.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of
Justice (DOJ)
Nathan James, Coordinator
Analyst in Crime Policy
Jerome P. Bjelopera
Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism
Kristin Finklea
Specialist in Domestic Security
William J. Krouse
Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy
Lisa N. Sacco
Analyst in Illicit Drugs and Crime Policy
April 15, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43985
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Summary
The mission of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is to “enforce the law and defend the interests of
the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and
domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just
punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration
of justice for all Americans.” DOJ carries out its mission through the activities of agencies and
bureaus such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the
U.S. Marshals Service; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the U.S.
Attorneys Office; and the Bureau of Prisons.
This report provides an overview of the FY2015 appropriations and the Administration’s FY2016
budget request for DOJ’s appropriations accounts.
The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) provided a
total of $27.030 billion for DOJ for FY2015. The Administration requests $29.289 billion for
DOJ for FY2016, an increase of 8.4% ($2.259 billion).
The Administration has put forth several budget proposals for DOJ for FY2016. While
policymakers might have an interest in a wide variety of topics within the purview of DOJ’s
responsibilities, the proposals discussed in this report are based on topics that either tend to be a
perennial interest for policymakers or which have become topics of national significance due to
recent events. Such topics might include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosive’s efforts to combat firearm violence in the United States through its administrative and
enforcement functions; DOJ’s efforts to combat cybercrime and ensure cybersecurity; grant
funding for state and local law enforcement; federal marijuana enforcement efforts in light of
state efforts to liberalize their marijuana policies; and federal efforts to combat violent extremism.
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Contents
Overview of DOJ’s Accounts .......................................................................................................... 1
General Administration ............................................................................................................. 1
General Administration ....................................................................................................... 2
Administrative Review and Appeals (ARA) ....................................................................... 2
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) ................................................................................ 2
U.S. Parole Commission ............................................................................................................ 2
Legal Activities .......................................................................................................................... 2
U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) ................................................................................................. 3
National Security Division (NSD) ............................................................................................. 3
Interagency Law Enforcement................................................................................................... 3
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) ....................................................................................... 3
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) ................................................................................ 4
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) ................................................. 4
Federal Prison System (Bureau of Prisons, BOP) ..................................................................... 4
Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) ............................................................................. 5
Office of Justice Programs (OJP) .............................................................................................. 5
Research, Evaluation, and Statistics .................................................................................... 5
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance..................................................................... 5
Juvenile Justice Programs ................................................................................................... 5
Public Safety Officers Benefits Program (PSOB) ............................................................... 5
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) ....................................................................... 5
The Crime Victims Fund ........................................................................................................... 6
FY2015 and FY2016 Appropriations for DOJ................................................................................. 6
Select Proposals from the Administration........................................................................................ 8
Resources for the ATF’s Administrative and Enforcement Missions ........................................ 8
Funding to Combat Cybercrime .............................................................................................. 10
The “Smart on Crime” Initiative ............................................................................................. 12
Immigration Case Backlogs..................................................................................................... 14
Countering Violent Extremism ................................................................................................ 14
Grants for State and Local Law Enforcement ......................................................................... 16
Funding for Marijuana Enforcement ....................................................................................... 17
Figures
Figure 1. Annual Net Increases in U.S. Civilian Gun Stock (1980-2011) ....................................... 9
Figure 2. Estimated Firearms-Related Murders and Nonnegligent Homicides ............................. 10
Tables
Table 1. DOJ Appropriations, FY2015 and FY2016 ....................................................................... 6
Table A-1. Funding for OVW Programs, FY2015 and FY2016 .................................................... 19
Table A-2. Funding for Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, FY2015 and FY2016 ..................... 20
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Table A-3. Funding for State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs,
FY2015 and FY2016 .................................................................................................................. 21
Table A-4. Funding for Juvenile Justice Programs, FY2015 and FY2016 .................................... 24
Table A-5. Funding for Community Oriented Policing Services Programs,
FY2015 and FY2016 .................................................................................................................. 25
Appendixes
Appendix. DOJ Grant Programs .................................................................................................... 19
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 26
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
he mission of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is to “enforce the law and defend the
interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats
Tforeign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to
seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial
administration of justice for all Americans.”1
DOJ provides legal advice and opinions, upon request, to the President and executive branch
department heads. DOJ prosecutes individuals accused of violating federal laws and it represents
the U.S. government in court. The department enforces federal criminal and civil laws, including
antitrust, civil rights, environmental, and tax laws. DOJ, through agencies such as the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI); the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), investigates organized and violent crime,
illegal drugs, and gun and explosives violations. The department, through the U.S. Marshals
Service (USMS), protects the federal judiciary, apprehends fugitives, and detains individuals who
are not granted pretrial release. DOJ’s Bureau of Prisons (BOP) incarcerates individuals
convicted of violating federal laws. The department also provides grants and training to state,
local, and tribal law enforcement agencies.2
This report starts with an overview of DOJ’s appropriations accounts. Next, it provides
information on FY2015 appropriations and the FY2016 budget request for DOJ. The report
concludes with an overview of some of the Administration’s proposals in its FY2016 budget for
DOJ.
Overview of DOJ’s Accounts
Congress appropriates funding to support DOJ’s operations as a part of the annual Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations legislation.3 This section provides a brief
overview of DOJ’s accounts. Table 1 provides data on the FY2015 appropriations and the
FY2016 budget request for these accounts.
General Administration
The General Administration account provides funds for salaries and expenses for the Attorney
General’s office, the Inspector General’s office, and other programs designed to ensure that the
collaborative efforts of DOJ agencies are coordinated to help represent the government and fight
crime as efficiently as possible.
1 U.S. Department of Justice, About DOJ, http://www.justice.gov/about/about.html.
2 The Appendix provides a breakdown of appropriations for grant programs funded under the Office on Violence
Against Women; Research, Evaluation, and Statistics; State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance; Juvenile Justice
Programs; and Community Oriented Policing Services accounts.
3 For more information on FY2015 and FY2016 appropriations for CJS, see CRS Report R43918, Overview of FY2016
Appropriations for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS), by Nathan James.
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
General Administration
The General Administration account includes funding for salaries and expenses for DOJ
administration as well as for Justice Information Sharing Technology. The account also funded
the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) prior to its closure.4 In addition, this account
funded Law Enforcement Wireless Communications before funding for related activities was
shifted to the FBI.5
Administrative Review and Appeals (ARA)
Administrative Review and Appeals (ARA) includes the Executive Office of Immigration Review
(EOIR) and the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA). The Attorney General is responsible for the
review and adjudication of immigration cases in coordination with the Department of Homeland
Security’s (DHS’s) efforts. The EOIR handles these matters, and the OPA receives and reviews
petitions for executive clemency.
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is responsible for detecting and deterring waste, fraud,
and abuse involving DOJ programs and personnel; promoting economy and efficiency in DOJ
operations; and investigating allegations of departmental misconduct.
U.S. Parole Commission
The U.S. Parole Commission adjudicates parole requests for prisoners who are serving felony
sentences under federal and District of Columbia code violations. The commission also sets the
conditions of release for offenders under its jurisdiction and makes determinations about whether
to return offenders who have violated the terms of their release to prison.
Legal Activities
The Legal Activities account includes several subaccounts: General Legal Activities, U.S.
Attorneys, the Antitrust Division, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, the U.S. Trustee
System Fund, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Fees and Expenses of Witnesses, and
the Community Relations Service. Congress also establishes a limit on how much can be spent
from the Assets Forfeiture Fund to cover certain expenses.
The General Legal Activities account funds the Solicitor General’s supervision of the
department’s conduct in proceedings before the Supreme Court. It also funds several
departmental divisions (tax, criminal, civil, environment and natural resources, legal counsel,
civil rights, INTERPOL, and dispute resolution).
4 Congress ceased funding for the NDIC after FY2012.
5 Congress stopped providing funding for Law Enforcement Wireless Communications under the General
Administration account after FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
The U.S. Attorneys enforce federal laws through prosecution of criminal cases and represent the
federal government in civil actions in all of the 94 federal judicial districts.
U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)
The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) is responsible for the protection of the federal judicial
process, including protecting judges, attorneys, witnesses, and jurors. In addition, the USMS
provides physical security in courthouses, safeguards witnesses, transports prisoners from court
proceedings, apprehends fugitives, executes warrants and court orders, and seizes forfeited
property.6
National Security Division (NSD)
The National Security Division (NSD) coordinates DOJ’s national security and terrorism
missions through law enforcement investigations and prosecutions. The NSD was established in
DOJ in response to the recommendations of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD Commission), and authorized
by Congress on March 9, 2006, in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-177). Under the NSD, DOJ resources of the Office of Intelligence Policy and
Review and the Criminal Division’s Counterterrorism and Counterespionage Sections were
consolidated to coordinate all intelligence-related resources and to ensure that criminal
intelligence information is shared, as appropriate.
Interagency Law Enforcement
The Interagency Law Enforcement account reimburses departmental agencies for their
participation in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program.
Organized into nine regional task forces, this program combines the expertise of federal agencies
with the efforts of state and local law enforcement to disrupt and dismantle major narcotics
trafficking and money laundering organizations. The federal agencies from DOJ that participate
in OCDETF are the DEA, the FBI, the ATF, the USMS, the Tax and Criminal Divisions of DOJ,
and the U.S. Attorneys. Other agencies participating in OCDETF are Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard from the Department of Homeland Security, and the
Treasury Office of Enforcement and Internal Revenue Service from the Department of the
Treasury. Moreover, state and local law enforcement agencies participate in approximately 90%
of all OCDETF investigations.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the lead federal investigative agency charged with
defending the country against foreign terrorist and intelligence threats; enforcing federal laws;
and providing leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, tribal, and
6 Under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6), Congress eliminated funding for the
Office of the Federal Detention Trustee account and instead provided funding for a Federal Prisoner Detention account
under the USMS. Funding under this account will be used to cover the costs associated with the care of federal
detainees.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
territorial law enforcement agencies and partners. Since the September 11, 2001 (9/11), terrorist
attacks, the FBI has reorganized and reprioritized its efforts to focus on preventing terrorism and
related criminal activities.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the only single-mission federal agency tasked
with enforcing the nation’s controlled substance laws in order to reduce the availability and abuse
of illicit drugs and the diversion of licit drugs for illicit purposes. The DEA’s enforcement efforts
include the disruption and dismantling of drug trafficking and money laundering organizations
through drug interdiction and seizures of illicit revenues and assets derived from these
organizations. The DEA continues to face evolving challenges in limiting the supply of illicit
drugs as well as reducing drug trafficking from Mexico across the Southwest border into the
United States. The agency plays a key role in the Administration’s Southwest Border Initiative to
counter drug-related border violence, focusing on the convergent threats of illegal drugs, drug-
related violence, and terrorism in the region. The DEA also has an active role in the
Administration’s Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention Plan, targeting improper prescribing
practices and promoting proper disposal of unused prescription drugs.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) enforces federal criminal law
related to the manufacture, importation, and distribution of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and
explosives. The ATF works independently and through partnerships with industry groups;
international, state, and local governments; and other federal agencies to investigate and reduce
crime involving firearms and explosives, acts of arson, and illegal trafficking of alcohol and
tobacco products.
Federal Prison System (Bureau of Prisons, BOP)
The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was established in 1930 to house federal inmates, professionalize
the prison service, and ensure consistent and centralized administration of the federal prison
system. The mission of the BOP is to protect society by confining offenders in prisons and
community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and
that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities for inmates so that they can become
productive citizens after they are released. The BOP currently operates 121 correctional facilities
across the country.7 It also contracts with Residential Re-entry Centers (RRCs; i.e., halfway
houses) to provide assistance to inmates nearing release. RRCs provide inmates with a structured
and supervised environment along with employment counseling, job placement services, financial
management assistance, and other programs and services.
7 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, About the Bureau of Prisons, Federal Prisons, http://www.bop.gov/
about/facilities/federal_prisons.jsp.
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)
The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) was established to administer programs created
under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 and subsequent legislation. These
programs provide financial and technical assistance to communities around the country to
facilitate the creation of programs, policies, and practices designed to improve criminal justice
responses related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) manages and coordinates the National Institute of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of
Victims of Crimes, Bureau of Justice Assistance, and related grant programs.
Research, Evaluation, and Statistics
The Research, Evaluation, and Statistics account (formerly the Justice Assistance account) funds
the operations of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice, among other
things.
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
The State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance account includes funding for a variety of grant
programs to improve the functioning of state, local, and tribal criminal justice systems. Some
examples of programs that have traditionally been funded under this account include the Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program, the Drug Courts program, the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), and DNA backlog reduction grants.
Juvenile Justice Programs
The Juvenile Justice Programs account includes funding for grant programs to reduce juvenile
delinquency and help state, local, and tribal governments improve the functioning of their
juvenile justice systems.
Public Safety Officers Benefits Program (PSOB)
The Public Safety Officers Benefits (PSOB) program provides three different types of benefits to
public safety officers and their survivors: death, disability, and education. The PSOB program is
intended to assist in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers, firefighters, and
first responders.
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office awards grants to state, local, and
tribal law enforcement agencies throughout the United States so they can hire and train law
enforcement officers to participate in community policing, purchase and deploy new crime-
fighting technologies, and develop and test new and innovative policing strategies.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
The Crime Victims Fund
The Crime Victims Fund (CVF) was established by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-
473, VOCA). It is administered by the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), and provides funding
to the states and territories for victim compensation and assistance programs. This account does
not receive appropriations but instead is largely funded by criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds,
penalties, and special assessments that are collected by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, U.S. courts, and
the BOP.8
FY2015 and FY2016 Appropriations for DOJ
The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) provided a
total of $27.030 billion for DOJ for FY2015. The Administration requests $29.289 billion for
DOJ for FY2016, an increase of 8.4% ($2.259 billion).
Table 1. DOJ Appropriations, FY2015 and FY2016
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2016
FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
House
Senate
FY2016
Account
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
General
Administration
573.0
735.0
General
Administration
(137.3)
(156.9)
Salaries and Expenses
(111.5)
(119.4)
Justice Information Sharing
(25.8)
(37.4)
Technology
Administrative Review and Appeals
(347.1)
(484.4)
Office of the Inspector General
(88.6)
(93.7)
U.S. Parole Commission
13.3
13.5
Legal
Activities
3,220.2
3,513.5
General legal activities
(885.0)
(1,037.4)
United States Attorneys
(1,960.0)
(2,032.2)
Antitrust Division (direct
(62.2)
(61.5)
appropriation)a
U.S. Trustee Programb
(225.9)
(228.1)
Offsetting Fee Receipts (U.S.
(-225.9)
(-162.4)
Trustee Program)
Foreign Claims Settlement
(2.3)
(2.4)
Commission
Fees and Expenses of Witnesses
(270.0)
(270.0)
8 U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, About OVC, Crime Victims Fund, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
ovc/about/victimsfund.html.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
FY2016
FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
House
Senate
FY2016
Account
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Community Relations Service
(12.3)
(14.4)
Assets Forfeiture Fund
(20.5)
(20.5)
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust
(7.8)
(9.4)
Fund
United States Marshals Service
1,700.1
2,700.0
Salaries and Expenses
(1,195.0)
(1,230.6)
Construction
(9.8)
(15.0)
Federal Prisoner Detention
(495.3)c
(1,454.4)
National Security Division
93.0
96.6
Interagency Law Enforcement
507.2
519.3
Federal Bureau of Investigation
8,436.6
8,483.6
Salaries and Expenses
(8,326.6)
(8,414.6)
Construction
(110.0)
(69.0)
Drug Enforcement Administration
2,033.3
2,091.6
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
1,201.0
1,261.2
and Explosives
Federal Prison System
6,923.7
7,347.4
Salaries and Expenses
(6,815.0)
(7,204.2)
Construction
(106.0)
(140.6)
Limitation on Administrative
(2.7)
(2.7)
Expenses, Federal Prison Industries
Office on Violence Against Women
430.0
473.5
Office of Justice Programs
1,690.8
1,749.9
Research, Evaluation, and Statistics
(111.0)
(151.9)
State and Local Law Enforcement
(1,241.0)
(1,142.3)
Assistance
Juvenile Justice Programs
(251.5)
(339.4)
Public Safety Officers Benefits
(87.3)
(116.3)
Community Oriented Policing Services
208.0
303.5
Crime Victims Fund (CVF)
2,361.0
1,000.0
Offsetting Receipts (CVF)
-2,361.0
-1,000.0
Total
27,030.2d 29,288.6e
Source: The FY2015-enacted amounts were taken from the joint explanatory statement to accompany P.L. 113-
235, printed in the December 11, 2014, Congressional Record (pp. H9342-H9363). The FY2016-requested
amounts were taken from the budget justifications for the Department of Justice.
Notes: Amounts may not add to totals due to rounding. Amounts do not include any rescissions of unobligated
balances, nor do they reflect any scorekeeping adjustments. Amounts in parenthesis are subaccounts.
a. Part of the annual appropriation for the Antitrust Division is offset by pre-merger filing fee collections.
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
b. The U.S. Trustee Program has historical y been fully funded by the U.S. Trustee System Fund, which consists
primarily of fees paid by parties and businesses invoking bankruptcy protection.
c. This amount does not include a required transfer of $1.1 billion in unobligated balances from the Assets
Forfeiture Fund to the U.S. Marshals Federal Prisoner Detention account.
d. This amount does not include $671.7 million in rescissions of prior-year unobligated balances.
e. This amount does not include a proposed $563.5 million in rescissions of prior-year unobligated balances.
Select Proposals from the Administration
This section of the report provides an overview of some of the Administration’s proposals in its
FY2016 budget for DOJ. While policymakers might have an interest in a wide variety of topics
within the purview of DOJ’s responsibilities, the proposals discussed in this section are based on
topics that either tend to be a perennial interest for policymakers or which have become topics of
national significance due to recent events.
Resources for the ATF’s Administrative and Enforcement Missions
The ATF is the lead federal law enforcement agency charged with administering and enforcing
federal laws related to firearms and explosives commerce.9 The ATF is also responsible for
investigating arson cases with a federal nexus, and criminal cases involving the diversion of
alcohol and tobacco from legal channels of commerce.10
The ATF’s FY2016 budget justification asserts that the agency does not have enough resources to
monitor the firearms industry, or conduct routine firearms traces for other law enforcement
agencies. The ATF has maintained that it cannot meet its goal of inspecting every federal firearms
license (FFL) for compliance on a three-year cycle. The Administration, moreover, has
maintained that the ATF has been hamstrung by appropriations limitations, an increase in the
number of FFLs, and a surge in firearms-related commerce. For FY2014, for example, ATF
reported that it could only conduct 10,000 FFL compliance inspections, a 24% decrease from the
previous year, and covering only 7% of the FFL population.
Figure 1 illustrates the net increase in the annual civilian gun stock. Total stock has fluctuated
over the past 32 years but has generally increased from a little less than 5 million in 2003 to over
9 million in 2011. Annual increases in the civilian gun stock could be viewed as one possible
measure for the ATF’s correspondingly increasing responsibilities to monitor the gun industry and
commerce.
9 The ATF was originally established as a separate bureau in the Department of the Treasury in 1972 by Treasury
Department Order No. 120-1. As part of the Homeland Security Act, Congress transferred the ATF’s enforcement and
regulatory functions for firearms and explosives to DOJ from the Department of the Treasury, adding “explosives” to
the ATF’s title. See P.L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, November 25, 2002, §1111 (effective January 24, 2003).
10 The regulatory aspects of alcohol and tobacco commerce are the domain of the Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), which
encompasses former components of the ATF that remained at Treasury when other components of the ATF described
above were transferred to DOJ on January 24, 2003, under P.L. 107-296.
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Figure 1. Annual Net Increases in U.S. Civilian Gun Stock (1980-2011)
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Handguns
Rifles
Shotguns
Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives publications: Commerce in Firearms in the United
States (February 2000), Firearms Commerce Reports, 2012, and Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation
Report, 2013.
Notes: Does not include certain pistol grip firearms, starter guns, and firearms frames and receivers, which
generally fall under a category labeled “miscellaneous” by the ATF.
For FY2015 the ATF reports that it has allocated $1.014 billion (84.4%) of its $1.201 billion
appropriation under its “law enforcement operations” budget decision unit. The ATF proposes
allocating a similar percentage (84.4%) for FY2016 for this budget decision unit. This means that
less than 16% of ATF-appropriated funding would be allocated for its other budget decision unit,
“investigative support services,” which would fund other arguably mission-critical activities,
including FFL compliance inspections and firearms traces.
In its FY2016 budget justifications, the ATF cited incidents of murder (and nonnegligent
homicide), robbery, and aggravated assault committed with a firearm in calendar year 2012. As
Figure 2 shows, about two-thirds of murders were committed with firearms from 1968 to 2013.
About half of those murders were committed with handguns. Murders—committed with or
without firearms—declined in the 1990s, fluctuated somewhat in the 2000s, but continued to
decrease from 2007 to 2013. While the overall number of homicides was higher from 1999
through 2013 than in 1968, the rate per 100,000 of the population was lower for those years than
in 1968.
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Figure 2. Estimated Firearms-Related Murders and Nonnegligent Homicides
Rates per 100,000
Total Homicides
of the Population
30,000
12.0
Murders and
Nonnegligent
25,000
10.0
Homicides
Firearms-
Related Murders
20,000
8.0
Handgun-
15,000
6.0
Related Murders
Murder and
10,000
4.0
Nonnegligent
Homicide Rates
Firearm Murder
5,000
2.0
Rates
Handgun
0
0.0
Murder Rates
68
71
74
77
80
83
86
89
92
95
98
01
04
07
10
13
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports.
While the ATF has traditionally allocated a greater share of its resources toward its enforcement
mission over its regulatory (administrative) mission, the emphasis on enforcement over
administration might have been exacerbated by the ATF’s transfer from the Department of the
Treasury to DOJ.
Funding to Combat Cybercrime
For over three decades, Congress has been concerned about cybercrime and its related threats.11
Today, these concerns often arise in a larger discussion surrounding the federal government’s role
in ensuring cybersecurity. Specifically, there is interest in ensuring the federal government has the
tools and capabilities to combat modern-day crimes—particularly crimes with cyber
components—while safeguarding privacy rights.12
While a number of departments and agencies are involved in ensuring cybersecurity and
thwarting cyber threats, DOJ has a particularly prominent role in countering cybercrime.
Combatting cybercriminals is an issue that cuts across DOJ’s investigative, intelligence,
prosecutorial, and technological components. Not only must DOJ protect its own critical
information systems from cyber intrusions, but the department must also be poised to investigate
11 The original version of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was passed as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control
Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473). Prior to this, hearings were held over several Congresses. For more information on
cybercrime, see CRS Report R42547, Cybercrime: Conceptual Issues for Congress and U.S. Law Enforcement, by
Kristin Finklea and Catherine A. Theohary.
12 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Privacy in the Digital Age: Preventing Data
Breaches and Combating Cybercrime, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., February 4, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
and prosecute modern-day cybercriminals. The President’s FY2016 budget request for DOJ has
prioritized cybersecurity and includes about $26.8 million in proposed cybersecurity increases.
In bolstering DOJ’s cybersecurity infrastructure, the President’s FY2016 budget request includes
an additional $4.1 million in non-personnel costs for the information technology (IT)
Transformation and Cybersecurity Program. With respect to cybersecurity, this money is
specifically requested to acquire technology that will better enable the department to detect
advanced persistent threats and insider threats.13 Some may question how the federal
government—including DOJ—may enhance its systems and networks to keep pace with, or even
stay ahead of, criminals.
Within DOJ, the FBI is the lead agency investigating cybercrime and related criminal activities.
Specifically, the FBI is involved in “investigating [computer and network] intrusions to determine
criminal, terrorist, and nation-state actor identities, and engaging in activities which reduce or
neutralize these threats.”14 Efforts include a Cyber Division at FBI headquarters, cyber squads
operating around the country, cyber action teams that can be rapidly deployed around the world,
and computer crimes task forces combining federal, state, and local partners.15 Through the Next
Generation Cyber Initiative, the FBI is focusing its cyber investigations on examining intrusions,
hiring employees with specific technology expertise, and enhancing collaboration at the National
Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force.16 The President’s FY2016 budget request includes an
additional $10.3 million in non-personnel costs to support the Next Generation Cyber Initiative.
Within this initiative, the Administration proposes that the requested funding increase would
improve cyber investigations as well as cyber data collection and analysis.17
With respect to prosecuting cybercrime, the U.S. Attorneys and the Criminal Division at DOJ are
both centrally involved. In enforcing federal criminal laws, the Criminal Division—namely
through its Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section, which as of December 2014
includes a dedicated Cybersecurity Unit—has developed several Strategic Initiatives to Address
Cyber Threats. These include training investigators and attorneys on cybercrime and digital
evidence, increasing DOJ’s digital forensics capacity, enhancing DOJ’s cyberthreat expertise,
improving information sharing efforts with the private sector, expanding relationships with
foreign law enforcement partners, and enhancing cyberpolicy development.18 The Administration
is proposing to expand these initiatives by $6.1 million and 54 positions over the existing $27.9
million and 118 positions.19 The U.S. Attorneys, particularly through the Computer Hacking and
Intellectual Property (CHIP) attorneys and National Security Cyber Specialists (NSCS) Network,
prosecute cyber threats. As the number, scope, and complexity of cybercrime cases has grown,
13 U.S. Department of Justice, FY2016 Performance Budget, Congressional Justification, Justice Information Sharing
Technology, pp. 18-19.
14 U.S. Department of Justice, FY2016 Performance Budget, Congressional Justification, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, p. 1-5.
15 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Computer Intrusions, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/computer-
intrusions.
16 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Robert Anderson, Jr., Executive Assistant Director, Criminal, Cyber, Response,
and Services Branch, Statement Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,” press
release, September 10, 2014.
17 U.S. Department of Justice, FY2016 Performance Budget, Congressional Justification, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, pp. 5-1 – 5-6.
18 U.S. Department of Justice, FY2016 Performance Budget, Congressional Justification, Criminal Division, p. 43.
19 U.S. Department of Justice, FY2016 Budget Request: National Security, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
DOJ is requesting $6.1 million and 60 positions (over the existing $11.9 million and 68 positions)
to help enhance cybercrime prosecutions.20
As cybercrime threats impact not only public safety but also national security, DOJ’s National
Security Division (NSD) is involved in “the full range of U.S. cyber and cybersecurity efforts,
including cyber threat prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecutions, cybersecurity
program development and oversight, cybersecurity vulnerability management, and cyber policy
development. To keep pace with the unique challenges of this evolving threat, NSD will need to
recruit, hire, and train additional cyber specialists.”21 As such, for FY2016 the Administration
requests an expansion of $1.7 million and 12 positions over the existing $2.7 million and
19 positions.22
The “Smart on Crime” Initiative
Crime in the United States, especially violent crime, is at a historic low. The FBI reported that the
violent crime rate for 2013 was 368 violent crimes per 100,000 people, which is approximately
half of what the rate was at its peak in 1991.23 The violent crime rate in 2013 was the lowest it
had been since 1969. However, at the end of 2013 there were over 2.2 million people incarcerated
in the United States, which included nearly 1.6 million prison inmates and another 730,000
people incarcerated in local jails.24 In comparison, at the end of 1990 there were approximately
740,000 prison inmates and 405,000 people incarcerated in jails.25 Research suggests that
although incarceration did contribute to lower violent crime rates in the 1990s (one estimate is
that increased incarceration was responsible for approximately 5% of the drop in crime in the
1990s), there are declining marginal returns associated with ever-increasing levels of
incarceration.26
There is a growing sense that the United States can no longer afford to rely solely on
incarceration as a means to public safety. Spending on corrections is straining public budgets. The
Justice Center at the Council of State Governments notes that state spending on corrections
increased from $12 billion in 1988 to $53 billion in 2012.27 Funding for the Bureau of Prisons
20 Ibid. See also U.S. Department of Justice, FY2016 Performance Budget, Congressional Justification, United States
Attorneys, p. 54.
21 U.S. Department of Justice, FY2016 Performance Budget, Congressional Justification, National Security Division, p.
41.
22 U.S. Department of Justice, FY2016 Budget Request: National Security, p. 4.
23 Violent crime rates for the years 1960-2012 can be found in University at Albany, School of Criminal Justice,
Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (online), Table 3.106.2012. The
violent crime rate for 2013 can be found in Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 2013, Table 1.
24 Lauren E. Glaze and Danielle Kaeble, Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013, U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 248479, Washington, DC, December 2014, p. 2,
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf.
25 University at Albany, School of Criminal Justice, Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center, Sourcebook of
Criminal Justice Statistics (online), Table 6.1.2011.
26 For a discussion of what contributed to decreasing crime rates in the 1990s see Inimai M. Chettiar, “The Many
Causes of America’s Decline in Crime,” The Atlantic, February 11, 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/
2015/02/the-many-causes-of-americas-decline-in-crime/385364/. For a discussion on the marginal returns of increasing
incarceration rates, see Anne Morrison Piehl and Bert Useem, “Prisons,” in Crime and Public Policy, ed. Joan
Petersilia and James Q. Wilson, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 542.
27 Council of State Governments, Justice Center, About Justice Reinvestment, http://csgjusticecenter.org/jr/about/.
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
(BOP) accounted for approximately 25% of the total FY2015 appropriation for DOJ.28 In addition
to the financial cost of operating prisons, there is a social cost associated with increasing levels of
incarceration. More people, especially black males, are having problems finding work because
they have criminal histories; more children are growing up in homes where their father is
incarcerated; and some neighborhoods in urban areas have to cope with the effects of a growing
number of returning ex-offenders.29
DOJ’s “Smart on Crime” Initiative
In early 2013, at the direction of Attorney General Holder, DOJ conducted a review of the criminal justice system in
order to promote the fair and effective enforcement of federal laws. As part of its review, DOJ studied all phases of
the criminal justice system, including charging, sentencing, incarceration, and re-entry, to identify the practices that
are successful at deterring crime and protecting the public. According to DOJ, the initiative focuses on using its
resources for its important law enforcement priorities, addressing disparate impacts in the criminal justice system,
and changing DOJ’s response to low-level, nonviolent offenses. The initiative also seeks to bolster re-entry and
rehabilitation programs to reduce recidivism.
The Administration requests $247 million in program increases for the “Smart on Crime”
initiative, which includes some of the following proposed increases:
• $10 million to fund Prevention and Re-entry Coordinators in each U.S. Attorneys
office. Each coordinator would work on prevention and re-entry efforts for the
district.
• $15 million for the U.S. Attorneys to expand diversion and re-entry efforts for
each district.
• $146 million for the BOP to expand re-entry and recidivism-reducing programs,
including programs to strengthen family bonds, expand vocational training and
the employer bonding program, and hire more mental health staff.
• $2 million for the Office of the Pardon Attorney to hire additional staff to help
review applications for clemency received from certain low-level, nonviolent
offenders seeking to have their sentences reduced under the Administration’s
clemency initiative.30
Also, the Administration requests an additional $52 million (for a total of $120 million) for grants
to state, local, and tribal governments under the Second Chance Act. Grants authorized under the
act provide funding for employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, housing, family
programming, mentoring, victims support, and other services that can help reduce recidivism.
28 For FY2015, Congress appropriated $27.030 billion for DOJ, of which $6.924 billion was for BOP. See CRS Report
R43509, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations, coordinated by Nathan James,
Jennifer D. Williams, and John F. Sargent Jr.
29 For a discussion of the issues related to incarceration and offender reentry, see Jeremy Travis, But They All Come
Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 2005).
30 For more on the Administration’s clemency initiative, including the criteria for applying for a sentence commutation
under the initiative, see http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/announcing-new-clemency-initiative-deputy-attorney-general-
james-m-cole-details-broad-new.
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Immigration Case Backlogs
The Attorney General is responsible for the review and adjudication of immigration cases in
coordination with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) efforts. The Executive Office
of Immigration Review (EOIR) conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and
administrative hearings on behalf of DOJ. The EOIR’s mission is to “provide the timely and
uniform interpretation and application of immigration law, ensuring due process and fair
treatment for all parties involved.”31 The EOIR operates 58 immigration courts across the
country.32
The EOIR is facing a backlog of immigration cases due to increased enforcement efforts by DHS
and a decrease in the number of immigration judges. DOJ notes that the EOIR’s workload is
largely dictated by cases brought by DHS seeking the removal of undocumented aliens from the
United States.33 DOJ notes that DHS enforcement efforts spiked last summer when a high volume
of families and unaccompanied children were identified along the Southwest border, which
resulted in an increase in the EOIR’s caseload. DOJ reports that the number of cases pending
adjudication rose from 262,681at the end of FY2010 to 418,861 at the end of FY2014, a nearly
60% increase in five fiscal years.34 The backlog of immigration cases can also be attributed to the
decreasing number of immigration judges. DOJ reports that there were 237 immigration judges as
of January 2015, down from a high of 272 by mid-December 2010.35
For FY2016, the Administration requests a $124 million increase for the EOIR to help work
though immigration case backlogs. This includes $50 million for legal representation for children,
$60 million for immigration judge teams, and $10 million to expand the Legal Orientation
Program.36
Countering Violent Extremism
Recent “lone wolf” terrorist attacks in France and Denmark and concerns about the rise of the
Islamic State might generate concerns amongst policymakers about radicalized individuals
conducting a similar attack in the United States. According to the Administration, one of DOJ’s
highest priorities is protecting U.S. citizens from both domestic and foreign terrorism.37 The
Administration argues that national security threats are “constantly evolving, requiring additional
investments to adapt to those threats in innovative ways.”38
31 U.S. Department of Justice, FY2016 Congressional Budget Submission, Administrative Review and Appeals, p. 2.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid., p. 15.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid., p. 14.
36 The Legal Orientation Program educates detained aliens about their rights and the overall immigration hearing
process.
37 U.S. Department of Justice, National Security, FY2016 Budget Fact Sheet, p. 1, http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/
files/jmd/pages/attachments/2015/01/30/1_national_security_fact_sheet.pdf.
38 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
What Is Countering Violent Extremism?
In August 2011, the Obama Administration announced its Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) strategy. It is
designed to address the forces that influence some people living in the United States to acquire and hold radical or
extremist beliefs that may eventually compel them to commit terrorism. This was the first such strategy for the
federal government. Since the Al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has prosecuted
hundreds of individuals on terrorism charges. Unlike the necessarily secretive law enforcement and intelligence efforts
driving these investigations, the CVE strategy includes sizeable government activity within the open marketplace of
ideas, where private citizens are free to weigh competing ideologies and engage in constitutionally protected speech
and expression. The federal CVE strategy has revolved around (1) enhancing the federal government’s engagement
with local communities on issues tied to terrorism, (2) developing greater government and law enforcement expertise
for preventing violent extremism, and (3) countering violent extremist propaganda.39
For FY2016, the Administration requests $15 million in funding for grants and training and
technical assistance to help state and local governments counter violent extremism (CVE). The
Administration’s request includes the following:
• $6 million under the State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance account for a
Countering Violent Extremism grant program that would provide funding to
support flexible, locally developed, community-led CVE models. The proposed
program would emphasize coordination with federal partners, knowledge
building, and model development by requiring research, technical assistance, and
program assessment.
• $4 million under the Research, Evaluation, and Statistics account to conduct
research to identify causes of violent extremism and related phenomena and
advance evidence-based strategies for prevention and intervention.
• $3 million under the Community Oriented Policing Services account to enhance
the ability of law enforcement agencies to partner with local residents,
community groups, and other stakeholders to combat CVE though community
policing practices.
• $2 million set-aside from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
program to provide training and technical assistance to state and local law
enforcement in their CVE efforts.
However, the $15 million represents only part of DOJ’s effort in this area. Policymakers are left
in the dark regarding the rest of DOJ’s CVE expenditures—namely how much U.S. Attorneys
(charged with leading federal CVE efforts) and the FBI (a significant federal CVE player) spend
on the program.40 Providing such granular insight may not be particularly important for the
budgets of many DOJ programs. However, one can argue that an effective CVE program
transparently operates in the public arena, and a detailed accounting of DOJ’s CVE programs
would help provide such transparency and facilitate congressional oversight. Additionally, some
Muslim community leaders have been wary of DOJ’s CVE efforts, in part because the department
is also charged with intelligence gathering and pursuing terrorists.41 Greater budgetary
39 Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States,
December 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/sip-final.pdf.
40 Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States,
December 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/sip-final.pdf.
41 Paul McEnroe, “Twin Cities Muslim Leaders Challenge Federal Outreach Effort as Cloak for Spying,” Minneapolis
Star Tribune, February 17, 2015; Juliet Eilperin, “Trying to Counter Extremism at Home, U.S. Faces a Risk: Sowing
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
transparency may allay the fears that some community and advocacy groups have about CVE—
that it is an effort to co-opt communities into the security process, providing tips, leads, sources,
and informants rather than real engagement. Some maintain that this threatens to “securitize” a
relationship intended as outreach within the marketplace of ideas.
Grants for State and Local Law Enforcement
Some policymakers might believe that state and local governments, not the federal government,
should be responsible for providing funding for police forces, and that it is not prudent to increase
funding for law enforcement at a time when crime is decreasing and the federal government is
facing annual deficits. Some policymakers might also believe that it would be short-sighted, in a
tight budgetary environment, to scale back funding for DOJ agencies in order to support grants
for state and local law enforcement. However, some policymakers might also believe that grants
to state and local law enforcement might be a way to provide for the safety of U.S. citizens, since
much of the country’s law enforcement services are provided by local law enforcement agencies.
Appropriations for two of DOJ’s most prominent grant programs to assist state and local law
enforcement—the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) and the COPS hiring
programs—have decreased in recent fiscal years. Appropriations for JAG decreased from a high
of $539 million in FY2009 to $333 million in FY2015.42 The Administration requests $320
million for the JAG program for FY2016. Appropriations for the COPS program have decreased
from $298 million in FY2010 to $135 million in FY2015.43 The Administration requests $210
million for the COPS hiring program for FY2016.
Some policymakers may be interested in providing grants to state and local governments to foster
better police-community relations and enhance police accountability in light of recent civilian
deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers in Ferguson, MO, and Staten Island, NY. As
mentioned, the Administration requests $210 million for the COPS hiring program. This program
provides grants to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to help them hire new officers
to engage in community policing activities. The President’s budget also includes requests for
• $5 million under the COPS account for incentive grants to promote diversity in
law enforcement;
• $20 million under the COPS account for the Collaborative Reform Initiative,
which provides funding to technical assistance providers to help law enforcement
agencies assess issues that affect their relationships with the communities they
serve;
(...continued)
More Mistrust,” Washington Post, February 16, 2015.
42 The FY2009 appropriation does not included the $2 billion Congress appropriated for JAG under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The appropriations for JAG exclude set-asides for other
programs or purposes. For more information on annual set-asides from the JAG program, see CRS Report RS22416,
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, by Nathan James.
43 Congress provided $1 billion for the COPS hiring program under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (P.L. 111-5). The FY2015 appropriation for the COPS hiring program excludes transfers to other programs. For
more information on appropriations for the COPS hiring program, see CRS Report RL33308, Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS): In Brief, by Nathan James.
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
• $30 million under the State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance account to
help law enforcement agencies purchase, deploy, and maintain body-worn
cameras (BWCs)44 and $10 million to study the effectiveness of BWCs and
develop best practices for BWC programs; and
• $20 million under the State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance account for
grants to support efforts focused on enhancing procedural justice, reducing bias,
and supporting racial reconciliation in the criminal and juvenile justice systems.
Funding for Marijuana Enforcement
Over half of all states as well as the District of Columbia allow for medical use of marijuana.
These states do so in various ways.45 For example, while some states exempt qualified users of
medical marijuana from state prosecution, others specifically authorize and regulate medical
marijuana.46 In 1996, California enacted a comprehensive law that allows patients to obtain and
use marijuana for multiple medical purposes.47 While some states have legalized medical
marijuana in their respective jurisdictions, medical marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA)48 does not distinguish between the medical and
recreational use of marijuana. Under the CSA, marijuana has “no currently accepted medical use
in treatment in the United States,”49 and states’ allowance of its use for medical purposes contrasts
with the federal position. Federal law enforcement has investigated, arrested, and prosecuted
individuals for medical marijuana-related offenses regardless of whether they are in compliance
with state law; however, federal law enforcement emphasizes the investigation and prosecution of
growers and dispensers over the individual users of medical marijuana.
In an effort to curtail federal interference with state medical marijuana laws, Congress enacted as
part of the FY2015 Appropriations Act language that prohibits DOJ from using funds provided in
the act to “prevent” 32 states and the District of Columbia from “implementing their own State
laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”50 While
media outlets and others have characterized this language as preventing DOJ from enforcing
federal marijuana laws in states listed in the appropriations law, it remains unclear whether this
44 Body-worn cameras are mobile cameras that allow law enforcement officers to record what they see and hear. They
can be attached to a helmet, a pair of glasses, or an officer’s shirt or badge.
45 National Conference of State Legislatures, State Medical Marijuana Laws, November 2014, http://www.ncsl.org/
issues-research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx.
46 For a broader discussion of state medical marijuana laws, see CRS Report R42398, Medical Marijuana: The
Supremacy Clause, Federalism, and the Interplay Between State and Federal Laws, by Todd Garvey.
47 See CA Proposition 215, http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/BP/215text.htm.
48 The CSA, enacted as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-513),
placed the control of select plants, drugs, and chemical substances under federal jurisdiction. Congress passed this
legislation, in part, to replace previous federal drug laws with a single comprehensive statute. While federal agencies
enforce drug laws under the CSA, all states and territories have their own statutory frameworks through which they
enforce drug laws; however, the CSA places drug control under federal jurisdiction regardless of state laws. In other
words, federal agencies may enforce the CSA in all states and territories. For more information about the CSA and drug
enforcement in the United States, see CRS Report R43749, Drug Enforcement in the United States: History, Policy,
and Trends, by Lisa N. Sacco.
49 21 U.S.C. §812(b)(1).
50 P.L. 113-235, §538.
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
language will stop DOJ from prosecuting individuals who are in compliance with state law but
violating federal law (the CSA).
The DEA is the primary federal agency responsible for enforcing the CSA. In the DEA’s FY2016
Performance Budget Congressional Submission, the agency cites state allowance of the
cultivation, distribution, possession, and use of marijuana for medical purposes as an obstacle in
meeting its performance objectives in FY2016.51 The FY2015 enacted appropriation for the DEA
was $2.94 billion, and in FY2016 the Administration requests $3.01 billion. While it is difficult to
decipher how much of the DEA budget is used toward marijuana enforcement, the agency’s
Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program exclusively targets marijuana. This
program is funded under the DEA’s Domestic Enforcement account, which encompasses the
majority of the DEA’s investigative and support resources. The FY2015 enacted amount for the
DEA’s Domestic Enforcement account was $1.59 billion, and the FY2016 budget request is $1.61
billion.
51 U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, FY2016 Performance Budget Congressional
Submission, p. 30, http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/pages/attachments/2015/02/01/
25._drug_enforcement_administration_dea.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Appendix. DOJ Grant Programs
This appendix provides a breakdown of FY2015 appropriations and the FY2016 budget request
for grant programs funded under the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW); Research,
Evaluation, and Statistics; State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance; Juvenile Justice
Programs; and Community Oriented Policing Services accounts.
Table A-1. Funding for OVW Programs, FY2015 and FY2016
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2016
FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
House
Senate
FY2016
Program
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
STOP
Grants
$195.0
$193.0
Research and Evaluation on
3.0
3.0
Violence Against Women
Transitional Housing
26.0
25.0
Assistance
Grants to Encourage Arrest
50.0
50.0
Policies
Homicide Reduction
(4.0)
(4.0)
Initiative
Rural Domestic Violence and
33.0
33.0
Child Abuse Enforcement
Assistance Grants
Violence on College
12.0
26.0
Campuses
Improve Campus
—
(14.0)
Response to Sexual
Violence
Civil Legal Assistance
42.5
52.5
Sexual Assault Victims
30.0
27.0
Services
Elder Abuse Grant Program
4.5
4.3
Education and Training for
6.0
5.8
Disabled Female Victims
Research on Violence Against
1.0
1.0
Indian Women
Consolidated Youth
10.0
10.0
Oriented Program
National Resource Center on
0.5
0.5
Workplace Responses
Indian Country Sexual
0.5
0.5
Assault Clearinghouse
Family Civil Justice Program
16.0
16.0
VAWA 20/20 Initiative
—
21.0
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
FY2016
FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
House
Senate
FY2016
Program
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Tribal Special Domestic
—
5.0
Violence Criminal Jurisdiction
Total:
OVW
430.0
473.5
Source: The FY2015-enacted amounts were taken from the joint explanatory statement to accompany P.L. 113-
235, printed in the December 11, 2014, Congressional Record (pp. H9342-H9363). The FY2016-requested
amounts were taken from the budget justifications for the Department of Justice.
Note: Amounts may not add to totals due to rounding.
Table A-2. Funding for Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, FY2015 and FY2016
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2016
FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
House
Senate
FY2016
Program
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Bureau of Justice Statistics
$41.0
$61.4
National Institute of Justice
36.0
52.5
Regional Information Sharing
30.0
25.0
System
Evaluation
Clearinghouse —
3.0
Forensic Science
4.0
6.0
Improvement
Domestic Radicalization
—
4.0
Research
Total: Research,
111.0
151.9
Evaluation, and Statistics
Source: The FY2015-enacted amounts were taken from the joint explanatory statement to accompany P.L. 113-
235, printed in the December 11, 2014, Congressional Record (pp. H9342-H9363). The FY2016-requested
amounts were taken from the budget justifications for the Department of Justice.
Note: Amounts may not add to totals due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Table A-3. Funding for State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs,
FY2015 and FY2016
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2016
FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
House
Senate
FY2016
Program
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Byrne Memorial Justice
$376.0
$388.0
Assistance Grants (JAG)
State and Local
—
(2.0)
Intelligence Training
Bulletproof Vests Grant
—
(22.5)
Program
State and Local
—
(2.0)
Assistance Help Desk and
Diagnostic Center
VALOR
Initiative
(15.0)
(15.0)
Evidence-based Policing
(5.0)
(20.0)
Initiative
Prosecutorial Decision-
(2.5)
(5.0)
making Initiative
Training and Technical
—
(2.0)
Assistance to Counter
Domestic Violent
Extremism
Domestic Radicalization
(4.0)
—
Research
Juvenile Indigent Defense
(2.5)
—
Grants for Firearms
(3.0)
—
Safety Materials and Gun
Locks
Missing Alzheimer’s
(0.8)
—
Patient Grants
Byrne Criminal Justice
(10.5)
—
Innovation Program
Byrne
Incentive
Grants
—
15.0
Byrne Competitive Grants
—
15.0
John R. Justice Grant Program
2.0
—
Tribal
Assistance
30.0
—
State Criminal Alien
185.0
—
Assistance Program
Victims of Trafficking Grants
42.3
10.5
Residential Substance Abuse
10.0
14.0
Treatment
Mentally Ill Offenders Act
8.5
14.0
Drug
Courts
41.0
36.0
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
FY2016
FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
House
Senate
FY2016
Program
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Veterans’ Treatment Courts
5.0
4.0
Prescription
Drug
Monitoring
11.0
9.0
Prison Rape Prevention and
13.0
10.5
Prosecution
Capital Litigation/ Wrongful
2.0
2.0
Conviction Review
Missing Alzheimer’s Patient
—a
—
Grants
Economic, High-tech and
13.0
15.0
Cybercrime Prevention
CASA-Special
Advocates
6.0
6.0
Second Chance Act
68.0
120.0
Smart
Probation
(6.0)
(10.0)
Children of Incarcerated
(5.0)
(10.0)
Parents Demonstration
Grants
Pay for Success
(7.5)
(30.0)
Violent Gang and Gun Crime
5.0
5.0
Reduction (Project Safe
Neighborhoods)
National Criminal History
73.0
50.0
Improvement
NICS
Improvements (25.0)
—
NICS
Improvements
—
5.0
Paul Coverdell Forensic
12.0
—
Science Grants
Implementation of the Adam
20.0
20.0
Walsh Act
Programs for Children
8.0
23.0
Exposed to Violence
Byrne Criminal Justice
—a
29.5
Innovation Program
National Sex Offender Public
1.0
1.0
Website
Bulletproof Vests Grant
22.3 —b
Program
DNA
Initiatives
125.0
105.0
Debbie Smith DNA
(117.0)
—
Backlog Grants
Post-conviction DNA
(4.0)
—
Testing Grants
Congressional Research Service
22
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
FY2016
FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
House
Senate
FY2016
Program
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Sexual Assault Nurse
(4.0)
—
Examiners
Rape Kit Backlog
—
(20.0)
Reduction
Grants for Community Teams
41.0
41.0
to Reduce the Sexual Assault
Kit Backlog
Campus Public Safety
2.0
—
Justice Reinvestment Initiative
27.5
45.0
HOPE Model Implementation
4.0
10.0
Grants
Vision
21
12.5
—
Ensuring the Right to Counsel
—
5.4
for All Individuals
Competitive Grant Program
—
5.0
to Incentivize Statewide Civil
Legal Aid Planning
Program to Promote Fairness
—
20.0
in the Criminal Justice System
Comprehensive School Safety
75.0
75.0
Initiative
Program to Counter
—
6.0
Domestic Violent Extremism
Grants to Purchase Body
—
30.0
Worn Cameras
Next Generation Identification
—
5.0
Grants
National Missing and
—
2.4
Unidentified Persons System
Total: State and Local Law
1,241.0
1,142.3
Enforcement
Source: The FY2015-enacted amounts were taken from the joint explanatory statement to accompany P.L. 113-
235, printed in the December 11, 2014, Congressional Record (pp. H9342-H9363). The FY2016-requested
amounts were taken from the budget justifications for the Department of Justice.
Note: Amounts may not add to totals due to rounding.
a. For FY2015, this program was funded through a set-aside from appropriations for the Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program.
b. The Administration proposes to fund this program through a set-aside from the Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant program.
Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Table A-4. Funding for Juvenile Justice Programs, FY2015 and FY2016
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2016
FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
House
Senate
FY2016
Program
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Part
B—State
Formula
$55.5
$70.0
Emergency Planning—
(0.5)
—
Juvenile Detention
Facilities
Youth
Mentoring
Grants 90.0
58.0
Title V—Delinquency
15.0
42.0
Prevention Grants
Tribal
Youth
(5.0)
—
Gang
Prevention
(3.0)
—
Alcohol
Use
Prevention —
—
Juvenile Justice and
—
(10.0)
Education Col aboration
Assistance
Community-based
(6.0)
—
Violence Prevention
Initiative
National Forum on Youth
(1.0)
—
Violence Prevention
Investigation and Prosecution
19.0
11.0
of Child Abuse Programs
Juvenile Accountability Block
—
30.0
Grants
Smart on Juvenile Justice
—
30.0
Initiative
Community-based Violence
—a
18.0
Prevention Initiative
Child Abuse Training for
1.5
1.5
Judicial Personnel
Missing and Exploited Children
68.0
67.0
Programs
National Forum on Youth
—a
4.0
Violence Prevention
Competitive Grants Focusing
2.0
2.0
on Girls in the Juvenile Justice
System
Children of Incarcerated
0.5
0.5
Parents Web Portal
Improving Juvenile Indigent
—
5.4
Defense Program
Total: Juvenile Justice
251.5
339.4
Programs
Congressional Research Service
24
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Source: The FY2015-enacted amounts were taken from the joint explanatory statement to accompany P.L. 113-
235, printed in the December 11, 2014, Congressional Record (pp. H9342-H9363). The FY2016-requested
amounts were taken from the budget justifications for the Department of Justice.
Note: Amounts may not add to totals due to rounding.
a. For FY2015, this program was funded through a set-aside from appropriations for the Title V―Delinquency
Prevention Grants.
Table A-5. Funding for Community Oriented Policing Services Programs,
FY2015 and FY2016
Budget authority in millions of dollars
FY2016
FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
House
Senate
FY2016
Program
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
COPS
Hiring
Program $180.0
$249.5
Transfer to the Tribal
(33.0)
(15.0)
Resources Grant Program
Community Policing
(7.5)
(20.0)
Development
Training and Technical
(5.0)
—
Assistance on the
Col aborative Reform
Model
Incentive Grants to
—
(5.0)
Diversify Law
Enforcement
Transfer to the Drug
7.0
11.0
Enforcement Administration
for Methamphetamine Lab
Clean-up
Tribal Resources Grant
—a
20.0
Program
Anti-methamphetamine Task
7.0
—
Forces
Anti-heroin
Task
Forces
7.0
—
Regional Gang Task Forces
7.0
—
Training and Technical
—a
20.0
Assistance on the
Col aborative Reform Model
Countering
Violent
Extremism
—
3.0
Total: Community
208.0
303.5
Oriented Policing Services
Source: The FY2015-enacted amounts were taken from the joint explanatory statement to accompany P.L. 113-
235, printed in the December 11, 2014, Congressional Record (pp. H9342-H9363). The FY2016-requested
amounts were taken from the budget justifications for the Department of Justice.
Note: Amounts may not add to totals due to rounding.
a. For FY2015, this program was funded through a set-aside from appropriations for the COPS hiring
program.
Congressional Research Service
25
c11173008
.
FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Author Contact Information
Nathan James, Coordinator
William J. Krouse
Analyst in Crime Policy
Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy
njames@crs.loc.gov, 7-0264
wkrouse@crs.loc.gov, 7-2225
Jerome P. Bjelopera
Lisa N. Sacco
Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism
Analyst in Illicit Drugs and Crime Policy
jbjelopera@crs.loc.gov, 7-0622
lsacco@crs.loc.gov, 7-7359
Kristin Finklea
Specialist in Domestic Security
kfinklea@crs.loc.gov, 7-6259
Congressional Research Service
26
c11173008