U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

66–358 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

PROJECT EXILE: A CASE STUDY IN SUCCESSFUL

GUN LAW ENFORCEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 4, 1999

Serial No. 106–141

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

BOB BARR, Georgia

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

DOUG OSE, California

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

SHARON PINKERTON, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

MASON ALINGER, Professional Staff Member

CARSON NIGHTWINE, Professional Staff Member

LISA WANDLER, Clerk

CHERRI BRANSON, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on November 4, 1999 ........................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Gooch, Teresa, deputy chief of police, Richmond Bureau of Police, accompanied by Sergeant Norris L. Evans, and Officer Douglas P. Vilkoski,

Richmond Bureau of Police; and Susan Long, professor, codirector,

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Syracuse University ......... 109

Heston, Charlton, president, National Rifle Association; Mark Earley,

attorney general, State of Virginia; and Helen Fahey, U.S. attorney,

Eastern District of Virginia ......................................................................... 9

Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:

Barr, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia:

Chart entitled length of prison sentences 1998 ...................................... 162

Information concerning BATF firearms prosecution referrals drop ...... 139

Earley, Mark, attorney general, State of Virginia, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 19

Fahey, Helen, U.S. attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 26

Gooch, Teresa, deputy chief of police, Richmond Bureau of Police, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 113

Heston, Charlton, president, National Rifle Association, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 12

Long, Susan, professor, codirector, Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Syracuse University, prepared statement of ............................. 120

Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Florida:

Followup questions and responses ........................................................... 166

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Project Exile and Virginia Exile ............................................................... 173

(1)

PROJECT EXILE: A CASE STUDY IN

SUCCESSFUL GUN LAW ENFORCEMENT

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY,

AND HUMAN RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Mica, Barr, Hutchinson, Ose, Mink,

Kucinich, Turner, Tierney, and Schakowsky.

Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, staff director and chief counsel;

Steve Dillingham, special counsel; Mason Alinger and Carson

Nightwine, professional staff members; Lisa Wandler, clerk; Cherri

Branson, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant.

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I’d like to call this meeting of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources

to order. I will start today’s hearing by having opening statements

from members of the committee. We have two panels this morning,

and the topic of today’s hearing is Project Exile: A Case Study in

Successful Gun Law Enforcement. I will begin with an opening

statement and will yield to other Members.

Today’s hearing before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,

Drug Policy, and Human Resources will examine Project Exile, a

gun law enforcement program initiated in Richmond, VA. This approach has been so successful, that it is now being replicated statewide as Virginia Exile, and also numerous cities across the Nation

from Rochester, NY, to Denver, CO, are adopting programs modeled after Project Exile.

Today’s hearing will examine the elements and experiences of

this successful crime-fighting initiative and consider some of the

benefits of implementing Project Exile approaches to gun law enforcement on a broader basis.

We will hear today from witnesses who I believe are very knowledgeable about the Richmond experience with Project Exile. At the

time it began, Richmond was among the top five cities in the Nation with the highest per capita murder rates. In 1997, an assistant

U.S. attorney with the support of his office began a coordinated effort with local police, State police and Federal investigators, including the FBI and the ATF, along with local and Federal prosecutors

to respond to serious crime and gun violence. Project officials enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Dec 13, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\66358.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

listed support from a coalition of businesses, civic organizations,

community and church leaders.

Since the project began, the results have been evident. More than

200 armed criminals were removed from Richmond streets during

the first year of Project Exile alone. An entire gang responsible for

multiple murders has been dismantled.

In 1998, murders were 33 percent below 1997, the lowest number

since 1987. In 1999, murders are down yet another 29 percent.

Today, we will hear that a key element of Project Exile has been,

in fact, the ability to prosecute in Federal court cases that involve

felons with guns, or drugs and guns, or domestic violence and guns.

The advantage of Federal prosecutions include stiff bond rules

and tough sentences, including minimum mandatory sentences. Another innovation of Project Exile has been its outreach and advertising effort. Much of the financial support for the media has come

from the private sector contributions and donations. The media

message in this program is quite simple: An illegal gun will get you

5 years in Federal prison. In Richmond, and now in other areas in

the State, the message is conveyed by television, radio, and billboards.

By all informed accounts, Project Exile has been successful and

has saved lives. Virginia has now passed its own tough laws so

that Federal prosecutions are often unnecessary. Project Exile has

received bipartisan support and support from a wide range of

groups seeking to protect our citizens, ranging from the National

Rifle Association to Handgun Control, Inc.

By learning as much as we can about Project Exile’s success, we

can assist our law enforcement officers, prosecutors and communities in replicating the project’s successes.

I am very pleased today that we have such a distinguished group

testifying. I want to also divert a second from my prepared comments and say that we had planned this hearing for some time. It

is unfortunate that we have had several horrendous incidents involving firearms, both in Hawaii, where our ranking member is

from, and then yesterday in Seattle. This is most unfortunate.

I had coffee this morning and picked up this Washington Post

story of crimes in the District. This is Thursday, November 4,

today. And it cites the homicides in the District of Columbia. Let

me just read a couple of these:

October 16th, ‘‘unidentified person was found unconscious with

multiple gunshot wounds to the head.’’ That is the first one. Another one: ‘‘An unidentified man was found unconscious in the

street with gunshot wounds to the head.’’ Another one on Morris

Street, ‘‘an unidentified person was found in the back seat of a car

with multiple gunshot wounds to the body.’’ I will skip to the

Northwest section. ‘‘An unidentified person was found with gunshot

wounds to the chest.’’ Then to the Southeast section, Sterling Avenue, ‘‘an unidentified person was found on the sidewalk with gunshot wound to the leg.’’ The victim was taken to D.C. General Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

All these are homicides. Another one on Langston Place, a 24-

year-old—and most of these are young males in the most productive period of their life—found in the street with gunshot wounds

to the neck, shoulder and chest. On Yuma Street, an unidentified

3

man was found in the street with a gunshot wound to the lower

back. In the Southwest section of the city, on First Street, an unidentified man was found in a car with a gunshot wound to the

head. That’s just today’s report from Washington.

We do know that projects like Project Exile work where you have

tough enforcement. Where is the chart that we had here? If we look

at New York City, which has also had a zero tolerance under the

leadership of Mayor Giuliani, we see murders down some 70 percent from over 2,000 to 600, just a little over 600, an incredible success story.

So we need to find out what we need to do to make our streets

safer, our communities safer. If it is projects like this, Project Exile,

if it is increased mental health support, we need that. If it is tough

enforcement and zero tolerance, I think the public and the Congress will demand that we take action.

I am very pleased to highlight a successful program, one, again,

that brings together diverse interests, some different ends of the

spectrum relating to gun control, but all determined to make a difference.

We are extremely pleased to have Mr. Charlton Heston, a recognized figure throughout the world, who is now helping to lead the

effort to bring national attention to the success of Project Exile. We

are also pleased to have the top prosecutor for the State of Virginia, Attorney General Mark Earley, a strong supporter of Project

Exile, who is now working to institute Project Virginia Exile. Likewise we are honored to have the U.S. attorney from the Eastern

District of Virginia, Ms. Helen Fahey, who supervises the office

that began the project and has actively promoted its success.

On our second panel, we are also fortunate to have a frontline

law enforcement official from Richmond, Deputy Chief Teresa

Gooch, who has seen the success of Project Exile firsthand. The

deputy chief is devoted to continuing the project’s success and in

saving lives each and every day.

Finally, we are honored to have a leading researcher on the topic

of Federal gun law enforcement, Dr. Susan Long, and look forward

to hearing about her research findings on this topic.

I am very thankful that we have many talented law enforcement

officials and career attorneys who day in and day out work to promote the safety of our citizens and families. It is my hope that we

can help ensure that the Federal Government and State government and other agencies work together to do whatever is needed

to help resolve the problems we have in this area.

I intend to urge the Department of Justice to do much more in

supporting this lifesaving initiative. There will be some questions

we ask today, and one of the questions before us is why save lives

only in Richmond? Why not do this in Washington, DC, our Nation’s Capital? I just read the tragedy in this morning’s paper. Why

not across the Nation?

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today,

and I look forward to hearing from each you as we explore how we

can repeat the success of Project Exile and protect our communities

and our families throughout the land.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. MICA. I am pleased now to yield to our ranking member, the

gentlewoman from Hawaii, Mrs. Mink.

Mrs. MINK. I thank the chairman for yielding me time, and I certainly want to join with him in acknowledging the importance of

today’s hearings, and to extend my own welcome to the distinguished witnesses that have been invited to testify at these hearings.

It is an important effort on the part of the oversight responsibilities of Congress to look at the various programs that have been

put in place that are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and Project Exile is certainly one of those programs that

merits our attention.

As the chairman said a few days ago, Hawaii was shocked by an

incident that took the lives of seven people in an otherwise quiet,

benign neighborhood in the offices of the Xerox Corp. And while

this has been an incident that has never occurred in Hawaii ever

before, what it illustrates is that it could happen anywhere. And

so the whole subject of homicides and crimes of this nature are important considerations that all levels of government must pay attention to.

The Congress has been wrestling with various legislation dealing

with gun control, gun safety, and many of my constituents who

write to me about the issue emphasize the importance of law enforcement. They are concerned that the control of guns are not

going to eliminate criminals, we have to go against criminals. I

mean, that is the little postcard that we get. So it is important that

we look at it from their perspective. But it certainly does not diminish my interest and support for control legislation that still languishes in the Congress and has not come to a final enactment.

Project Exile is a program that is designed to prosecute criminals

that are apprehended in the commission of a crime with a gun. It

was initiated in March 1997. As of 1998, September, the project

was responsible for the conviction of over 200 people, and the seizure of over 400 guns. It is credited with a 33 percent decline in

Richmond’s homicide rate and a 30 percent decline in the armed

robberies in that city.

These are impressive numbers, and this oversight committee

needs to explore the success of this achievement and examine the

costs also to the Federal Government. Project Exile, after all, uses

Federal law enforcement officers, Federal investigators, Federal

prosecutors to process the crimes, and if convicted, the criminals go

to a Federal prison.

I am reminded by the words of Chief Justice Rehnquist, who, in

his 1998 year-end report, cautioned against increased Federalization of crimes. Rehnquist admonished that the threshold criteria

for Federal prosecution of essentially State offenses is something

that we need to caution ourselves about. Clearly that threshold argument needs to be examined by this committee.

Mr. Chairman, a recent Federal court opinion called Project Exile

a substantial Federal incursion into a sovereign State’s area of authority and responsibility. That is a matter which I believe is appropriate for this committee to consider in these deliberations.

We are all interested in reducing crime in our communities, in

our State and throughout the country, and so any innovation such

7

as Project Exile, if it works and can be supported and substantiated, is a program that needs to be replicated in other areas of

the country.

So, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for holding these hearings

and look forward to the testimony by these witnesses. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlewoman.

Now I am pleased to introduce the vice chairman of our panel,

the gentleman who has been very active in trying to call attention

to Project Exile and really responsible some time ago for encouraging the subcommittee to take up this subject and the success of this

project and also to call this hearing, the gentleman from Georgia

Mr. Barr. You are recognized.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the distinguished panels that we have today, and the police officers that are

with us today also, as an illustration of their support for this program. I know everybody in this room, not just those of us on this

panel, wants to recognize the tremendous sacrifice that our men

and women in blue make every single day, and we do appreciate

it very much.

Mr. Chairman, sometimes we drive ourselves crazy up here in

Washington trying to be rocket scientists and come up with all

sorts of newfangled ideas and unusual approaches to problems and

plug all sorts of things into those vast computers that we have up

here to try and solve problems, and sometimes we lose sight of the

forest for the trees. Project Exile illustrates that you don’t need to

be a rocket scientist to solve the problem of crime in our communities, you just need to use good common sense and the tools that

have been available to us to prosecute, and police officers and public officials, since we have existed as a Nation, and that is our laws,

in this case the criminal code of this country, and in the case of

Virginia, the Criminal Code of Virginia, and the manpower existing

already in our Federal prosecutors’ offices, our State prosecutors’ offices, our local prosecutors’ offices, and our police offices in our

communities.

You don’t need to reinvent the wheel to solve the problem of

crime in America, and that is an important message that Project

Exile brings.

One of the most interesting aspects, I think, Mr. Chairman, of

Project Exile, in my review of the voluminous material that has

been printed about it, is the fact that it brings together people with

otherwise very differing views of some of the issues that consume

our time here in Washington in support of a program that actually

works. It helps our children, it helps our citizens. And I speak particularly of two agencies that are both very active in their own

spheres of influence, the National Rifle Association, which has been

very supportive of Project Exile and other projects across America

to help law enforcement officers, and Handgun Control, Inc.

The phenomenon of Ms. Fahey and Mr. Schiller in putting

Project Exile into force, and Virginia Exile by Mr. Earley and the

Governor, and bringing the NRA and Handgun Control in together

in praising a program is something that is unrivaled in the annals

of history, perhaps only by Mr. Heston’s parting of the Red Sea,

and it has been many years since that occurred. The bringing together of such otherwise disparate groups in praise of a program

8

that really works is something that I think we all ought to take

a moment to think about, to reflect on, and do what we can, as you

are doing here today, Mr. Chairman, through this hearing, to try

and encourage the Department of Justice to use this program all

across America and to encourage States, insofar as we and Mr.

Earley and Governor Gilmore can through their persuasive abilities, to use and institute Project Exile in communities all across

America, because it does work.

If you have a gun, you are going to do the time. As the sign in

front of Ms. Fahey says, an illegal gun gets you 5 years in Federal

prison. That is a very simple message, but it is a profound one. It

works because the men and women here today and Mr. Schiller

and others who have been so active in this program recognize that

each one of them as citizens can indeed have an impact if they just

use the tools available to them.

I think it is a phenomenon, Ms. Fahey, that this program works

in the way that it does because you have marshalled and coordinated a comprehensive effort here in the community, and it goes

beyond simply the law enforcement effort. You have brought into

this effort the State authorities. You have brought into this effort,

as your literature and other literature clearly illustrates, the private sector community, chambers of commerce, private organizations that have given not only of their time in support of the program, but their resources as well to publicize it, because we also

know that no matter how good a project or a program is, if people

don’t know that it exists, its success is going to be severely limited.

So it is a phenomenal project and program that we encourage the

Department of Justice to pay more attention to, to use more, because it does work. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing together these distinguished panels and those of us here today in

support of this effort to exercise oversight responsibility in a way

that perhaps too infrequently we have the opportunity to do, and

that is in praise of a government program. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Barr.

I now would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas Mr.

Turner. You are recognized.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this

hearing. Anything that any State or local government can do to

prosecute more vigorously those who have illegal firearms I certainly support. And I think that when we look at this issue, we

need to all keep in mind that it is best approached in a bipartisan

way. Efforts to strengthen our laws, to put more policemen on the

streets, these are goals that we all hold irrespective of what party

we may be in. I think it is a credit to the Chair today to hold this

hearing on a program that is working, that does work, and that I

hope that many other States will adopt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Turner.

Mr. MICA. I would like to recognize now the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas, our second U.S. attorney and member of

the Judiciary Committee on our subcommittee panel, Mr. Hutchinson. You are recognized.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair and will just make a few

comments because I am anxious to hear the testimony of these distinguished witnesses. I certainly agree that we in Congress should

9

focus on things that do not work well in government to make sure

we remedy problems, but we should also focus on those things that

work well, to highlight those, and I see this as an opportunity

today.

I do believe that in other areas of the country, we could look to

Virginia and Project Exile that has worked so well there, for guidance. But at the same time I was impressed by the testimony of

U.S. Attorney Fahey who emphasized from the Department of Justice standpoint that each jurisdiction needs to determine what

works best for them, and I think we do need to have that type of

flexibility. So this is one example of something that works well that

might work well in another part of the country. But as a former

U.S. attorney in a small jurisdiction, I know there is a lot to cover,

a lot to do, and I do hope that we can maintain that type of flexibility; that we can see what works best in every different area of the

country and learn from each other to see how we can improve our

prosecutions of violent crime.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of

the distinguished panel.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman, and now will go to our first

panel. Our first panel, again, consists of Mr. Charlton Heston,

president of the National Rifle Association; the Honorable Mark

Earley, attorney general of the State of Virginia; and the Honorable Helen Fahey, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

First, let me inform the panel and witnesses that this is an investigations and oversight subcommittee of Congress, and in just a

moment I will swear you in. We do swear in all of our witnesses.

Also, we try to ask you to limit your oral remarks to about 5

minutes. Since there are only three, we will be somewhat liberal

with the time. But if you have lengthy or additional statements or

data that you would like to be made a part of the record, we will

do that. That will be done by unanimous consent.

At this time I would like to ask our witnesses if they could please

stand and be sworn.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. The witnesses, the record will reflect, answered in the

affirmative, and I would like to again welcome you. Thank you

each again for your participation.

We have a very distinguished first panel. The first witness really

needs no introduction. As Mr. Barr said, we hope he can help us

part the seas here and also lead us from exile and give us more

information about his cooperative effort and support of Project

Exile today.

So Mr. Heston, welcome, and you are recognized, sir.

STATEMENTS OF CHARLTON HESTON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

RIFLE ASSOCIATION; MARK EARLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

STATE OF VIRGINIA; AND HELEN FAHEY, U.S. ATTORNEY,

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Mr. HESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,

the Honorable ladies and gentlemen. I must begin, just take a sentence, to clarify for the Honorable gentleman from Georgia, I have

10

only limited control over that staff, you understand. To actually use

it, I need instructions from a much higher body.

But I am also, I must confess to you, a little bit tired this morning. I had an engagement in St. Louis which did not get me to

Washington, to my surprise, until 1:15 a.m. But I will try to do my

best for you.

I would also like to limit—in the interest of compressing the

hearing as appropriately as possible, I would like not to talk about

the issues we disagree on. That is open knowledge. We know where

we disagree. I would rather instead focus on what is not in dispute,

indeed what is indisputable.

There is no dispute that just 150 miles from here in sleepy Richmond, VA, they cut homicides by one-half in just 1 year. They employed the awesome simplicity of enforcing existing Federal gun

laws. It’s called, as you know, Project Exile. The word is out now

on the streets of Richmond if you are a felon caught with a gun,

you will go to jail for 5 years; no plea bargaining, no parole, 5

years.

They are actually changing criminal behavior down there and

saving lives. Now, that is not partisan. That is not conjecture, it’s

not hyperbole, that is a fact. Thanks to the fearless prosecutors

whom the chairman has recognized, innocent Americans are alive

today in Richmond that would have died at the hands of armed felons.

But elsewhere across this land, innocent Americans alive today

will be dead tomorrow or next month or next year because this administration, as a policy, is putting gun-toting felons on the streets

in record numbers.

Now, if you don’t believe me or the NRA, believe the recent independent Syracuse University studies which revealed that Federal

prosecutions of gun crimes have dropped by 44 percent during the

Clinton-Gore administration.

Right here in our Nation’s Capital, there were some 2,400 violent

crimes committed with firearms last year. Guess how many of

those were prosecuted? Two. Two out of 2,400 arrested.

In fact, in little old Richmond there were more prosecutions

under Federal gun laws in that one State—that one city than in

California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, DC, combined.

I find that a staggering statement.

Now, why does the President, I ask myself and I ask you, ask

for more Federal gun laws if he is not going to enforce the ones we

already have, which is 22,000? This deadly charade is killing people and will surely kill more. When political hot air is turning into

cold blood, when duplicitous spin is becoming lethal, someone has

got to speak up.

Why does the President ask for more police if he will not prosecute their arrests?

No lives will be saved talking about how many hours a waiting

period should be, or how many rounds a magazine should hold, or

how cheap a Saturday night special should be. But if you want to

impact gun crime now, you must demand that Project Exile be implemented in major U.S. cities now.

I wish you luck. A lot of luck. For a year we have challenged,

urged and pleaded with the Clinton administration to take $50 milVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Dec 13, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\66358.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
11

lion out of $14 billion budget and implement Project Exile’s enforcement program nationwide. What was their response? A Justice

Department spokesman told USA Today, and I quote, it’s not the

Federal Government’s role to prosecute these gun cases. I think

also of a session—Senator Sessions held a hearing last summer in

which, in fact, someone from the administration, I do not know

who, appeared and was asked this question: Why won’t you prosecute? And I am not kidding, his answer was, well, we have come

to the conclusion that if you incarcerate a felon for a crime, his

place will simply be taken by another felon. I submit that is the

most ridiculous statement I have ever heard offered in governmental discourse.

Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder ridiculed Project Exile as

a ‘‘cookie cutter’’ approach to fighting crime. Cookie cutting. He

called it fundamentally wrong to earmark funds for enforcing Federal gun laws. ‘‘Fundamentally’’ wrong, he said.

A senior official of the BATF tried to explain away the 44 percent

decrease in Federal prosecutions of gun crimes by saying, well, we

seek to prosecute the few sharks at the top rather than the numerous guppies of the criminal enterprise. Mr. Chairman, those guppies with guns are murdering innocent Americans who are left defenseless by a White House and a Justice Department that lack either the time or the spine to enforce existing gun laws against violent criminals.

We challenge Bill Clinton to direct Attorney General Janet Reno

to call upon all of the district attorneys around this country and

instruct them to take on just 10, just 10 more Federal gun cases

each month. That is their job, after all. The result would be the

prosecution of about 10,000, 10,000 more violent felons with guns,

10,000 potential murderers taken off the streets of America.

And we urge this body to do what the White House won’t, to ap- propriate $50 million to implement Project Exile in major cities

across the country. And if the President calls that fundamentally

wrong, ask him what you call it when the odds of doing time for

armed crime are no worse than the flip of a coin. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heston follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

Mr. MICA. We will withhold questions until we have heard from

all of our witnesses.

Our next witness is the Honorable Mark Earley, the attorney

general from the State of Virginia, who has taken on advocacy of

Project Exile, and I see from your biography you have a great interest in making this a success. I think you have six children; is that

correct? That is a great concern for the future. Welcome, and you

are recognized, sir.

Mr. EARLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members

of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here with you today. Again,

my name is Mark Earley, and I am the attorney general for the

Commonwealth of Virginia. For many years, it is hard to believe,

the capital of Richmond was called the murder capital of the world.

And it was because of that, as your chairman has noted, that of

the major cities in the United States, we bore a very unhonorable

distinction, and that was having an incredible member of murders

per capita in our city. In fact, it peaked in 1997 with 170 homicides.

Under the leadership of Helen Fahey, the U.S. attorney for the

Eastern District of Virginia, Project Exile was implemented, and

the results have been dramatic.

What is Project Exile? It is a partnership between Federal, State,

and local law enforcement authorities to aggressively prosecute the

illegal possession and use of guns by criminals. If you are a felon

with a conviction, you will go to jail if you possess a gun. If you

have been convicted of domestic abuse and you own a gun, you will

go to jail. If you are a drug dealer with a gun, you will go to jail.

And if you use drugs illegally, you will go to jail. These are Federal

laws that have been passed that with their aggressive enforcement

under Project Exile have had dramatic results. These call for mandatory prison sentences, and the average sentences are 56 months,

just shy of 5 years.

Added to that stiff punishment is the fact that while awaiting

trial, there is generally no bail. There is a presumption that you

do not qualify for bail if you are arrested. And it is called Project

Exile because if you are convicted in the city of Richmond under

Project Exile for one of these crimes, you, in fact, are going to be

exiled to a Federal prison far away from your community and your

friends and where you are threatening the public.

Has it worked? The answer is absolutely yes. From 1998, the

homicide rate in Richmond dropped a precipitous 33 percent. And

we are continuing to drive down the numbers this year.

656 guns have been removed from the hands of criminals; 405 individuals have been convicted, again with an average sentence of

56 months.

Why has it worked? It is really very simple. We have separated

the criminals from their guns. We have then separated the criminals from their community, and we are aggressively reminding people through a very strong social marketing campaign that an illegal

gun gets you 5 years in prison.

The sign that you see on our table here this morning is also a

shrink wrap that exists on several major mass transit buses in

Richmond. You will hear from Deputy Teresa Gooch a lot of incidents from the Richmond City Police where they are now arresting

17

people for gun crimes and other crimes, and when they ask them

if they have a gun, they say, ‘‘Are you kidding? I don’t carry a gun

in Richmond anymore because of that Project Exile.’’ They have

gotten the message.

What has been our role in the attorney general’s office in the

State of Virginia? Working with Helen Fahey and her staff, we

have dedicated a full-time assistant attorney general to the U.S. attorney’s office to prosecute these gun crimes, and it has been a remarkable partnership. We have two of our prosecutors, our assistant attorney generals, here with us this morning, Lisa McKeel and

Richard Campbell, who have done an outstanding job working with

the outstanding prosecutors in Ms. Fahey’s office. We plan to continue that work program and working with them in the future.

Also we have had tremendous support from the local Commonwealth’s attorney. The Commonwealth’s attorney for the city of

Richmond, David Hicks, has dedicated a full-time local prosecutor

to work with the U.S. attorney’s office. His prosecutor and mine

have been sworn in by the U.S. attorney’s office to practice in their

office.

Our Governor recognized what all of you would recognize in a

few short moments, and that is if this is working so well in the city

of Richmond, why should it not be available to every county, city,

and town in the State of Virginia, and for that matter throughout

the United States?

Working under that presumption the Governor introduced basically Virginia Exile, and it was passed by the legislature overwhelmingly at the beginning of this year. It was bipartisan, supported by Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. And

now in Virginia we have laws that mirror and in some cases are

tougher than the Federal laws.

Under Virginia Exile if you have a prior conviction for a violent

felony, and you are convicted of possessing a firearm, you will go

to jail for a mandatory 5 years. If you are convicted of possessing

a firearm on school property with the intent to use it or display it

in a threatening manner, you will go to jail for 5 years. And if you

are convicted of possessing a firearm with illegal drugs, you are

looking at no less than 5 years in prison.

We have taken a page out of the Project Exile that Helen Fahey

implemented in Richmond, and we have an aggressive social marketing program around the State. We now have signs on Interstates 64, 81 and 95 as you enter the State of Virginia advising everyone that an illegal gun in Virginia will get you a mandatory

prison sentence. That is now the law in Virginia as of July 1, 1999.

In short, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this kind

of partnership with the Federal, State and local prosecutors and

law enforcement authorities is having a dramatic effect, and it is

having a dramatic effect for a very common-sense reason, and that

is we are saying to the criminals that if you possess a gun in any

sense illegally, you will go to jail. And I think the results are indisputable, and it provides a model not only for other U.S. attorneys’

offices around the Nation, but certainly other attorney generals.

I will be presenting next week here in Washington to the other

attorney generals and all of the heads of their criminal divisions

what we are doing in Virginia. The attorney general of South CaroVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Dec 13, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\66358.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
18

lina, Charlie Condon, and the attorney general of Texas, John

Cornyn, are implementing similar programs as we speak in their

States, and we hope that we can get the cooperation of attorney

generals nationwide to work with their U.S. attorneys to implement the same kind of partnership. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Earley.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Early follows:]

19

20

21

22

23

Mr. MICA. And I now would like to recognize the U.S. attorney

for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Honorable Helen Fahey,

who has helped lead Federal efforts in prosecuting and also in promoting Project Exile. First of all, welcome. You are recognized.

Ms. FAHEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee. It is a pleasure for me to be here before this

committee. It is also a pleasure for me to be here in the company

of two former U.S. attorneys.

I would like to, if it is acceptable to the committee, to deviate

somewhat from my prepared statement in part because I don’t

want to repeat things that have already been said by both witnesses and also by members of the committee.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, your entire statement then will be

made part of the record. Proceed.

Ms. FAHEY. I would also like to ask that the entire statement of

the Department of Justice be made part of the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Ms. FAHEY. Thank you.

In 1997, when the U.S. attorney’s office in the Eastern District

of Virginia initiated Project Exile in Richmond, it was in response

to a particular problem in a particular location. It was in response

to the terrible homicide rate existing in Richmond at that time.

I can assure each of you that when we started it, we had no idea

what it would grow into and how it would be received across the

country. We also really had no idea how extensive it would become

even in Richmond.

The goal of Project Exile was to reduce gun violence by changing

the culture in Richmond using a comprehensive multidimensional

strategy. The strategy included law enforcement and prosecution

efforts as well as community outreach and education programs.

Project Exile is simple and straightforward in its execution and

requires relatively limited prosecution and law enforcement resources. The message of Project Exile, an illegal gun gets you 5

years in Federal prison, is clear, simple, and easy to understand.

For gun-carrying criminals, the consequences have been swift, sure,

and severe. For the citizens of Richmond, the results have been a

safer community in which to live, work and raise a family.

As Attorney General Mark Earley said, this has been a real partnership, a real cooperative effort. It has included all the Federal

law enforcement agencies. It has included the police department in

the city of Richmond, had has also included the State police. It has

included the elected prosecutor, David Hicks in Richmond as well

as the Federal prosecutors. It has involved members of the community, both the business community and the community at large. It

has not been something that has just been a Federal program.

I will not go through the numbers of prosecutions, except to say

over 500 people have been indicted since the program began, and

there have been almost 700 guns seized.

One of the things that I really want to emphasize, because as we

have gone along I have come to realize how important it has been

to the success of the program, I spent 17 years as a local prosecutor

prior to becoming the U.S. attorney. I was a prosecutor, and then

I was the elected prosecutor in Arlington, VA. I think we all know

the message that we believed that our enforcement and prosecution

24

of individuals was sending out to the community. The goals of prosecution were such things as punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence.

I think that we all felt, and maybe all of us in this business felt,

that by prosecuting a certain individual for a certain crime, the

message would get out to the community that it would not be a

good idea for other individuals to commit those crimes. I think

what Project Exile and what the media program part of Project

Exile has done is gotten across to me and to many other people

how important the message itself has been in creating the deterrence in the community and also in changing the culture of violence.

One of the most important parts of it, I think, is to get the message out all over the city, the State, and the country that illegal

possession of guns will no longer be tolerated. This has required in

Richmond something that except perhaps in the drug area and also

drunk driving has never been done in the law enforcement area,

and that is to send out this clear message. It could not be sent out

just by us in law enforcement for one reason: We did not have the

money. But it required a coalition of business, community, and

church leaders.

Some of the business organizations were the Retail Merchants

Association and the Chamber of Commerce. The coalition operating

as Project Exile Citizen Support Foundation has funded a creative

advertising program including TV and radio commercials; billboards; a city bus fully painted in black with the logo: An Illegal

Guns Gets You 5 Years in Federal Prison; 15,000 business cards,

which I notice Congressman Barr has one up there; and various

print advertising.

The outreach program has been hugely successful increasing citizen reports about guns and energizing the community to support

police efforts.

Through these efforts, hundreds of armed criminals have been

removed from Richmond streets, violent gangs responsible for

many murders have been destroyed, and the rate of gun-carrying

by criminals has been cut. Officers now report drug dealers throwing down weapons before running instead of taking the risk of

being caught with the weapons. And a large number of homicides

have been solved with information obtained from defendants in

these cases.

Most importantly, these efforts seem to be stemming the tide of

violence. Homicides were down in 1998, 33 percent from 1997. So

far this year they are down an additional 29 percent. As a result,

the citizens not only feel safer, but are safer. Because of the demonstrated results in Richmond, the U.S. attorney’s office in the

Eastern District of Virginia has expanded Project Exile to the Tidewater area of Virginia and is committed to continuing Project Exile

as long as the need exists.

In 1999, new legislation was passed in Virginia to make State

laws more comparable to Federal laws on bond and gun offenses,

and we look forward to working with Richmond’s Commonwealth

attorney as well as the other Commonwealth attorneys in Virginia

to have appropriate gun cases prosecuted in the local courts as opposed to the Federal courts.

25

Other cities have taken note of Project Exile’s impact on the city

of Richmond. The project model has been adopted in Rochester,

Philadelphia, Oakland, Camden, Atlanta, New Orleans, Denver,

the State of Texas, and other areas as well.

Project Exile has proven that a comprehensive multidimensional

strategy can work. With a little ingenuity it can be a very successful tool in accomplishing one of the President’s priorities, reducing

the gun violence on our streets.

But I would hope that Project Exile will not be viewed just as

a Federal program or a program requiring just Federal prosecution.

It needs to be tailored to individual districts. I think what you are

seeing in the State of Virginia is what we would expect to happen

all over the country. We may start out with a program that is exclusively a Federal program. We may then end up with changes in

State laws to increase the penalties, and then we may have a program, which is where we expect Virginia will be, which will be both

Federal prosecution and State prosecution.

But the message needs to be kept the same simple message that

we have now, that an illegal gun will result in a substantial period

of incarceration. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fahey and the information referred to follow:]

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and I thank each of our witnesses for their

testimony. Let me start with a few questions for our panelists.

Mr. Heston, you cited the fact that one city, Richmond, had more

Federal gun enforcement prosecutions than the District of Columbia, California, and New Jersey?

Mr. HESTON. And the District combined.

Mr. MICA. Combined?

Mr. HESTON. Not just more than each of those, but more than

the sum total of those cities.

Mr. MICA. So through this type of approach—and I think I had

them blow up some of the information that was given to us. But

this would coincide with your figures, prosecution of Federal gun

laws. Two in the District.

And Mr. Holder, you said, also has basically said that he has no

interest in the program, and that he is the U.S. attorney or was

the U.S. attorney in the District. Was he the U.S. attorney when

he made that statement?

Mr. HESTON. Yes, he was.

Mr. MICA. He was. OK.

Attorney General, in the State of Virginia, was it you or the Federal agency, the U.S. attorney’s office, that initiated the program?

Mr. EARLEY. Project Exile was initiated in the U.S. attorney’s office by Helen Fahey. When I became attorney general about 18

months ago, we met and talked, and Helen suggested a working relationship between our offices, and we were very open to that. We

thought it was a great opportunity. And the way we worked on out

was simply by detailing an assistant attorney general from our office to the U.S. attorney’s office. They were sworn in as—I’m not

sure what the correct terminology is, a special assistant, special

U.S. attorney to help prosecute those.

Mr. MICA. So you provided two personnel from your staff who

were sworn in and worked with—— Mr. EARLEY. Actually, we provided one, and the Commonwealth’s

attorney for the city of Richmond provided one, and we had two individuals serve in that capacity over the last 12 months.

Mr. MICA. So it was a Federal initiative and in cooperation with

the State.

Could you estimate, Ms. Fahey, how much in resources this costs

the Eastern District? Can you put any price tag on this as far as

the cost for the program?

Ms. FAHEY. I don’t think I could put a price tag on it. I think

that I could say from the point of view of attorney resources, that

we would estimate approximately three attorney resources, which

includes the attorney from the attorney general’s office as well as

the Richmond Commonwealth Attorney’s office, and at least one

full-time assistant U.S. attorney from my office as well, obviously,

as support and management-type resources.

Mr. MICA. The basic program, though, is being funded through

existing resources? There is no additional Federal money coming in

to support this, or State? Do you have an additional State appropriation, or is there a local contribution toward financing the

project? Maybe you could answer, Attorney General.

Mr. EARLEY. Mr. Chairman, from our perspective what we did is

we went through—as you know, each State has an agency which

94

basically is the funnel for Federal grant money, and we basically

applied for a grant through the Department of Criminal Justice

Services in Virginia for a full-time attorney, and so ours is being

paid for by grant money. And if it were not—we would have done

it anyway, but for our internal purposes it allowed us to keep our

resources intact and fund this prosecutor through a grant from the

State of Virginia, and it has been a very positive thing.

I will also mention in terms of attorney resources, one of the

things to consider is personnel and the number. The other thing is

the time. And what you have to understand in most of these

Project Exile cases is that these cases generally don’t go to trial.

Almost all of the defendants plead. You will generally have some

preliminary motions, but after that, it is a relatively efficient method of conviction.

Mr. MICA. Ms. Fahey, your organization has had no extra appropriation for this project, or have they, from Department of Justice?

Or are you working out of existing budget?

Ms. FAHEY. We are working essentially out of existing resources

a lot. Department of Justice did have attorneys detailed to our office at various times. But I would like to comment briefly because

of some of the comments made about Eric Holder, who is both my

colleague and my dear friend.

He has been extremely supportive of Project Exile in Richmond

from the very beginning. He attended numerous meetings with all

of the Federal law enforcement agencies to get them to put more

resources in Richmond to work on the problem. He has helped get

additional training money for the police department in Richmond

so that they would be able to better deal with these types of cases

and also to generally upgrade their general capabilities.

Mr. MICA. Do you know why he hasn’t insisted on initiating a

program in Washington, DC, which has been plagued by incredible

violence——

Ms. FAHEY. Well, I certainly don’t know——

Mr. MICA [continuing]. And has the tightest gun control laws, I

think, in the Nation? It is almost impossible to own——

Mr. HESTON. Hawaii has more.

Ms. FAHEY. I think when you look at those numbers, you need

to keep in mind that the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia

controls both Federal prosecution and also local prosecution. So

they——

Mr. MICA. But it doesn’t look like they have done either——

Ms. FAHEY. That is only Federal prosecutions——

Mr. MICA [continuing]. From a Federal prosecutorial standpoint.

Ms. FAHEY [continuing]. That doesn’t include the cases that

would have been prosecuted in Superior Court in the District of Columbia, because that would be—they would be the cases that would

be prosecuted as violations of the D.C. Law, not Federal laws.

Mr. MICA. Well, the statistics I have, also from a chart that was

given me on Federal prosecutions, show from 1993 basically to the

current time, each year there has been a decrease in Federal prosecutions. And this is from whose testimony? Ms. Long, who is in

our second panel, we have both graphic chart and then numerical

display showing from 12,000 in 1992 criminal referrals, and that

95

were prosecuted going from 12,000 down to 5,600, every year just

about declining, which concerns me.

Finally, let me just turn to Mr. Heston for a last question.

Mr. HESTON. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Your organization, NRA, has been criticized because

of their stance on some gun control legislation. We have a program

here that is very successful, and I want to know what your organization, NRA, is doing to promote, encourage and foster a program

that is as successful like this. Maybe you could comment.

Mr. HESTON. The NRA contributed early money to Project Exile

and plans to continue to do so.

I would also like to seize this chance to speak to Ms. Fahey, because obviously this is not on your plate, but you are in the Department of Justice. Do you detect any kind of movement from the administration about providing the $50 million it will take to implement more extensively? We have heard silence, but no comment

one way or the other.

Mr. MICA. You might want to address the question to the Chair,

and I could—— Mr. HESTON. I beg your pardon.

Mr. MICA. Just for protocol. Would you like to respond?

Ms. FAHEY. I don’t know specifically what the state of the budget

is. The last thing I heard was that all of our budgets might be cut

by 1 percent. I assume that that would mean that there would not

be additional resources for any of us to prosecute gun cases. And

one of the versions of the budget that I saw had a number of earmarks for some districts to prosecute additional gun cases, which

might mean for a district like mine that I would actually lose resources.

Mr. MICA. I believe that was 1 percent of the increase, proposed

increases.

But let me yield at this point to the gentlewoman from Hawaii,

Mrs. Mink.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you.

The complete testimony which you have submitted, Ms. Fahey,

has parts of it which really need to be looked at in this context of

what we are discussing. There is an implication by the questions

and statements that have been made thus far that the Federal

Government has been less than enthusiastic in prosecuting the violent crimes committed with firearms. And the charts are pointed to

as illustrative of the lessened commitment by the Federal Government. But as I read your testimony, it indicates that overall the

country has experienced a very sharp decline in violent crimes committed with firearms. Is that correct?

Ms. FAHEY. That is correct. My understanding is that gun violence nationwide is down approximately 35 percent since 1992.

Mrs. MINK. So that the prosecutions would also be reduced by

that percentage at the least if there are less crimes being committed during that period? Isn’t that a correct assumption?

Ms. FAHEY. I think all of us would hope that the end result

would be that there would be fewer violent criminals out there for

us to prosecute.

Mrs. MINK. The charts that the chairman just referred to, how

would you comment on the figures, if they are true, that the FedVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Dec 13, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\66358.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
96

eral Government is not sharpening its emphasis on violent crimes

with guns and whether the charts are correct in the inference that

seems to be cast here that the Federal Government is lessening its

interests in prosecutions?

Ms. FAHEY. Well, I am not sure which chart Congressman Barr

has in front of him, and I don’t think I could possibly see that far,

but I would like to comment on one thing because I am not suggesting, and I don’t think anyone would suggest, that the drop in

homicides in the city of Richmond is totally attributable to Project

Exile. It certainly is not. It is attributable to many factors: a lot

of good work by the police department, a lot of work in the community. Many, many factors.

I believe very strongly that Project Exile was a very significant

factor in opening the door and allowing other things to go on in the

city. But even in the city of Richmond, Project Exile was not the

only thing that the U.S. attorney’s office was doing to deal with the

problem of violent crime.

We have taken out dozens and dozens of violent drug dealers

from the streets of the city of Richmond, people who were committing multiple homicides in Richmond. That is being done all over

the country in every U.S. attorney’s office. That was the priority of

the President. It was a priority of the attorney general. The first

thing that we were asked to look at when we became U.S. attorneys was what can we do to reduce violent crime in this country,

and there is no one single thing. And that is true, even in the city

of Richmond, even from a Federal perspective.

Mrs. MINK. My assumption, when the Federal Government embarks, as you have done, on a unique program and tests out a particular theory, as your department has, on very, very strict enforcement of Federal laws that already exist, that this is done with the

hope that it would stimulate throughout the country similar emphasis by other U.S. attorneys and in other collaborative efforts

with local communities. If that is the case then, would you say that

it was that type of approach that led to other communities like

Philadelphia and others that have been mentioned here in embarking upon similar programs to connect Federal enforcement together

with much stronger and greater local and State efforts?

Ms. FAHEY. I think that is absolutely true. We did not begin this

as a program that we thought should be a national program. We

started it in response to a particular problem.

As it started to appear that the program was successful, and perhaps a good idea for other areas to adopt, I think we have seen

that in other areas of the country.

Mrs. MINK. So would you measure the success of Project Exile in

the number of replications that you have in other districts by other

U.S. attorneys, collaborating with other State attorney generals

and trying to emphasize local enforcement rather than a takeover

of law enforcement by the Federal Government?

Ms. FAHEY. I think every district has to look at its own particular problems, its own State’s laws, its own local and Federal resources and determine what type of a program would work best in

that jurisdiction.

97

But I feel very strongly that there should be strict enforcement

of gun laws, whether it is done federally or at the local offices, and

there should be a very clear message sent out.

Mrs. MINK. I have just one final question to Attorney General

Earley. Do you feel, Mr. Earley, that based upon the new laws that

have been enacted in Virginia that, according to your testimony,

are now comparable to the Federal laws, that there will come a

time when the State of Virginia will be able to take over this

Project Exile and fully implement it as part of the governmental

responsibilities of the State of Virginia?

Mr. EARLEY. I hope it would always remain a partnership. I

think that is what has been the very successful dynamic in the city

of Richmond, and I think it is what will be the successful dynamic

for the State.

You know, the fact of the matter is that in America, we do have

different levels of law enforcement and prosecution. We do have

Federal laws and Federal prosecutors; we have State laws and

State prosecutors. And we need to play to our strengths. We have

some very tough Federal laws on criminals possessing guns. In

many instances they are tougher than many State and local laws.

And I think the beauty of Project Exile is if you can have the kind

of leadership we had with Helen Fahey in Richmond in having the

Federal prosecutors take the lead, it is an extraordinary catalyst in

then forming a partnership with State and local prosecutors. There

is no question that the Federal leadership on Project Exile in Richmond was a catalyst for change in State laws statewide in the

Commonwealth of Virginia.

What is happening now in the city of Richmond after only 3

months of now having our new State Virginia Exile laws is that the

Commonwealth’s attorney for the city of Richmond, David Hicks,

confers with the U.S. attorney and our prosecutors and their office

about each particular gun case, and the question is asked: Who will

prosecute this case? Oftentimes the criteria is based on where we

think we can get the most severe sentence.

Any kind of homicide rate in any city is a tragedy. And I think

what we have been able to demonstrate in Richmond with this

partnership—and Helen is right, it is not simply one thing, but I

don’t think you can underestimate the power of getting criminals

who carry guns off the street. And if we can determine the most

effective means of prosecuting those and getting them separated

from the community for the longest time, we are going to all be better off, and I think the results in Richmond have showed that.

Mrs. MINK. If the Federal laws on gun possession are so successful in reducing the felonies committed by these criminals, why

would the State of Virginia not want to replicate the severity of the

Federal laws in its own laws?

Mr. EARLEY. We have. That is what the Virginia Exile program

that was passed last year is.

Mrs. MINK. It’s comparable?

Mr. EARLEY. It is similar. There are a few differences here and

there, and in a few cases the prosecutorial efforts at the Federal

level we think can be still more effective. This is called Project

Exile because it gets criminals who carry guns out of the community. It gets them off the street very quickly. And one of the things

98

that the Federal program will always have as an advantage is the

ability to place people in prisons that are far away from their communities.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARR [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady from Hawaii.

Again, I want to thank—Mr. Heston?

Mr. HESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make

one comment. While the NRA is very proud of our involvement in

Project Exile in the Richmond and now in Georgia, last year we,

with the vigorous help of Mayor Rendell and Senator Specter, managed to get the beginning of such a program in the city of Philadelphia, which also has a huge crime rate.

I differ with Ms. Fahey in saying that passing gun laws will help

solve crime. Passing gun laws is almost a complete failure. We

have 22,000 gun laws on the books in the United States. The arrest

rate is pretty good. The prosecution rate is practically zero.

To give a significant example, in the past 2 years, 6,000 young

students, meaning not children but not adults, have been arrested

for carrying firearms onto school campuses in almost every municipality. That is the law and properly that is a good law. Of those

6,000, over the last 2 years there have been 10 prosecutions; 10 out

of 6,000.

The Federal Government must take in hand the problem of prosecuting arrested criminals. Simply the whole structure could fall

apart on that simple problem.

Mr. BARR. In other words, it isn’t the passage of gun laws that

stops crime; it is the enforcement of gun laws that stops crime.

Mr. HESTON. With all respect to the Honorable gentlewoman

from Hawaii, Hawaii—and it is a marvelously effective example—

has the most stringent gun control laws in America, very possibly

in the world. You have to register ammunition for a gun in Hawaii.

And the tragic incident the day before yesterday demonstrates that

that does not help things. It is a nice placebo you can suck your

thumb and say we have all of those gun laws, perhaps we should

pass a couple more, that would do it. It will not do it.

Prosecuting criminals, that is what made Mayor Giuliani’s boast,

his determination to reduce crime in the city of New York, that is

how that worked, prosecuting criminals.

Mr. BARR. We have a vote on, Mr. Heston. I know you have an

engagement with another very distinguished American, former Secretary of Defense Weinberger, and we would excuse you. Thank

you for your testimony today. It is an honor to have you here. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. HESTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, honorable ladies and gentlemen and fellow citizens.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Heston.

Mr. Earley and Mrs. Fahey, would you all be able to wait so that

I could go vote quickly and come back and reconvene?

Ms. FAHEY. I would be happy to.

Mr. BARR. Thank you. We are in recess until we reconvene after

that vote on the floor.

[Recess.]

99

Mr. MICA [presiding]. If we could have the two witnesses who are

remaining from our first panel, Attorney General Mark Earley, and

U.S. Attorney Helen Fahey, please return.

I believe we were going to try to proceed during the vote, and unfortunately Monday some of us missed some votes through airplane

mechanical problems, so we are all trying to keep our voting record

as high as we can, but we do want to keep the hearing moving and

proceed with the witnesses.

I had some questions that I did not get to in my first round, and

when Mr. Barr, our vice chairman, returns, we will yield to him

and then any other Members as they return from votes on the

floor.

One of the questions that I wanted to ask in regard to Project

Exile that you described, Mr. Attorney General, was that when you

were transitioning from Project Exile to Project Virginia Exile, and

you said that it was necessary to also have the State pass laws, I

believe some of those were implemented in Virginia were passed in

June of this past year.

Could you tell us a little bit about the transition, and will we expect to see more State prosecutions as opposed to Federal prosecutions? What was the transition, and what are we going to see?

Mr. EARLEY. Well, I think, first of all, it is important to understand the context that the Project Exile that came out of the U.S.

attorney’s office under Helen Fahey’s leadership was targeted at

the city of Richmond. We have a big State in Virginia. We have

over 160 various jurisdictions. We have local prosecutors in each of

those jurisdictions that are independently elected. And it obviously

would be, I think, unreasonable to expect the U.S. attorney’s office

to prosecute gun crimes in every local jurisdiction throughout the

United States.

I think the kind of approach that needs to be taken is what happened in Richmond, and that is to target the major cities where

you have a presence of a U.S. attorney’s office and good resources

and tackle where we have some of these really high out-of-control

homicide rates where people are just carrying guns with criminal

intent on a regular basis.

But in Virginia, we said this is so effective at reducing the homicide rate, we want our prosecutors to be able to have this ability

in every jurisdiction; whether it is the city of Virginia Beach, the

city of Norfolk, the city of Roanoke, or the county of Fairfax, this

ought to work everywhere, and we have prosecutors everywhere. So

the idea was to take this tough ability to separate guns from criminals and to put criminals away for a very definitive long period of

time that we thought we ought to be able to emulate around the

Commonwealth of Virginia.

So Virginia Exile was never envisioned as a way to replace the

efforts of the U.S. attorney’s office down in Project Exile in Richmond. I believe there is still going to be a strong need for that, and

that is why we continue to have a strong partnership with them

in those cities, but we want our citizens to have the protection and

the benefit of that kind of law enforcement in every jurisdiction.

Mr. MICA. My other question was for Ms. Fahey. You did undertake this project as an initiative within the U.S. attorney’s office

100

through existing resources, and obviously that was a subjective determination that was made by you in your department.

Is it not possible for others to also institute through existing resources adoption of Project Exile and focus it on areas where you

have a high incidence of crime and use of illegal weapons?

Ms. FAHEY. Well, as I am sure you know, the President gave a

directive to the Justice Department which was given to all U.S. attorneys that each office was to develop a gun violence reduction initiative, and that is being finalized at the present time.

Mr. MICA. When was that issued?

Ms. FAHEY. Excuse me?

Mr. MICA. When was that issued?

Ms. FAHEY. Perhaps April of this year.

Mr. MICA. And it still is not finalized?

Ms. FAHEY. Well, that does not mean that people are not doing

things in their district. They are. They are finalizing the papers

that have gone into the Justice Department. But they had a meeting within the last 2 days at the National Advocacy Center down

in South Carolina of all of the gun enforcement coordinators from

every U.S. attorney’s office in the country to discuss the programs

that every district has. So—— Mr. MICA. I would like our staff to get a copy of the directive,

and then maybe we could get an inventory of where we are, since

that was April, and we are now approaching the end of the year,

and maybe we can see where the Department of Justice is on this

initiative.

I did want to continue the hearing. Mr. Barr was about to start

questions. I will recognize him and then we will go to Mr. Turner.

Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again want to commend

your office and you personally, Ms. Fahey, and those who work

under you, including Mr. David Schiller, who is one of the leading

attorneys to begin Project Exile in your office for your work.

I do wish we would see a little more support from main Justice

and from the attorney general and deputy attorney general for this

project. I think that the attorney general and the deputy could provide tremendous leadership in this instance and really help other

jurisdictions.

I think the deputy attorney general’s choice of words was unfortunate, as has been alluded to earlier, and as he was quoted in

New York Times of February 10th of this year, calling this a ‘‘cookie-cutter’’ approach, somewhat derogatorily. And another Justice official Kent Marcus last year in August was quoted in the Wall

Street Journal as dismissing Project Exile as an assembly line

prosecution.

Now, while I certainly understand, being a former U.S. attorney

myself, and as Mr. Hutchinson, also being a former U.S. attorney,

indicated in his opening remarks, and as I know you understand,

one of the great strengths of U.S. attorney’s offices is that they

have a great deal of flexibility in terms of prosecutorial discretion

and how to use the resources in their offices, and that is something

that has always been the strength of our U.S. attorneys system.

But by the same token, if there are projects and programs that

work, let’s use them. Even a cookie cutter, if it produces good cookVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Dec 13, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\66358.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
101

ies, is something that is worthwhile. Even an assembly line, if it

produces a good car, is worthwhile.

I think back to my days as a U.S. attorney, one of the most successful anticrime programs in the history of our Department of Justice is the OCDETF program, the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force approach, instituted in the early 1980’s by

President Reagan and continued by every President and every attorney general since then. OCDETF, very similar to Project Exile,

except on a much broader scale because it was directed from main

Justice, and U.S. attorneys across the country, including in the 13

core cities, were required to institute it and be a part of it, did, I

think, exactly what Project Exile is supposed to do.

I read from the Project Exile pamphlet that you all have put out,

and it includes four basic aspects or basic components of Project

Exile. And I will paraphrase here: Full coordination from the officer on the beat up to and including the Federal prosecutor. Full coordination with the State officials, the attorney general’s office, and

the Commonwealth’s attorney’s offices. Active coordination of all

police agencies, a simplified reporting system, and, No. 4, coordinated use of innovative and aggressive policing methods.

The common term in each one of those four components or aspects of Project Exile and why it works is the word ‘‘coordination.’’ It does somewhat mystify me why some of your colleagues at main

Justice seem to take umbrage and denigrate a coordinated approach to law enforcement. That is all Project Exile is at its core.

It is simply a decision by the prosecuting authorities to better coordinate in a very conscious way the resources and the process of

investigating and prosecuting certain types of crime, and it works.

I really am mystified, particularly in a day when perhaps there

is frequently far too much criticism of far too many programs, that

we’re going to the Department of Justice and saying, here is an approach that works. Please use it elsewhere. We will give you the

money for it. We want you to do it. And what we get back is a high

hat saying that is a cookie-cutter approach or that is an assembly

line approach, and we don’t want to replicate it.

I think, also, some of the arguments that there are not enough

resources—and we will get into this a little bit more with the next

panel—are a little bit disingenuous by people up here in Washington as well. Now, I know that we had some discussion during a

previous question about a proposed 1 percent cut and the increase

in an agency’s budgets. The fact of the matter is, though, there has

been just over the past 5 years a 50 percent increase in ATF’s

budget from $385 million to almost $600 million, and in the Justice

budget as well. There has been over that same 5-year period from

1995 to 1999 also a 50 percent increase in the budget.

So I really don’t think that arguments that there simply isn’t

enough money at main Justice to do these things really flies with

the tremendous increases in budgets that have been afforded the

Department of Justice and ATF and U.S. attorneys’ offices.

I would just implore you to use whatever influence you might

have with the attorney general and with the deputy attorney general to, first of all, maybe just in a very kind way ask them to not

use those sorts of terms in describing a project that works tremendously well, and urge them to direct more resources to U.S. attorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Dec 13, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\66358.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
102

neys’ offices, particularly, as Mr. Earley has said, also in major cities where we obviously have problems of violent crime and the use

of firearms so that there is simply a better coordinated approach

all the way up and down the line and a better coordinated process.

I mean, that is, again, at its core what Project Exile does. I cannot imagine that anybody—and if even you all disagree with it, certainly tell me—finding fault with an approach that simply says coordinate at all levels of prosecution and investigation, coordinate

the reporting process and streamline it, and coordinate every aspect of these. It has worked in OCDETF with drug cases and

worked with the organized strike crime forces going back to Attorney General Kennedy’s days. It works with Project Exile.

So for heaven’s sake, please, whatever you all can do to urge the

administration to use this program to direct other major city U.S.

attorneys’ offices to use it, would be deeply appreciated not just by

those of us in Congress, but by the people in those cities such as

the citizens of Richmond, who I know from hearing from many of

them deeply appreciate the efforts of your two offices and the police

department in Richmond.

So thank you very much, and I do hope that you will assist us

in that effort.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. Tierney.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret the fact that

Mr. Heston apparently had to leave in our absence. I do that only

because I think we caught Moses in a misstatement there. Before

he left, he was going to present all the things we agreed upon and

leave the things that we disagreed on, and then proceeded to do

just the opposite. I had wanted to have the opportunity to share

with him some of the administration’s figures on fighting crime and

prosecuting crime that he should be, and I suspect probably is,

knowledgeable of.

And I think there has been a good two-step process here where

substantial Federal resources have been given to prevent the access

to firearms by prohibited persons and to incarcerate violent gun offenders. And I think that has been successful. And we have also

had these partnerships that we are talking about with the various

State and local authorities.

I am a little bit concerned about the Federalization of all crimes.

I have always thought that a good deal of the law enforcement was

particular to the States, and that their resources were properly put

on that. I was interested to see a statement by John Justice, who

is the President of the National District Attorneys Association, who

essentially says just that, that about 90 percent of the crimes in

the United States, including gun laws, are prosecuted by the 3,000

or so local prosecutors, and that is the way it should be; that the

Federal Government has about 100 U.S. attorneys, and they are

stretched pretty thin, and they can probably assist and help out on

that, but it would seem appropriate—and I would like your comments on the idea of why are we turning this on its head and trying to push this toward the Federal Government when, in fact, it

seems that it is appropriate for the States to undertake the prosecution of a majority of these crimes, and the States that have the

laws, that they ought to toughen up their laws to have an illegal

103

gun gets you 5 years in prison. They are certainly capable of doing

that and then using their resources to prosecute that. Either one

of you want to touch on that?

Mr. EARLEY. I will be happy to go first. As with most things in

life, this is not an either/or proposition. It is both/and.

The fact of the matter is it was a policy decision on the part of

the U.S. Congress to pass a number of these tough gun laws a long

time ago. Most of these laws that are being prosecuted under

Project Exile were passed by the Congress in the late 1960’s.

Mr. TIERNEY. I guess what I am saying, if you want to get tough

on this and you like the law, apparently you want to enforce it and

bang around on it, so what is holding back the States, many of

whom have surpluses and a number of prosecutors, from going out

there and passing these tough laws and prosecuting under State

law?

Mr. EARLEY. Well, we hope they will follow the lead of Governor

Gilmore in the State of Virginia in passing similar kinds of laws

and enforcing them.

Mr. TIERNEY. That is not what I am hearing here. I am hearing

that you want the Federal Government to step up and do the work

for you.

Mr. EARLEY. Well, with all due respect, I think it is a question

of simply recognizing that everybody has a role in this. It doesn’t

make any sense to me for anyone to suggest that the Federal Government should not prosecute the laws it has passed. Nor does it

make any sense to me for anyone to suggest that the States should

not be aggressively involved in prosecuting their gun laws.

Mr. TIERNEY. Let’s not go there. Nobody made that statement.

We certainly think the States should be aggressively enforcing

their laws, and that is what I am talking about, that they should.

They have far more in line of resources to do just that than the

Federal Government apparently does with 100 or so U.S. attorneys

that they have.

So I do think it is a cooperative effort, but I am wondering where

we are putting the emphasis on this and why the States are not

stepping up and enforcing these types of laws and having some

Federal assistance on this, but maybe doing more of it.

The other side of that is that, you know, you look and do—prosecute it on the Federal end, of course the people that are convicted

end up in a Federal prison. And in Richmond, as one of the recent

Federal District Court Judges recently noted, they end up in a Federal prison close to Richmond, leaving the State prisons so freed up

that they are able to then rent space in them to the Federal Government. Again, everybody is tapping into the Federal resources

there, and I wonder what we’re doing here.

Mr. EARLEY. Well, I think what we’re doing is implementing

what has also been true in the American prosecutorial system, and

that is prosecuting the laws at every level. And I think that has

been unique about Project Exile at the Federal level is there is, for

whatever reason historically, a tremendous deterrent effect on the

criminal element about the fact they could potentially be prosecuted under Federal law.

104

Mr. TIERNEY. And you don’t think there would be such a deterrent effect if you had a similar State law as you do in Virginia? You

don’t think that has the same effect?

Mr. EARLEY. I would hope that it does, but I think historically

you can’t discount the ability of Federal prosecutions in certain

major areas like organized crime, and significant drug conspiracies

and drug dealing as well as violent gun crime to have a very potent

effect.

Mr. TIERNEY. But are we not to really concentrate our Federal

resources on just that, the categories that you just spoke, and leave

the other crimes, including your garden variety crimes with the

possession of a handgun, to the States to prosecute and to imprison

on that basis? I think that is a point well made, that you want to

really use the best resources in combination, then you take the

scarcer Federal resources for those purposes and concentrate them

on the more egregious crimes, and then you have the prosecutors

at the State level undertake the responsibility for the others.

Mr. EARLEY. Well, at least I know in Richmond we consider the

high homicide rate we had to be very egregious, and I think if you

look at what concerns—— Mr. TIERNEY. I understand that. That is exactly why the U.S. attorney’s office went in in that particular instance. So if you are telling me that you want to have the Federal Government play a

major role in those areas in this country where it is an egregious

problem, it seems to be a different message than the one that I

heard, which is that you wanted them to jump in and Federalize

it across the board. But I think there would be more room for discussion on that.

Mr. EARLEY. Well, you might have been out of the room. You

didn’t hear me say that. I think that the suggestion we have had

on this panel unanimously is that these ought to be targeted in

areas of the United States where you have a significant problem

of gun homicides and homicides in general, which are going to be

large major metropolitan areas. And Project Exile is very well suited to be prosecuted through the U.S. attorneys’ offices in those

areas, particularly with the cooperation and partnership like we

have in Virginia with the State and local authorities.

Ms. FAHEY. I would just like to respond briefly. I don’t think anyone, certainly not me, has suggested that all of these crimes be

prosecuted federally or that these crimes be Federalized across the

country. It would not be wise, and it is not feasible.

When we started Project Exile in Richmond, it was a response

to a tragic level of violence in the city. It was a feeling that something needed to be done, and perhaps we could use the Federal system effectively to deal with the problem or to make a difference.

We could have spent a lot of time sitting around talking about

what other people could or should do about the problem, but we decided as a group instead to decide what we could do about the problem in a cooperative manner and came up with what was initially

exclusive Federal prosecution. But one of the things that the success of Project Exile did was to encourage the State to change the

State laws so that they were more comparable to the Federal law

so that more of these cases could be prosecuted in the State. And

my understanding is that is taking place in other parts of the counVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Dec 13, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\66358.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
105

try as well. And the general message, which is vigorous enforcement of gun laws, whether it be State or Federal, gets across to the

community and to the criminals.

Mr. TIERNEY. Are you now finding that your office is shifting

more of the prosecutions over to the State resources?

Ms. FAHEY. The law just went into effect July 1st, so we’re just

beginning that process, but we’re going to do it in a cooperative

manner. We are going to sit down and look at every single case and

decide where it would be best prosecuted for a number of reasons.

Mr. TIERNEY. What are the other reasons besides resource allocation?

Ms. FAHEY. There may be individuals that we think are linked

to a drug gang that we want to keep in Federal court because we

may want their cooperation for something; people who have been

involved in other types of crimes which are Federal; people who

have guns, but are also distributing large quantities of narcotics,

those types of things.

Mr. TIERNEY. So if I am following you, then you want to keep the

really more egregious cases, the ones that might have been of multiple different offenses, some of them being heavily Federal-oriented, in your ball court, but shift over the larger gun-related

crimes to the State prosecution where it would seem to be appropriate.

Ms. FAHEY. We expect eventually that someone convicted of domestic violence who is in possession of a gun can be prosecuted. My

understanding is that is not yet possible under State law. So it will

not also be a major drug dealer. It may be some other types of situations as well.

But I think that we work together so well with all of our colleagues in law enforcement and in prosecution and in the attorney

general’s office that we will come up with the most effective way

to handle these cases. And I don’t think there has ever been a suggestion on the State’s side that we should do these cases just so

they don’t have to pay for them. That has never been the State’s

goal. I think everyone looked at it as people are being murdered

every day on the streets of the city of Richmond, and we all have

an obligation to do what we can at a particular time, and that’s

what we did. I think we really have helped the city. We have

helped the citizens of the city of Richmond. We have made their

lives much better, and much safer. And that’s very important to all

of us.

Mr. TIERNEY. I think you have done a good deed there. And I

think that the States are perfectly capable of taking some of the

initiative, particularly after seeing the example of what happened

there under the leadership of the Federal involvement. But I am

still not convinced that the Federal Government has to take the

lead and be that involved in every situation; that the States cannot

look at the model of what you have done and start to take some

initiative on their own in different situations and allocate it down

under the normal participatory rate between the Federal focusing

on the more egregious crimes and the State focusing on others.

Ms. FAHEY. I think that has happened in places.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

106

I now would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois Mrs.

Schakowsky.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the

witnesses. I am concerned about which individuals have the discretion to divert cases from State to Federal courts. And I am looking

at U.S. v. Jones, where the court itself expresses that it is concerned about the discretion afforded individuals who divert cases

from State to Federal court for prosecution. Witnesses from the office of both the Commonwealth’s attorney and the U.S. attorney

were unable to detail the specific process by which this review and

diversion occurs. A local police officer is apparently individually responsible for this task, and that does concern me.

I wondered if you wanted to respond to that, if, in fact, it is individual police officers who ultimately have that discretion.

Ms. FAHEY. No, I don’t think I would describe it that way. The

individual police officer who makes the stop on the street, for example, is the one who begins the process. When he finds a gun, he

calls the ATF to find out whether or not the circumstances of that

particular case would qualify for Federal prosecution and whether

there is sufficient evidence in that case.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Will that happen in every single case involving a gun?

Ms. FAHEY. Yes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So they don’t filter out.

Ms. FAHEY. No. No. I mean, it is being done in every case in part

so that there will be no discrimination.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Why is it then that the court raised that concern and found that?

Ms. FAHEY. Well, I know that Judge Williams who wrote that

opinion believes very strongly that these types of cases should be

prosecuted in State court and not in Federal court for largely philosophical reasons. And so he has objected on a number of grounds

to the project.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, one of the reasons I believe that was

given is that 90 percent of the Project Exile defendants are African

Americans, and the court noted that the inability to explain the

procedure used, ‘‘casts some doubt on the assertion that race plays

no role in deciding whether a particular case is to be federally prosecuted.’’ So that was the concern that——

Ms. FAHEY. Actually, there was no finding by the court that

there was any evidence of discrimination, no finding whatsoever by

the court; a lot of discussion, but no finding.

But let me talk a little bit about the numbers because I think

that creates a distortion. What is not mentioned in there is that

almost somewhere between 85 and 90 percent of the homicide victims in the city of Richmond are African American. It is that particular segment of the society in Richmond that is being most victimized by the gun-carrying criminals.

I have been a prosecutor for a long time. One of the complaints

for many years was that law enforcement did not take crimes

against minorities as seriously as it did crimes against whites. We

have looked at the situation in Richmond. We have looked at who

was being killed, and if you look at crime statistics, and they are

not just in Richmond, they are all over the country, most homicides

107

are committed within a particular race. Most murders, the vast

majority of murders of African Americans are committed by African

Americans. Most, the vast majority of murders of whites are committed by whites. There is not anywhere near as high an interracial aspect to that as many people think.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Could I interrupt you for 1 second then? Then

why shouldn’t Richmond jurors that also reflect that population be

those that decide in those cases? In other words, they would also

reflect the population of Richmond and might more accurately be

jurors of peers of those individuals.

Ms. FAHEY. Well, we started the program because there was a

rising homicide problem, and it was not getting better. It appeared

to be related to criminals carrying guns, drug dealers with guns.

The prosecutor’s office in the city of Richmond, in part because

of the overwhelming level of crime in the city, did not have the resources to give the attention to these types of crimes as they needed to have to have them effectively prosecuted.

If you take an office like in the city of Richmond that has a total

of 30 prosecutors, and you have 110, 130, 160 homicides a year,

plus rapes, plus armed robberies, plus burglaries, they do not have

the resources to put on these types of what you might call status

cases.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me express my concern here. The jury pool

for Richmond itself is about 75 percent African American. The jury

pool for the Richmond Division of the Eastern Division of Virginia

is drawn from a broader geographical area and is, in contrast,

about 10 percent African American. If you are saying that 90, 85

or 90 percent of the cases involve African Americans, it would seem

to me that if we are trying to establish a jury of peers, that it

might be fairer. And it does concern me that we are talking about

this concentration of one racial group in terms of those that are

brought to Federal court.

Ms. FAHEY. First of all, the jury composition in Richmond had

absolutely nothing to do with where these cases were prosecuted,

absolutely nothing.

The police chief in the city of Richmond is African American. The

elected prosecutor in the city of Richmond is African American.

Both of them have been heavily involved and totally supportive of

this program.

I don’t think if we look at the country nationwide that there is

any way that we could say that any U.S. attorney’s office should

not prosecute a case if their jury pool would be different from the

jury pool in one of the cities in which they were prosecuting cases.

It would just be an absolute impossibility.

In addition to that, the vast majority of these people plead guilty.

They are not jury trials.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlewoman.

Do any of the other Members have any additional questions?

Mrs. MINK. Yes, I have a question.

Mr. MICA. Mrs. Mink.

Mrs. MINK. There has been comments made and questions asked

about the lackadaisical attitude of the Department of Justice and

the leadership of the Department with respect to coming to grips

108

with their responsibility to take the lead on matters affecting

crimes using a gun or firearms. I wanted to just note that staff has

given me a report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice called

Promising Strategies to Reduce Gun Violence. I wanted to ask Ms.

Fahey if she was familiar with this report or contributed to it

or——

Ms. FAHEY. I am. I am not familiar in detail with all of the

things that are in it.

Mrs. MINK. But you are familiar with the report?

Ms. FAHEY. Yes, I am.

Mrs. MINK. It was issued in February 1999. And do you think it

accurately describes the overall efforts being made to reduce gun

violence, and that it illustrates the importance that the Department of Justice gives to this whole question of Federal, State, and

local responsibility to do something about guns in their communities?

Ms. FAHEY. Well, I think that that particular publication outlines

all of the programs that had been initiated probably prior to the

last year, year and a half, and since then, additional programs

aimed at reducing gun violence have been initiated in U.S. attorney’s offices throughout the country.

Mrs. MINK. Now, in the early pages of this report, profile No. 2,

it discusses at great length the Boston strategy to prevent gun violence. Are you familiar with the Boston situation?

Ms. FAHEY. To some extent.

Mrs. MINK. It apparently precedes that of Richmond.

Ms. FAHEY. I am to some extent, yes.

Mrs. MINK. Do you think that program has been effective, and

to what extent did the Federal Government become involved in the

initiation and prosecution of that project?

Ms. FAHEY. I don’t know when the Federal Government became

involved in it. I know that it was a major effort for various segments of the law enforcement community and society and various

agencies in Boston.

Mrs. MINK. Throughout this report, there is indication that the

administration has been well into urging and promoting promising

strategies to reduce gun violence, and many of the reports deal

with projects that began in 1992 and carried on until the present

time.

So, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there has been so

much criticism about the administration’s lack of interest in prosecuting the matter of gun violence, I ask unanimous consent that

this report be placed into the record at this point.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, the report will be cited in the

record.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Well, I want to take this opportunity to thank both of

the remaining two panelists, the attorney general and the U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia, and to express my appreciation for your coming forward, for your leadership on this

project.

We hope that it can be replicated not only throughout Virginia,

but throughout the United States. We are all looking for successful

answers and solutions to the problem that we have with gun vioVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Dec 13, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\66358.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
109

lence and stopping crime and other problems that we have had in

our streets, in our communities, our schools and neighborhoods.

So we will again say thank you and excuse you at this time.

Mr. EARLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I would like to call our second panel this morning.

The second panel consists of two witnesses, Ms. Teresa Gooch,

who is the deputy chief of police for the Richmond Bureau of Police.

The second witness is Professor Susan Long, and Professor Long is

codirector of the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse with

Syracuse University, and I believe her study was referred to in this

first panel.

I want to welcome both of our witnesses and again remind you

that this is an investigations and oversight subcommittee of the

House of Representatives. We do swear in our witnesses, and you

will be under oath when you testify. And we also will ask to you

limit your remarks to 5 minutes and request that any lengthy

statements or documents be submitted for the record through

unanimous consent.

You are standing. Would you please raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. The witnesses have answered in the affirmative, and

we are pleased to have you both with us today. We have heard a

little bit about how Project Exile was instituted in and for Richmond, and we are pleased to recognize at this time Teresa Gooch,

who is the deputy chief of police with the Richmond Bureau of Police. I am sure you will be able to provide us with more information

and background relating to your success story. Welcome, and you

are recognized.

STATEMENTS OF TERESA GOOCH, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE,

RICHMOND BUREAU OF POLICE, ACCOMPANIED BY SERGEANT NORRIS L. EVANS, AND OFFICER DOUGLAS P.

VILKOSKI, RICHMOND BUREAU OF POLICE; AND SUSAN

LONG, PROFESSOR, CODIRECTOR, TRANSACTIONAL

RECORDS ACCESS CLEARINGHOUSE, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

Chief GOOCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. I would like to take a brief moment to introduce you

also to two officers that have accompanied me here, Sergeant Norris L. Evans and Officer Douglas Vilkoski. Both are members of the

police department and have been and continue to be involved in

Project Exile cases.

Mr. MICA. We would like to welcome your colleagues and thank

you for recognizing them.

Chief GOOCH. And thank you for this opportunity to speak before

you today.

Project Exile is a product of a desire to explore creative alternative strategies to address the difficult urban problems of gun,

drugs and violent crime. The program was developed in late 1996

from a successful partnership between the Richmond Police Department and the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Together with Helen Fahey, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District, and the Richmond Police Department, we joined forces to devise a plan to prevent Richmond from experiencing another 1994.

110

Five years ago, a record 160 persons were murdered, and 3,500 violent crimes were reported in a city of just more than 200,000 people.

Richmond followed the nationwide trend in that its crime problem stemmed from illegal drug trafficking, particularly crack cocaine, and the violent competitive behavior associated with illegal

drug sales. Guns and drugs were commonplace in many of our

neighborhoods and on our street corners, and Richmond was gaining a reputation of having a very high carry rate for guns.

Thank to the tireless efforts and dedication of James B. Comey,

deputy assistant U.S. attorney for the Richmond area, and David

Schiller, assistant U.S. attorney and chief Federal prosecutor for

Project Exile, a program was created to aggressively target and

prosecute firearm-toting criminals in the city of Richmond.

From Project Exile’s inception, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms was brought on board as a sponsoring Federal agency. It became the third member of our team. Agents from the local

office are assigned as part of Project Exile task force to aid our officers in their investigations and to adopt cases that meet certain

criteria for prosecution within the Federal courts system under 18

U.S.C. 922 and 924.

As outlined in earlier testimony from the Honorable Mark Earley

and attorney Helen Fahey, there are eight basic criteria that they

had to meet in order to meet the standard for the prosecution. A

typical Project Exile case in the city of Richmond would involve an

officer who might be assigned to a precinct beat car or to any other

uniformed or plain clothes unit of their agency encountering or arresting an individual who has used or is in the possession of a firearm. If during the course of the investigation of that incident it is

learned that the person meets any of the previously listed criteria,

the case is referred to the Project Exile Task Force for review and

possible adoption. State charges may or may not be placed against

the person at that time, depending upon the circumstances of the

encounter.

So this new—the prosecutorial strategy offered three distinct advantages for us. No. 1 was stiffer sentencing guidelines for those

using firearms in the commission of drug offenses or crimes of violence. No. 2 was a no bail provision prior to an offender’s first court

appearance, and the likelihood of serving a number of years in a

prison far from home and associates. So in effect they would be exiled from the Richmond community.

So other agencies soon joined our efforts. The Honorable Mark

Earley, who testified earlier, assigned members of his staff to provide assistance. Our local Commonwealth attorney, David Hicks,

assigned another prosecutor to the U.S. attorney’s office. Other law

enforcement agencies that participate include Virginia State Police

and the FBI.

The Project Exile Task Force has now staffed with Federal, State

and local law enforcement officers along with Federal and State

prosecutors, and the Richmond Police Department has assigned

three officers to help facilitate the prosecution of these cases.

We also have staff that track each case and research all firearms

seized by the Richmond Police Department. And we are assisted in

our efforts by, of course, the alcohol, tobacco and firearms agency.

111

As has already been mentioned in 1997, when the initiative

kicked off, we had experienced numerous successful prosecutions.

In fact, this aggressive prosecution by the prosecutors brought an

end to the violence by neighborhood-based drug groups known as

the ‘‘Poison Clan’’ and the ‘‘Dogg Pound.’’ Richmond’s city manager

along with the city council and its public safety committee were instrumental in helping to devise and support not only these police

strategies, but also a number of initiatives across the spectrum of

city government services.

As was stated earlier, there was an aggressive marketing campaign, so word began to spread on the street about the impact of

Project Exile. They were very aggressive in that marketing campaign and used numerous private funding sources to help spread

the word.

So has it worked? Our city residents think so. The daughter of

an elderly woman who lives in one of our city’s communities

thanked us recently. She said she had witnessed her mother do

something the other day that she had never seen her do before:

walk by herself to a corner grocery. The woman’s mother had never

felt safe enough to walk a few blocks, and she does now.

The attitude of Richmond’s would-be criminals is changing, too.

When a Richmond detective recently questioned a suspect about

whether he was carrying a gun, the suspect was quick to reply:

Carry a gun in Richmond? I don’t think so. I don’t want to go to

jail for 5 years.

And as noted also, our statistics speak for themselves. In 1998,

it is important to note that Richmond’s overall homicide rate was

the lowest since 1987. In fact, other violent crime categories decreased also. This year our homicide rate is 29 percent lower than

it was even in 1998. So compared to our record year of 1994, our

homicide rate has dropped nearly 60 percent.

Our efforts through Project Exile, as I have stated, have garnered regional and national recognition, and, in fact, other law enforcement agencies now pursue similar avenues of prosecution. In

addition, other cities throughout the Nation are exploring this effort.

But most importantly, our efforts have gained the confidence of

our community. The successes that Project Exile has enjoyed in

Richmond have helped us to build confidence in the community and

credibility in our police department. We view Project Exile as one

of our greatest success stories during the past years. It has truly

strengthened the partnerships the Richmond Police Department

has forged with other agencies and with the community.

As we stated, or as Mark Earley stated earlier, we now have Virginia Exile, and the laws closely mirror the sanctions and procedures found in the Federal Code, and they will also provide other

Virginia localities with aggressive policing tools needed to combat

crime violence in their communities. We continue to work closely

with our State and local prosecutors in pursuing aggressive prosecution in State courts while building on our successful partnership

with the U.S. attorney and other members of our Project Exile

team.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Chief Gooch follows:]

112

113

114

115

116

Mr. MICA. I want to thank you for your testimony, and before we

get to questions, we will hear from Professor Susan Long, the codirector of Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse with Syracuse University. Welcome, and you are recognized.

Ms. LONG. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to come today to testify

about the results from our recent research study conducted by the

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University on the enforcement of Federal weapons laws by the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

By way of background, the clearinghouse, commonly known as

TRAC, is a data-gathering, data research and data distribution organization at Syracuse University. I, along with David Burnham,

who is a research faculty member in the Newhouse School at Syracuse, serve as the center’s codirectors. My specialty is statistics,

data and measurement, and I am a faculty member in the Department of Quantitative Methods at Syracuse’s School of Management.

TRAC focuses its research efforts on Federal enforcement and

regulatory activities. Since its founding in 1989, TRAC has sought

to provide the American people with comprehensive information

about the activities of Federal enforcement and regulatory agencies.

TRAC’s information is based on masses of detailed data that it

obtains from Federal agencies through the systematic and informed

use of the Freedom of Information Act. With the use of a variety

of sophisticated statistical techniques, the raw information obtained from the agencies is checked and verified. Where possible,

data from one agency is compared with another for general consistency. Detailed studies on specific agencies and topical areas are

carried out. We also undertake special studies concerning the accuracy and reliability of data from various government data systems

and publish our findings about apparent trustworthiness of official

counts that an agency issues about its activities.

As part of TRAC’s series about each of the major Federal law enforcement agencies, TRAC’s study on the ATF was published in August of this year. It updated an earlier TRAC study on the ATF

that was done in 1996. The full study is available on TRAC’s

website. I refer anyone interested in more details to the full report.

In the brief time I have here, I can only highlight five key findings.

First, among all Federal agencies, ATF has long been the preeminent Federal law enforcement agency in the weapons area. It

is the lead investigatory agency in most Federal firearms prosecutions, accounting for 82 percent of all referrals recorded by Federal

prosecutors with weapons as a lead charge in 1992 and 75 percent

in 1998.

Second, the level of criminal enforcement activity of firearms

laws by the ATF is down sharply. From a peak in fiscal year 1992,

ATF matters sent to Federal prosecutors declined by 44 percent,

dropping from just under 10,000 in 1992 to a bit over 5,000 in

1998. A similar sharp decline is also shown when ATF referrals to

State and local prosecutors, not just to the Feds, are included.

Thus, this decline in ATF criminal enforcement of firearms laws

does not represent a shift from Federal to State and local enforceVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Dec 13, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\66358.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
117

ment, but an overall decline in the magnitude of ATF enforcement

activity at all levels. There is an accompanying graph and table

that is in my prepared statement that I would like included in the

record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, that will be made part of the

record.

Ms. LONG. ATF staffing levels are also down, although not as

sharply. One factor contributing to the drop in ATF enforcement

has been cutbacks in its staff. While the number of criminal investigators on the Federal payroll grew more than 20 percent between

1992 and 1998, ATF staffing declined. The number of ATF special

agents, who are the ones that take the primary lead in criminal investigations, dropped by 14 percent in the last 7 years, from just

under 2,100 in 1992, to just under 1,800 in 1998.

Fourth point. There is little evidence to suggest that the decline

since the mid-1990’s represents better targeting on more significant

matters. When an agency’s referrals go into a slump, administrators often assert that this is because its investigators are focusing

on a smaller number of more significant matters. Targeting more

serious criminals and crimes is a worthy objective; however, such

conclusions are always hard to quantify.

One possible useful indicator is to examine change in the prison

time that results from an agency’s investigations. Under Federal

sentencing guidelines, higher prison times are generally assigned

to what society judges as more serious crimes. In the case of the

ATF, no clear trend toward more or less serious sentences has occurred. Initially as referrals fell from their peak in 1992, prison

sentences did rise. This would be consistent with a better targeting

argument. However in 1996, median sentences—half got more, half

got less—peaked at 57 months. In the next year the median

dropped to 48 months. In 1998, it went to 46 months. Further, the

actual number of defendants sentenced to prison terms of 5 years

or more, including life, peaked in 1993 and has fallen sharply since

then, particularly since 1996.

Fifth, and my last point, the study found wide regional variations

in how the ATF enforces the law in different parts of the Nation.

Median sentences resulting from an ATF investigation varied

greatly around the country. Some of these variations appear to be

grounded in the underlying enforcement challenges facing the

agency. Arizona, for example, obviously has very different problems

than Maine, but the rationale behind some contrasting results as

the following are very hard to discern.

In three districts, Illinois Central (Springfield), North Carolina

East (Raleigh), and North Carolina Middle (Greensboro), the median 1998 sentences were over 100 months. By contrast, the median sentences—half more, half were less—in Philadelphia East—

excuse me, Pennsylvania East (Philadelphia), New York South

(Manhattan), and Arizona (Phoenix) were all 36 months or less. Because the sentencing guidelines limit the sentencing discretion of

judges, and very few Federal cases are decided by a jury, the sentencing variations are mostly the result of the kinds of cases the

ATF agents and assistant U.S. attorneys select for prosecution in

the different districts.

118

ATF enforcement activities also vary in different parts of the

country. In terms of the level of activity in relation to population,

there were at least six times more ATF referrals for criminal prosecution in a number of more rural Federal judicial districts like

Oklahoma North (Tulsa), Tennessee East (Knoxville), West Virginia South (Charleston), and North Carolina West (Asheville) than

in major urban centers such as California North (San Francisco),

California Central around Los Angeles, Illinois North (Chicago),

and New Jersey centered in Newark.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would like to have the

full statement for the record because it does have a number of accompanying tables and one graph.

If anyone would like further details concerning this study as

mentioned earlier, it is available in its entirety on our website at

TRAC.SYR.EDU under the icon for ATF. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony and for providing us with this information and background for the subcommittee.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Long follows:]

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

Mr. MICA. Ms. Gooch, some critics of Project Exile have dismissed the program as assembly line prosecution and said that it

takes away from other prosecutions of, say, drug crimes and other

crimes and illegal activities. How would you respond?

Chief GOOCH. Project Exile is one of the most successful tools

that we have used in recent years. I’ve been a Richmond police officer for well over 20 years, and I’ve seen the level and rate of violent crime rise. The benefit and the opportunity presented to us

through the Project Exile initiative is actually quite simple in that

it has allowed us through this partnership, this multiagency partnership, to expand the capacity of our police department, of our police officer on the street.

We recognize the very real danger and impact of what used to

be the high carry rate of guns by criminals on the street. Project

Exile initially was an opportunity for our officers to use tools, legal

tools available to them through the Federal system to have a

marked impact, a direct and significant impact on the rate of violent crime.

Mr. MICA. Ms. Long, how is your operation funded? TRAC, this

program, does it receive Federal funding?

Ms. LONG. No, we do not receive any Federal funds. We are a

self-supporting research center, obviously with support from Syracuse for facilities, and we are supported by research grants largely.

Mr. MICA. Well, you appear to be one of the most thorough clearinghouses and sources of information about statistics on prosecution of gun laws and some of the other activities you have described. Have you had difficulty in obtaining information from the

Federal Government or Federal agencies to compile your statistical

information?

Ms. LONG. Yes, I could certainly say that is true.

Mr. MICA. In what manner? Have you had to go to court to try

to get some of that information?

Ms. LONG. Yes, we certainly have. And I have about 30 years of

experience in using the Freedom of Information Act, trying to obtain records from many agencies. And we did have to file a lawsuit

against the Justice Department, which resulted in a consent decree

in this past summer. This sort of capped 10 years of effort on the

part of TRAC to obtain these records under several administrations.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. We don’t have too much time left. We have

a vote pending. I will yield the balance of time to Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you. And I appreciate, Ms. Gooch, you being

here with two of your fellow officers, and I want to commend you

and your police chief for the fine job that you have been doing.

Again, as we talked about earlier, we hope that through this hearing today and your continued work and the continued work of the

U.S. attorney, we will see this program and this approach, which

is, you know, a basic approach that really works to simply coordinate better gun prosecutions used elsewhere in the country, and I

think will benefit our citizens tremendously. So thank you very

much.

Chief GOOCH. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BARR. Ms. Long, thank you, I have read your work. I appreciate the fact that it will be a part of our record. I think it is very,

137

very telling. It is unfortunate that you have to sue the Department

of Justice to get information, but at least you did.

It is somewhat disturbing, and I note that the chairman is concerned about this also, and hopefully we will inquire into it further

in other proceedings, particularly your work and what it shows regarding a very significant drop-off in ATF prosecutions of gun

crimes. Notwithstanding their rhetoric that this simply means that

they are going after the bigger cases, that is not the case because

it is not reflected in the sentencing, for example, as you have discovered, and it is also not a result of lack of funding.

I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to have inserted

into the record the funding figures that I used earlier regarding

ATF, which shows, for example, that from 1995 to the current fiscal year, there has been a 50 percent increase in ATF funding.

Similarly, Mr. Chairman, there has been a virtually identical

percentage increase in Justice Department funding of almost 50

percent during this period of time.

Now, it may be that both ATF and Justice used that money for

different purposes and don’t, as in the case of ATF—apparently put

the money into more agents to prosecute more cases. But that’s a

policy decision that they have made. I don’t think that there is any

way, with a straight face at least, that they could argue it is a lack

of resources. We have given them the resources in hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, if they choose not to use it to prosecute these

gun cases, then I think we have a serious problem, but it is not

a funding.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, those documents and information

will be made a part of the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

Mr. BARR. And I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that a

further chart entitled Length of Prison Sentences 1998, Districts

and Rank Order be included as well as a packet of material, the

front page of which is entitled BATF Firearms Prosecutions Referrals Drop be included in the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

161

162

163

164

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Well, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank both

of you. I am going to leave the record open for 2 weeks for additional information and testimony. We may have additional questions for some of our witnesses here today.

[The information referred to follows:]

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

Mr. MICA. But I do want to thank Teresa Gooch, the deputy chief

of police of Richmond, for being with us, for sharing with us your

successful program and efforts of the community, State and Federal agencies to bring a difficult situation under control.

Ms. Long, thank you for being with us and providing us background information from your studies. We may have additional

questions for you. Unfortunately, we do have a vote being called at

this time and just a few minutes remaining to go to the floor. But

I think this has been a good hearing to review a program that

couldn’t be in a more timely fashion to address serious problems relating to gun violence in our streets and our communities. Hopefully, the hearing today will highlight the successes of Project

Exile, and we can also prod our Federal agencies to do a little better job toward, again, looking at successful solutions to the problems we’ve seen again most recently.

There being no further business to come before the Subcommittee

on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, this meeting is adjourned.

[The information referred to follows:]

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

201

202

Æ