be destroyed. The act also specifies who should incur the cost of the testing
under which circumstances and establishes a threshold for granting a motion for a
new trial.
Death Penalty Representation Grants
In addition to the DNA testing grants previously mentioned, the Innocence
Protection Act also authorizes grants to states for the following: (1) to improve the
representation of indigent defendants by defense attorneys in capital cases; and (2)
to improve the ability of prosecutors to represent the public in capital cases.
The Innocence Protection Act may be one of the most contentious sections in
the act. Its expressed aim is not only to exonerate the innocent through DNA testing
in the form of post-conviction DNA testing and incentive grants to states to ensure
consideration of claims of actual innocence; it is also aimed at improving the quality
of representation in state capital cases through capital representation improvement
grants and capital prosecution improvement grants. As the provisions under the
Innocence Protection Act are being implemented, Congress may want to exercise its
oversight role in making certain the various grant programs are meeting their
objectives. It is not yet clear to what extent the grant programs will assist
jurisdictions in providing DNA testing in relevant cases and to what extent, if any,
these programs may lead to disparities across jurisdictions (in particular for those
jurisdictions that declined to obtain funding).
Prison Legislation
The 108th Congress considered several pieces of legislation (and passed two
laws) that (1) affected the way in which federal prisons provide training, job skills
and manage inmates; (2) provide incentives to states to begin addressing rape in

---

CRS-9
prisons;17 and (3) require the establishment of a grant program that supports
cooperative efforts by state or local criminal justice and mental health agencies to
provide services to incarcerated mentally ill offenders.18 While the latter two pieces
of legislation were enacted into law in the 108th Congress, legislation that would have
reformed Federal Prison Industries (FPI) failed to pass the Senate in the 108th
Congress. The 109th Congress may consider similar legislation. This issue is
discussed below.
Federal Prison Industries19
UNICOR, the trade name for Federal Prison Industries, Inc., is a government-
owned corporation that employs offenders incarcerated in correctional facilities under
the Federal Bureau of Prisons. FPI manufactures products and provides services that
are sold to executive agencies in the federal government. The question of whether
FPI is unfairly competing with private businesses, particularly small businesses, in
the federal market has been and continues to be an issue of debate. At the core of the
debate is FPI’s preferential treatment over the private sector. FPI’s enabling
legislation and the Federal Acquisition Regulation require federal agencies, with the
exception of the Department of Defense, to procure products offered by FPI, unless
authorized by FPI to solicit bids from the private sector. It is this “mandatory source
clause” that has drawn controversy over the years and is the subject of current
legislation. While federal agencies are not required to procure services provided by
FPI they are encouraged to do so.
Although the Administration has recently made several efforts to mitigate the
competitive advantage FPI has over the private sector, Congress has taken legislative
action to lessen such impact on the private sector. For example, in 2002 and 2003,
Congress passed legislation that modified FPI’s mandatory source clause with respect
to procurements made by the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence
Agency;20 and in recent years, Congress passed legislation limiting federal agencies
use of appropriated funds for the purchase of products or services manufactured by
FPI unless the agency determines that the products or services provide “... the best
value to the buying agency pursuant to government-wide procurement
regulations....”21
Legislation introduced in the 108th Congress would have, in essence, eliminated
FPI’s mandatory source clause. For example, the House passed the Federal Prison
Industries Competition Act of 2003 (H.R. 1829), which would have phased out over
17 See discussion below on Prison Rape Elimination Act (P.L. 108-79).
18 See Appendix B for a description of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime
Reduction Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-414).
19 For additional information, see CRS Report RL32380, Federal Prison Industries, by Lisa
M. Seghetti.
20 See the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107); the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-314); and the Intelligence
Authorization Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-177).
21 See §637 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447).

---

CRS-10
five years FPIs’ mandatory source clause with respect to products produced by FPI
and would have ceased treating FPI as a preferential provider for services. A similar
measure (S. 346) was reported out of the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs, but not enacted. The issue for Congress is whether it wants to reform the
FPI, and if so, to what extent.
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
While prison violence in general is documented, sexual assaults in prisons have
not been well documented. Prison rape may be a symptom of a larger problem that
faces many prisons throughout the country. Overcrowded and understaffed prisons
as well as prisons that lack sufficient services may, among other things, lead to idle
inmates without adequate supervision and contribute to violence.
The 108th Congress considered and passed legislation that requires the Attorney
General to develop national standards for preventing sexual assaults in prisons.
Among other things, the PREA22 requires the Attorney General to (1) begin gathering
national statistics about the prevalence of prison rape; (2) develop guidelines for
states about how to address the problem; (3) create a commission to study the effects
of prison rape and correctional policies on rape reduction; and (4) provide grants to
states to combat the problem. In making such grants, however, the act requires the
grantee (state administrator) to certify that the state has adopted national rape
prevention standards (as promulgated by the Attorney General), among other things.
While PREA has been viewed as a necessary step to begin to correct the
problem of prison rape, until Congress and the federal government provide a
mechanism for independent oversight of state prison facilities, other issues may
continue to persist. For example, conditions and services in state prison facilities are
not monitored by an independent, centralized entity. Responsibility for oversight of
prison conditions varies from state to state, with some jurisdictions having few if any
monitoring mechanisms. The American Correctional Association (ACA) provides
accreditation for state correctional facilities, however, it is done on a voluntary
basis.23 The issue for Congress is whether it wants to monitor conditions in state
prison facilities, and if so, in what manner and degree. One option Congress may
consider is to tie existing federal assistance to state prisons to accreditation, similar
to the requirements set forth for funding for DNA testing mentioned above.
22 P.L. 108-79.
23 According to the ACA, approximately 80% of state departments of corrections and youth
services are accredited.

---

CRS-11
Sex Offenders24
The 108th Congress passed legislation that strengthened penalties for certain
categories of sex offenders. The Prosecuting Remedies and Tools Against the
Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-21) was designed
to prevent the abduction and sexual exploitation of children. It includes provisions
that (1) increase penalties for sexually abusing a minor; (2) permit a maximum life
term of supervised release for sexual offenders convicted of sexually exploiting a
minor; (3) provide a life imprisonment penalty after two-strikes for repeat offenders
who commit certain crimes against children; and (4) provide funding to assist state
and local law enforcement agencies in enforcing registration of convicted sex
offenders and apprehending and prosecuting anyone who fails to register. In
addition, it requires each state to establish and maintain, within three years, an
internet site for the release of information on a sex offender and to create a process
for correcting allegedly erroneous information on the internet site. The act permits
the Attorney General to extend for an additional two years the time-frame for
completing this requirement. The act requires child pornographers to register in the
national sex offender registry. It also authorizes funding for assistance to states in
enforcing sex offender registration requirements.
Another provision of the law which could affect the identification of sex
offenders involves the use of DNA. The act provides that within a five-year statute
of limitations, federal prosecutors can issue an indictment identifying an unknown
defendant by a DNA profile. If the indictment is issued within this time frame, the
statute of limitation is nullified until the perpetrator is identified at a later date
through the DNA profile.
Measures relating to sex offender registration were considered but not acted
upon in the 108th Congress. These measures contained provisions that would have
(1) maintained a DNA database for high risk sex offenders; (2) removed the statute
of limitations for child abduction and sex crimes; (3) denied pretrial release for those
charged with raping or kidnapping a child; (4) imposed the death penalty for kingpins
of child sex slave trafficking enterprises; (5) revoked probation or supervised release
for those who commit a felonious crime or have sex with anyone under age 16; (6)
provided grants to assist states in registering convicted sex offenders; and (7)
clarified standards for state sex offender registration programs.25
Congress has passed legislation to protect the public from sex offenders by
confining them, and upon their release, tracking their movements. Policy arguments
concerning these laws, however, question their effectiveness, and their strengths and
24 For additional information on sex offender legislation, see CRS Report RL32800, Sex
Offender Registration and Community Notification Law: Enforcement and Other Issues, by
Garrine Laney; CRS Report RS21597, Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes:
the PROTECT Act and Legislative Proposals in the 108th Congress; CRS Report RL31917,
The PROTECT (Amber Alert) Act and the Sentencing Guidelines, both by Charles Doyle.
25 See for example the following bills that were introduced in the 108th Congress: H.R. 89;
H.R. 351; H.R. 456; H.R. 889; H.R. 1362; H.R. 2539/S. 1123; H.R. 3913; H.R. 3929/S.
2154; H.R. 4150; H.R. 4489; S. 644; S. 797; S. 798; S. 807; S. 810; and S. 1102.

---

CRS-12
weaknesses. The issue for Congress is whether these laws have proven to be
effective. The 109th Congress may want to examine more closely registration and
notification laws, the sex offender recidivism rate, state procedures for tracking sex
offenders, and the sufficiency of federal funding for state registration enforcement.26
Youth Gangs
Gang activity in the United States has been traced back to the early 19th century
when youth gangs emerged from some immigrant populations. It has been estimated
that in 1855, New York City alone had more than 30,000 gang members.27
According to the findings of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
2002 (P.L. 107-273), in 1970 only 19 states reported youth gang problems. Congress
found that by the late 1990s, all 50 states and the District of Columbia were reporting
gang problems.28 Youth gangs continue to be a pervasive problem, particularly in
large cities across the country. While there is no single definition of what constitutes
a “gang”or gang activity, some researchers agree that such a definition would include
violent gangs, drug-dealing gangs, entrepreneurial or money-making gangs, and
delinquent gangs. Gangs contribute to high rates of violent crime, instill fear in
citizens, and engage in a wide range of troublesome behavior that can include
vandalism and graffiti to drug dealing, property crime, weapons violations and
violence.
According to the most recent survey of law enforcement agencies on the
characteristics of youth gangs conducted by the National Youth Gang Center
(NYGC)29, gang activity is pervasive in both urban and rural America. Cities with
populations of 250,000 or more all reported youth gang problems in 2002. Of cities
with populations between 100,000 and 249,999, 87% reported youth gang problems.
Among responding suburban county agencies, 38% reported gang activity, as did
27% of responding smaller city agencies, and 12% of responding rural county
agencies. Youth gangs were active in more than 2,300 cities with a population of
2,500 or more and in more than 550 jurisdictions served by county law enforcement
agencies. The survey also estimated that approximately 731,500 gang members and
21,500 gangs were active in the United States in 2002. Larger cities and suburban
counties accounted for approximately 85% of the estimated number of gang members
in 2002.
Policymakers have long considered comprehensive approaches to youth gangs,
generally that involve a combination of prevention, intervention, and suppression
26 See CRS Report RL32800, Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Law:
Enforcement and Other Issues, by Garrine Laney.
27 Kenneth J. Peak and Timothy Griffin, Gangs: Origin, Status, Community Responses, and
Policy Implications, Roslyn Muraskin and Albert R. Roberts in Visions for Change Crime
and Justice in the Twenty-First Century, Fourth Edition, 2004, p. 44.
28 P.L. 107-273, 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Nov.
2, 2002, Division C, Title II, §12202.
29 See [http://www.iir.com/nygc/].

---

CRS-13
efforts. The Congress has been concerned with the problem of youth gangs and over
the years enacted enhanced criminal penalties for gang activities and programs
designed to prevent gang activities. As was the case in the 108th Congress, several
bills targeting the youth gang problem have been introduced in the 109th Congress.
The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005 (H.R. 1279), however,
is the only measure that has received legislative attention. H.R. 1279 would amend
the federal criminal code by including language that would enhance penalties for
individuals participating in a criminal street gang who have committed certain
violent crimes, among other things. It would also expand federal authority to
prosecute gang members under a certain age as adults. H.R. 1279 would authorize
grant programs that would enable prosecutors to more effectively address gang
violence or gang prevention activities, among other things.30 On May 5, 2005, an
amended version of H.R 1279 was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee.
Hate Crimes
The Hate Crime Statistics Act became law in 1990, P.L. 101-275, and required
the collection of information on crimes motivated by a bias based on race, religion,
sexual orientation or ethnicity. In 1994, P.L. 103-322 amended the law to include
bias against the disabled as a hate crime. The Attorney General designated the FBI,
working cooperatively with state and local law enforcement agencies, to establish a
uniform method for gathering hate crime data. Hate crime data collection became
a permanent part of the FBI’s UCR in 1996.
In 2003, more than 17,000 city, county and state law enforcement agencies
reported data on hate crimes to the national UCR program. Before a crime is labeled
a hate crime, law enforcement must reveal sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable
and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole
or in part, by his or her bias. There were 7,489 reported hate crimes in 2003, four of
which were multiple-bias hate crime incidents, with the remaining 7,485 reported as
single-bias incidents. Within the 7,485 incidents, 51.4% of the single-bias hate crime
incidents were committed because of the offenders’ racial bias (66.3% were an anti-
black bias, 21.2% were an anti-white bias); 17.9% were due to religious bias (69.2%
were an anti-Jewish bias, 10.9% were an anti-Islamic bias); 16.6% were attributed
to sexual-orientation bias, and 13.7% occurred because of an ethnicity/national origin
bias. Disability bias motivated 0.4% of the single-bias incidents.31
For several Congresses, attempts have been made to stiffen penalties for crimes
of violence motivated by bias. The 108th Congress considered legislation, the Local
Law Enforcement Act of 2003 (S. 966/H.R. 4204) that would have broadened the
federal definition of hate crimes and provided federal assistance to investigate and
prosecute such acts; and included offenses involving animus toward the victim’s
actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, or disability as among the qualifying
30 Other bills that have been introduced include The Gang Prevention and Effective
Deterrence Act of 2005 (S. 155/H.R. 970).
31 FBI’s Hate Crime Statistics, 2003, see [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf].

---

CRS-14
factors. The current definition includes offenses based on animus toward the
victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, or disability. The
Local Law Enforcement Act became a part of the National Defense Authorization for
FY2005 (S. 2400). But during the conference between the House and the Senate to
settle the differences between the two versions of the defense authorization bills the
conference report was agreed to without including the hate crimes provision.32 The
issue for Congress is whether it wishes to reopen the hate crime issues considered but
not enacted during the 108th Congress.
Consolidation of Certain Office of
Justice Programs33

The structure of federal funding for state and local law enforcement assistance
efforts has recently received Congressional attention. While the Administration has
proposed decreasing the funding amounts and reorganizing some of these programs
for several years, it wasn’t until the 108th Congress that two federal grant programs
were consolidated into a newly created program, as discussed briefly below.
For several years, the Administration had proposed consolidating the Edward
Byrne Memorial Formula and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG)
programs into a new Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. Congress, however,
first considered consolidating the two grant programs in the 108th Congress when the
House passed the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, FY2004 -
FY2006 (H.R. 3036). A similar measure was introduced in the Senate (S. 2863),
however, no action was taken on it. Through an appropriations act (the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, FY2005; P.L. 108-447), the 108th Congress consolidated the
grant programs into a newly created Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grants (JAG) program. In addition, overall funding for both programs in the FY2005
appropriations decreased 12% (or $268 million) from FY2004 (see Appendix A).
The Administration’s FY2006 budget request proposes to eliminate the JAG
program. Congress may wish to exercise its oversight powers to determine whether
the needs of state and local governments are being met through the new JAG
program.
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
During the 103rd Congress, legislation was passed that encouraged community
policing approaches (i.e., placing more police officers “on the beat”) for state and
local law enforcement agencies by creating a federal grant program for community
policing. Funding for the newly created Cops on the Beat program (now more
commonly known as the COPS program) was authorized through FY2000. The
32 For a detailed discussion on hate crimes, see CRS Report RL32850, Hate Crimes: Legal
Issues, by Paul S. Wallace.
33 See Appendix A for a discussion of the funding history for the major Office of Justice
Programs (OJP).

---

CRS-15
COPS program provides assistance to eligible police departments to help improve
community policing efforts and law enforcement support activities. The program
requires that at least 85% of the grant money be used for the following: (1) to hire
or rehire police officers; (2) procure equipment; (3) pay overtime; or (4) build
support systems.
The authority for the COPS grant program lapsed at the end of FY2000,
Congress, however, has continued to appropriate funding for the program. In the
108th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a new COPS
Enhancement Grants program as authorized by the Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act, FY2005 through FY2007 (H.R. 3036/S. 2863).34
The program would have consolidated some of the COPS activities. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447), however, does not include language
that was in the House passed authorization act (H.R. 3036). P.L. 108-477 includes
$606 million in funding for the COPS program for FY2005 (excluding a $99 million
rescission), a reduction from the $748 million appropriated by Congress for FY2004
(see Appendix A). The issue for Congress is whether it wants to reauthorize the
program. The 109th Congress may consider legislation to reauthorize COPS or
restructure its activities still further, or to maintain the status quo — with the
possibility that the program may be maintained through appropriations action or even
terminated by lack thereof.
Crime Victims Rights
As has occurred since the 104th Congress, several Constitutional Amendments
(S.J.Res. 1, H.J.Res. 10 and H.J.Res. 48) were introduced in the 108th Congress to
protect the rights of crime victims.35 When it became apparent in the 108th Congress
that the necessary two-thirds super-majority needed to pass a Constitutional
Amendment was not available, efforts were initiated to introduce a bill that proposed
a statutory alternative. It was argued that the provisions in the Victims’ Rights Bill
(S. 2329) would serve to strengthen the statute that already existed and also serve as
a test to determine if a statute, rather than a constitutional amendment, could work
to provide the necessary protection for victim rights. S. 2329 passed the Senate on
April 22, 2004. The provisions of S. 2329 were included in H.R. 5107, Justice for
All Act of 2004, and became P.L. 108-405 on October 30, 2004.
The crime victims rights listed in P.L. 108-405 are similar to the rights listed in
the proposed constitutional amendment (i.e., to be reasonably protected from the
accused; to reasonable, accurate and timely notice of any court proceeding or parole
proceeding affecting the accused; to be heard at any public court proceeding; to
34 The provision in both the House and Senate bills pertaining to the COPS program is
similar.
35 For more information on the Constitutional Amendments, see CRS Report RL31750,
Victims’ Rights Amendment: A Proposal to Amend the United States Constitution in the
108th Congress; and CRS Report RS21434, Victims’ Rights Amendment: A Sketch of a
Proposal in the 108th Congress to Amend the United States Constitution, both by Charles
Doyle.

---

CRS-16
confer with the Attorney for the Government; to full and timely restitution; to
proceedings without undue delay; and to be treated with fairness and with respect to
victim’s dignity and privacy). It was observed during Senate debate that the states
might look to the federal statute as a model and incorporate it into their own systems
because the federal statute encourages legal assistance grants and victim notification
grants to states that have laws substantially equivalent to the federal statute.
Enforcement mechanisms are more stringent in the legislation than is present in the
statute it replaces. Victims with standing are able to apply for a writ of mandamus to
a court of appeals to enforce the rights outlined in this law. An administrative
procedure is established in the Justice Department to receive and investigate victims’
claims of unlawful or inappropriate action on the part of criminal justice and victims’
service providers. Also, Department of Justice employees could face disciplinary
sanctions, including suspension or termination of employment if they fail to comply
with the law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims.
As noted, while there was an unsuccessful effort to pass a Constitutional
amendment regarding victims of crime in the 108th Congress, a measure was passed
in its place, as discussed above. The 109th Congress, however, may reconsider
whether or not to pursue the Constitutional Amendment path or provide oversight on
the effectiveness of the statutory approach.
Other Possible Issues
The 109th Congress may also consider several measures that have either been a
long standing concern or have recently begun to receive attention, as discussed
below.
Federal Sentencing Structure36
In 1984, Congress passed legislation that led to the creation of federal
sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Chapter II of the
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984; P.L. 98-473), in essence, eliminated
indeterminate sentencing at the federal level. The act created the United States
Sentencing Commission, an independent body within the judicial branch of the
federal government and charged it with promulgating guidelines for federal
sentencing. The purpose of the commission was to examine unwarranted disparity
in federal sentencing policy, among other things.37 In establishing sentencing
guidelines for federal judges, the commission took into consideration factors such as
(1) the nature and degree of harm caused by the offense; (2) the offender’s prior
record; (3) public views of the gravity of the offense; (4) the deterrent effect of a
36 For additional information on this subject, see CRS Report RL32766, Federal Sentencing
Guidelines: Background, Legal Analysis, and Policy Options, by Lisa M. Seghetti and
Alison M. Smith.
37 The commission was also mandated to examine the effects of sentencing policy upon
prison resources (e.g., overcrowding) and the use of plea bargaining in the federal criminal
justice system.

---

CRS-17
particular sentence; and (5) aggravating or mitigating circumstances.38 In addition
to these factors, the Commission also considered characteristics of the offender, such
as age, education, vocational skills, and mental or emotional state, among other
things.39 Prior to the recent Supreme Court ruling, the guidelines were binding, and
they were also subjected to statutory directives, including mandatory minimum
penalties for specific offenses set by Congress.40
On January 12, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment
right to a trial by jury requires that the current federal sentencing guidelines be
advisory, rather than mandatory.41 In doing so, the Court struck down a provision in
law that made the federal sentencing guidelines mandatory42 as well as a provision
that governed the standards of appellate review of departures from the guidelines.43
In essence, the Court’s ruling gives federal judges discretion in sentencing offenders
by not requiring them to adhere to the guidelines; rather the guidelines can be used
by judges on an advisory basis.44 As a result of the ruling, judges now have
discretion in sentencing defendants unless the offense carries a mandatory sentence
(as specified in the law). While some may view the ruling as an opportunity for
federal judges to take into consideration the circumstances unique to each individual
offender, thus handing down a sentence that better fits the offender, others may fear
that such discretion may result in unwarranted disparity and inconsistencies in
sentencing across jurisdictions that led to the enactment of the guidelines in the first
place.45
38 See 18 U.S.C. §994(c).
39 See 18 U.S.C. §994(d).
40 Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are separate from the federal sentencing guidelines.
Over the years, Congress has directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to integrate
mandatory minimum penalties it has passed into the federal sentencing guidelines.
Examples of federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws include the 1986 and 1988 Anti-
Drug Abuse Acts (P.L. 99-570 and P.L. 100-690). In addition to mandatory minimum
penalties for certain drug violations, Congress has passed mandatory minimum penalties for
certain gun violations and sex offenses.
41 See U.S. v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005).
42 According to the ruling, a provision in current law makes the guidelines binding on all
judges. The provision, 18 U.S.C. §3553(b), requires courts to impose a sentence within the
applicable guidelines range.
43 See 18 U.S.C. §3742(e).
44 While the Court struck down a provision that made the federal sentencing guidelines
mandatory, the Court also noted that current law “... requires judges to take account of the
guidelines together with other sentencing goals.” See 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). The Court also
struck down a provision that governed the standard of appellate review of sentences that
were imposed as a result of a judge’s departure from the guidelines. The Court noted,
however, that current law “... continues to provide for appeals from sentencing decisions
(irrespective of whether the trial judge sentences within or outside the guidelines range).”
See 18 U.S.C. §3742(a),(b).
45 See for example, Erik Luna, “Misguided Guidelines: A Critique of Federal Sentencing,”
Policy Analysis, no. 458, Nov. 1, 2002.

---

CRS-18
In light of the ruling, the issue for Congress is whether to amend current law to
require federal judges to follow guided sentences, or permit federal judges to use
their discretion in sentencing under certain circumstances. Possible congressional
options include (1) maintain the sentencing guidelines by placing limits on a judge’s
ability to depart from the guidelines, by establishing escalating mandatory minimums
and increasing the top of each guideline range to the statutory maximum for the
offense; (2) require jury trial or defendant waiver for any enhancement factor that
would increase the sentence for which the defendant did not waive his rights; or (3)
take no action, thus permitting judicial discretion in sentencing in cases where
Congress has not specified mandatory sentences.
Separate from the federal sentencing guidelines are mandatory minimum
sentencing laws. Over the years, Congress has directed the U.S. Sentencing
Commission to integrate mandatory minimum penalties it has passed into the federal
sentencing guidelines. A notable example of federal mandatory minimum
sentencing laws includes the 1986 and 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Acts (P.L. 99-570 and
P.L. 100-690), which created mandatory minimums for drug trafficking and simple
possession of crack cocaine, as discussed below.
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Beginning in the 1970s and continuing into the 1990s, Congress passed
legislation that revised sentencing laws and required, in many cases, the mandatory
imprisonment of offenders for committing certain types of crimes. Mandatory
minimum sentences require an offender to serve at least a portion of his term in
prison and essentially eliminate correctional officials or a parole board’s ability to
determine when an offender should be released from prison. While a judge’s
discretion may be limited under these measures and correctional officials may no
longer decide when an offender can be released from prison, many contend that the
discretion is actually shifted to the charging or prosecuting attorney or the sentencing
commission.46
While the intent of mandatory minimum sentencing and other similar measures
is to punish the most serious offenders by sending them to prison for a long period,
critics contend that the laws are disproportionately applied to nonviolent, minority
offenders.47 They argue that “... mandatory minimums are inconsistent with the
notion that sentences should consider all relevant circumstances of an offense and an
offender...”48 Proponents of these measures, however, contend that such efforts
decrease crime and ensure certainty in the criminal justice system.49 Moreover, in
46 See for example, Michael Tonry, Sentencing Matters (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1996).
47 See, for example, the Sentencing Project at [http://www.sentencingproject.org/]; and
Families Against Mandatory Minimums at [http://www.famm.org/index2.htm].
48 American Bar Association, Justice Kennedy Commission, Reports with Recommendations
to the ABA House of Delegates, Aug. 2004, p. 26.
49 The Rand Corporation, Three Strikes and You’re Out: Estimated Benefits and Costs of
(continued...)

---

CRS-19
addition to serving as a specific deterrence, proponents argue that these measures
serve as a general deterrence to potential criminals.50
The 1986 and 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Acts (P.L. 99-570 and P.L. 100-690,
respectively) played a pivotal role in the current mandatory minimum sentencing
structure applicable to federal drug offenses. The passage of these acts was the first
time Congress distinguished drug traffickers by the quantities of drugs they had in
their possession. Both acts required a mandatory minimum sentence for offenders
who were convicted of trafficking specific quantities of cocaine and other controlled
substances. The acts also required different mandatory minimum penalties for
different forms of the same drug (i.e., cocaine base, commonly referred to as crack
cocaine, and cocaine hyrdochloride, HCL, commonly referred to as powder cocaine),
which has been commonly referred to as the “100:1 disparity.” The 1988 act required
a mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine, which was the
only drug that could generate a mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession.
Congress, through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994,51 directed the commission to study federal sentencing policy as it relates to
possession and distribution of all forms of cocaine. Congress was particularly
interested in the commission’s examination of “the current federal structure of
differing penalties for powder and crack cocaine offenses and to provide
recommendations for retention or modification of these differences.”52 In 1995, the
commission reported to Congress on the disparity found in the sentencing structure
for crack and powder cocaine. It called for Congress to equalize the quantities
between crack and powder cocaine that triggers a mandatory minimum penalty.
Congress, however, did not accept the commission’s recommendation.
The issue for Congress is whether it wants to address the sentencing disparity
that exists with respect to crack and powder cocaine. Among other matters, the 109th
Congress may wish to consider legislation that would re-examine the 100:1 ratio
between crack and powder cocaine.
Gun Control
The 10-year ban on the manufacture, transfer, or possession of “semiautomatic
assault weapons” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” expired on
September 13, 2004. The 108th Congress considered a variety of legislation with
respect to this issue but failed to act before adjournment. The 109th Congress may
consider legislation, including whether to make the ban permanent or extend the ban,
and if so, for how long. In the process, Congress may also choose to review the
49 (...continued)
California’s New Mandatory-Sentencing Law, 1994; Ronald J. Pestritto, In Defense of Three
Strikes: Analyzing the Impact of California’s 1994 Anti-Crime Measures (Assembly
Publications Office, 1996).
50 Ibid., both articles.
51 P.L. 103-322.
52 See P.L. 104-38.

---

CRS-20
definition of “semiautomatic assault weapon” and decide whether or not to include
additional firearms.53
While federal law does not regulate gun shows, it does regulate the transfer of
firearms. Moreover, while federal firearm licensees are required to conduct
background checks on nonlicensed persons seeking to obtain firearms from them,
nonlicensed persons who transfer firearms, under certain circumstances, are not
required to conduct such checks. Several pieces of legislation aimed at regulating
gun shows and the transfer of firearms have been introduced in previous Congresses
and may be of interest to the 109th Congress.54
53 For further information, see CRS Report RL32585, Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban,
by William J. Krouse; and CRS Report RL32077, The Assault Weapons Ban: Legal
Challenges and Legislative Issue, by T.J. Halstead.
54 For further information, see CRS Report RL32249, Gun Control: Proposals to Regulate
Gun Shows, by William J. Krouse.

---

CRS-21
Appendix A: Funding Trends for
Selected DOJ Grant Programs
The Edward Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Program. As discussed
previously, the Edward Byrne Memorial Formula Grant (Byrne Formula Grant) and
the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant programs were consolidated into an Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, FY2005 (P.L. 108-447). At the same time, the act reduced the
overall funding for the two grant programs combined by $268 million from FY2004.
The Administration’s FY2006 budget request proposes to eliminate the JAG
program.
Appropriations for the Byrne Formula Grant program were first cut in FY2000
by five million. In FY2001, Congress cut the program’s appropriations by two
million, however, in FY2002 Congress increased the program’s appropriations by
two million. the program’s appropriations remained stable at five million until it was
consolidated with the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Byrne Formula Grant Appropriations,
FY1994 to FY2004
600
nds
475
505
500
500
500
a 500
500
505
498
500
400
450
300
308
200
100
0
Funding in Thous
95
9
00
4
1994 19
1996 1997 1998 199 20
2001 2002 2003 200
Fiscal Year
Sources: The following laws were referenced: FY1995, P.L. 103-317; FY1996, P.L. 104-134
(H.Rept. 104-134); FY1997, P.L. 104-208 (H.Rept. 104-863); FY1998, P.L. 105-119; FY1999, P.L.
105-277; FY2000, P.L. 106-113; FY2001, P.L. 106-553; FY2002, P.L. 107-77; FY2003, P.L. 108-7;
FY2004, P.L. 108-199; and FY2005, P.L. 108-447.
Note: Numbers are rounded. Appropriations may not include relevant rescissions.

---

CRS-22
The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program. The
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) program received its first
congressional appropriations in FY1996, at $503 million. Appropriations for
subsequent years remained constant at $523 million until FY2001, when LLEBG
received its first cut in appropriations, by one million. In FY2002 the program
received a $122 million reduction in appropriations from the previous year. Congress
continued to cut appropriations for the program in FY2004, when it received its
largest cut of $175 million from the previous year (see Figure 3). LLEBG was
consolidated with the Byrne Formula Grant program into a newly created JAG
program in P.L. 108-447, and as stated previously, received a combined
appropriations for FY2005 that was $268 million less than what the two programs
received in FY2004. The Administration’s FY2006 budget request proposes to
eliminate the JAG program.
Figure 3. LLEBG Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2004
600
523
523
522
500
523
523
400
503
400
400
Thousands 300
n
225
200
ng i 100
0
Fundi
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Fiscal Year
Sources: The following laws were referenced: FY1996, P.L. 104-134 (H.Rept. 104-134); FY1997,
P.L. 104-208 (H.Rept. 104-863); FY1998, P.L. 105-119; FY1999, P.L. 105-277; FY2000, P.L. 106-
113; FY2001, P.L. 106-553; FY2002, P.L. 107-77; FY2003, P.L. 108-7; FY2004, P.L. 108-199; and
FY2005, P.L. 108-447.
Note: Numbers are rounded. Appropriations may not include relevant rescissions.
The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program. The
COPS program received its first appropriations in FY1995 at $1.3 billion and in
subsequent years its appropriations remained at $1.4 billion. Appropriations for the
COPS program were first cut in FY2000 by $835 million. COPS appropriations
subsequently increased by $435 million in FY2001. In FY2003, appropriations for
the program decreased by $121 million from FY2002. Congress cut funding again
in FY2004 by $229 million. In FY2005, Congress appropriated $499 million for the
program, a $259 million decrease from the previous year (see Figure 4).

---

CRS-23
For FY2006, the President’s budget requests $117.8 million for the COPS
program, along with a rescission of $115.5 million, a net funding request of $2.2
million. The President’s FY2006 Budget request also includes the realignment of the
following COPS programs to other OJP accounts: Bulletproof Vests ($29.939
million); DNA Backlog/Crime Lab Improvement ($177.057 million); Offender Re-
entry ($15 million); Gun Violence Reduction ($73.795 million); and Southwest
Border Prosecution Assistance ($48.418 million).
Figure 4. COPS Appropriations, FY1995 to FY2005
1,500
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.04
929
1,000
1.05
756
595
500
499
0
Funding in Millions
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
1995 199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 2005
Fiscal Years
Sources: The following laws were referenced: FY1995, P.L. 103-317; FY1996, P.L. 104-134
(H.Rept. 104-134); FY1997, P.L. 104-208 (H.Rept. 104-863); FY1998, P.L. 105-119; FY1999, P.L.
105-277; FY2000, P.L. 106-113; FY2001, P.L. 106-553; FY2002, P.L. 107-77; FY2003, P.L. 108-7;
FY2004, P.L. 108-199; and FY2005, P.L. 108-447.
Note: Numbers are rounded. Appropriations may not include relevant rescissions. The FY2005
funding includes a $108 million in rescissions.

---

CRS-24
Appendix B: List of Selected Crime-Related
Legislation Enacted in the 108th Congress
The Torture Victims Relief Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-179). P.L. 108-179
amends current law55 by authorizing appropriations to the Department of Health and
Human Services to provide grants to domestic programs that provide rehabilitative
services to victims of torture, among other things.
The Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-
182). P.L. 108-182 amends current law56 by providing that if an officer has a fatal
heart attack or stroke while on duty, he is presumed to have died in the line of duty
for purposes of survivor benefits.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (P.L.
108-193). P.L. 108-193 contains several provisions that are aimed at stemming
human sex trafficking before it reaches the United States. With respect to domestic
criminal justice, the act amends current law57 by extending the jurisdiction of sex
trafficking offenses to acts of trafficking in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States. It also amends current law by requiring the Attorney General to report to
Congress on the number of people who have been charged or convicted of
trafficking-related criminal offenses, among other things.
The Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act (P.L. 108-275). P.L. 108-
275 amends current law58 by establishing penalties for aggravated identity theft.
Among other things, this act expands the existing identify theft prohibition to: (1)
cover possession of a means of identification of another with intent to commit
specified unlawful activity; (2) increase penalties for violations; and (3) include acts
of domestic terrorism within the scope of a prohibition against facilitating an act of
international terrorism. The U.S. Sentencing Commission is directed to review and
amend its guidelines and policy statements to ensure that the guideline offense levels
and enhancements appropriately punish identity theft offenses involving an abuse of
position. The Department of Justice is authorized funding for the investigation and
prosecution of identity theft and related credit card and other fraud cases constituting
felonies.
Boys and Girls Club of America (P.L. 108-344). P.L. 108-344 amends
current law59 by reauthorizing and extending the Boys and Girls Club of America
(BGCA) program. The BGCA program provides services that promote and enhance
the development of boys and girls. The act requires the establishment of 300
55 See P.L. 105-320.
56 See 42 U.S.C. 3796.
57 See P.L. 106-386.
58 See Chapter 47 of 18 U.S.C. 1028.
59 See 42 U.S.C. 13751 (§401 of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996).

---

CRS-25
additional boys and girls club in public housing projects and other distressed areas.
The act required that there be a plan in place that ensures that at least 5,000 boys and
girls clubs be established by 2010 and it also authorized funding for the program
through calendar year 2010.
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-277). P.L.
108-277 exempts certain law enforcement officers from state laws that prohibit the
concealed carry of firearms.
The State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-
372). P.L. 108-372 amends current60 law by reauthorizing the State Justice Institute
(SJI) through FY2008. SJI awards grants to improve the quality of justice in state
courts, among other things.
The act also reauthorized the Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant program
through FY2007. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant program awards grants to
state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies to assist them in purchasing
bulletproof vests for their officers.
The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of
2004 (P.L. 108-414). P.L. 108-414 amended current61 law by creating a new grant
program that authorized funding to state and local criminal justice and mental health
agencies to established a collaborative effort to provide services to the mentally ill
prisoner.
60 See 42 U.S.C. §10713.
61 See 42 U.S.C. §3711 et seq.

---