U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–886 DTP 2003

S. HRG. 108–159

PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS: AMERICA’S

NETWORK AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 13, 2003

Serial No. J–108–11

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

MAKAN DELRAHIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 3

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51

Craig, Hon. Larry, a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ................................. 3

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 1

Kohl, Hon. Herbert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 74

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 72

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 14

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 13

WITNESSES 

Blumstein, Alfred, Professor, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................. 31

Curtis, Charles L., President, Kansas City Metropolitan Crime Commission, 

Kansas City, Missouri .......................................................................................... 29

Graves, Hon. Todd P., U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, 

Kansas City, Missouri .......................................................................................... 9

Ludwig, Jens, Association Professor of Public Policy, Georgetown University, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 33

McNulty, Hon. Paul J., U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, 

Alexandria, Virginia ............................................................................................. 7

Meehan, Hon. Patrick L., U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ..................................................................... 11

Mook, Dennis A., Chief of Police, Newport News Police Department, Newport 

News, Virginia ...................................................................................................... 24

Spann, Russell Edward, Captain, West Valley Police Department, West Valley, Utah ............................................................................................................... 22

Totaro, Hon. Donald R., District Attorney, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania .... 27

Warner, Hon. Paul M., U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah, Salt Lake 

City, Utah ............................................................................................................. 5

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Blumstein, Alfred, response to a question submitted by Senator Kohl .............. 43

Ludwig, Jens, responses to questions submitted by Senator Kohl ...................... 44

Totaro, Hon. Donald R., responses to questions submitted by Senator Hatch ... 48

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Blumstein, Alfred, Professor, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, prepared statement .............................................................................. 58

Curtis, Charles L., President, Kansas City Metropolitan Crime Commission, 

Kansas City, Missouri, prepared statement ...................................................... 64

Graves, Hon. Todd P., U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, 

Kansas City, Missouri, prepared statement ...................................................... 68

Ludwig, Jens, Association Professor of Public Policy, Georgetown University, 

Washington, D.C., prepared statement .............................................................. 75

McNulty, Hon. Paul J., U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, 

Alexandria, Virginia, prepared statement ......................................................... 84

Meehan, Hon. Patrick L., U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, prepared statement .................................. 93

Page

IV

Mook, Dennis A., Chief of Police, Newport News Police Department, Newport 

News, Virginia, prepared statement ................................................................... 98

Spann, Russell Edward, Captain, West Valley Police Department, West Valley, Utah, prepared statement ............................................................................ 102

Totaro, Hon. Donald R., District Attorney Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 108

Warner, Hon. Paul M., U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah, Salt Lake 

City, Utah, prepared statement .......................................................................... 117

(1)

PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS: AMERICA’S 

NETWORK AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE 

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2002

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Hatch, Specter, Sessions, Craig, and Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Chairman HATCH. Well, good morning. Welcome to this very important Committee hearing to examine Project Safe Neighborhoods, 

President Bush’s gun violence reduction initiative. 

The problem of gun violence is a national tragedy which requires 

careful analysis and serious attention. Every year in this country, 

too many loved ones and family members are killed by criminals 

with guns. 

In 2001, criminals used guns to commit over one-third of a million violent crimes, including 63 percent of all homicides, resulting 

in over 10,000 deaths. For every fatal shooting that occurs, there 

are roughly three non-fatal shootings. 

Indeed, even those who dedicate their lives to the protection of 

America’s citizens are tragically the victims of gun violence and 

gun crime. In 2001, 47 of the 51 American law enforcement officers 

killed in the line or duty died from gunshot wounds. This last fact 

should not go unnoticed this week, as thousands of law enforcement officers from across the country gather here at the National 

Law Enforcement Memorial to pay tribute to all of the fallen officers. We owe an extra effort to our Nation’s police officers and all 

of our fellow citizens to make sure that those who illegally possess 

firearms are prosecuted and punished. 

These numbers are dramatic and they represent much more than 

cold figures. They underscore the terrible tragedies felt by countless family members, children, fathers, mothers, relatives, and 

friends in communities across our country. Criminals with guns 

who shoot and kill are nothing less than domestic terrorists. They 

terrorize and attack law-abiding members of their communities, 

and for that they deserve stiff and severe punishment. 

While pointing out the nature and extent of this problem, these 

numbers also are a call to action. Law-abiding citizens want swift 

and certain justice for gun criminals in their communities. 

2

Project Safe Neighborhoods is the Bush administration’s gun violence reduction initiative which is being run by the Justice Department. Project Safe Neighborhoods focuses law enforcement efforts 

against criminals who illegally use guns. More than 70 percent of 

all gun crimes are committed by repeat offenders, criminals who 

have skirted the courts and flaunted the law to prey on citizens 

and communities again and again. 

President Bush has committed his administration to this initiative in order to protect citizens and the rule of law. He has stated 

his commitment simply, clearly, and with honesty, quote, ‘‘If you 

use a gun illegally, you will do hard time,’’ unquote. Attorney General Ashcroft has implemented the President’s directive by requiring each United States Attorney to develop and implement a program to address gun crime and gun violence in their respective districts. 

The concept behind Project Safe Neighborhoods is simple: organize and bring together prosecutors, Federal, State and local law 

enforcement, and the community to design and implement a coordinated and strategic approach to catch gun criminals, to deter criminals from carrying or using guns, and to build community support 

among law-abiding citizens who are sick and tired of being terrorized by violent gun-toting criminals who wreck havoc in their 

neighborhoods. 

The administration has allocated significant resources to Project 

Safe Neighborhoods, more than $500 million to this initiative thus 

far, and they hope ultimately to devote more than $900 million to 

this effort. Project Safe Neighborhoods has added 207 new Federal 

prosecutors and nearly 600 new State and local prosecutors nationwide to focus on gun criminals. 

After almost 2 years, Project Safe Neighborhoods is showing significant, tangible successes. The numbers speak for themselves. As 

can be seen on the chart, you will notice a dramatic increase in gun 

crime enforcement under Project Safe Neighborhoods. The number 

of defendants charged with Federal firearms violations has increased significantly in the last 2 years, noticeably after the start 

of Project Safe Neighborhoods. 

As the numbers show, since this administration implemented 

Project Safe Neighborhoods in May 2001, Federal gun prosecutions 

have increased by over 40 percent, from a total of 8,054 for fiscal 

year 2001, to a projected 11,686 for fiscal year 2003. The conviction 

rate in these cases is nearly 90 percent. More than half of these 

gun criminals were sentenced to more than 5 years in a Federal 

prison. In addition to the rise in Federal prosecutions, State and 

local prosecutors have boosted their efforts as well, with the addition of nearly 600 prosecutors funded through Project Safe Neighborhoods. 

While much has been accomplished, there is still much more to 

do to rid this country of the scourge of gun violence, and I am interested in hearing how the PSN program is working and what additional steps are needed to make sure that we do all that is necessary to protect our communities from violent gun-toting criminals. 

3

So I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses today 

about this important initiative, and reading their statements, and 

we will go from there. 

We will turn to Senator Craig, who is going to chair this hearing, 

and take his statement at this time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG, A U.S SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for 

this hearing on, of course, Project Safe Neighborhoods and the substantially expanded program that we have under the Bush administration, recognizing communities and dealing with the five core 

elements in the development of the program from partnerships to 

strategic planning, training, and outreach and accountability. 

By evidence, it appears to be working. We know that this is an 

outgrowth from a project that we got involved in some time ago 

and expanded it in what we at that time called Project Exile and 

the positive impacts that has on the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. 

So I have no additional statement. I think your opening statement most assuredly is adequate. It is important we hear from 

these witnesses as we look at what we are currently doing in the 

2-year program, the amount of money that has been put in it, the 

training of new Federal and State prosecutors in support of investigators, and the promotion of community outreach. 

So with that, we thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Larry. 

We will begin with Mr. Warner and we will go right across the 

table. 

Senator CORNYN. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. May I be recognized? I have just joined you a moment ago. 

Chairman HATCH. Sure. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. I did want to say just a couple or words, and 

I have a longer statement that I won’t burden you with and I will 

ask that it be made part of the record. I appreciate being recognized. 

I want to make a few comments regarding Project Safe Neighborhoods and a similar program that we started in Texas a few years 

ago when I was Attorney General called Texas Exile. Of course, 

like all good ideas, we borrowed shamelessly from the Richmond 

Project Exile program. 

First, I want to commend the Chairman for having this hearing. 

I think it is an important part of our law enforcement responsibilities across this country to prevent those who possess firearms illegally and use them as career criminals to commit perhaps multiple 

crimes on a daily basis, to try to make sure that we get those people off the street, while at the same time respecting the rights of 

law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms for legitimate purposes. 

In September of 1999, then–Texas Governor George W. Bush and 

I introduced Texas Exile. Of course, one of the things that I think 

4

was so great about that program and what is great about Project 

Safe Neighborhoods is the fact that rather than law enforcement 

agencies competing with one another, we worked together at the 

local, State and Federal levels to try to address this particular 

problem. 

Texas Exile is a crime control initiative that utilizes existing 

State and Federal laws designed to get to the root cause of gun violence, which is criminals who illegally use and carry weapons. 

When law enforcement reports a crime where a weapon is used or 

possessed, the district attorney’s office and the U.S. Attorney’s office confer, which we need to encourage, to decide whether the 

prosecution should proceed in State or Federal court, depending on 

the applicable penalty provisions and the facts of the crime. 

The program simply opens up the Federal system to State prosecutors so that criminals with weapons will receive maximum jail 

time. Unfortunately, under State law, particularly in my home 

State of Texas, too often the gun part of the offense seems to be 

the subject of plea bargain or otherwise not emphasized as an integral and important part of that criminal activity, and punished as 

such. The advantage of such a system is that habitual, violent offenders are essentially exiled from the city streets and potential offenders are discouraged by the threat of harsh prison terms. 

Let me just summarize here, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and 

just say that I am sold on this concept. I think it has proven to 

be effective and I want to do everything I can to encourage and 

help facilitate the Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative because I 

believe that homicides and other crimes can be prevented before 

they occur by enforcing the laws that prohibit weapons possession 

by felons and persons convicted of crimes of domestic violence, for 

example, or someone who is just merely subject to a family restraining order. 

It is actually a felony for someone who is under a domestic restraining order to possess a firearm, and I believe that particularly 

in the most volatile of situations, domestic violence, discouraging 

and hopefully eliminating the possession of firearms by someone 

who is subject to a protective order has prevented a lot of harm. 

As of May 2, 2003, the Texas program has produced 2,020 indictments, 1,478 convictions, and 2,482 confiscations of firearms from 

these career criminals. The average sentence in January 2000 was 

73 months, and it is noteworthy that Texas had an 82-percent increase in the prosecution of Federal gun crimes over the last year, 

and now I believe leads the Nation in terms of the prosecution of 

Federal firearms offenses. 

So I am pleased to be here and delighted to listen now to the witnesses, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me just a chance 

to make a few comments. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you so much, Senator. We appreciate your comments. 

We will turn to Mr. Warner. I just want to say you have done 

a terrific job out there in Utah and we are very appreciative. In 

fact, all of you are doing terrific work. We follow all of you and we 

appreciate having all of you here today. 

5

So we will start with you, Mr. Warner. Each of you will have 5 

minutes. I hope you can limit yourselves to 5 minutes and then we 

will have questions for you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL M. WARNER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, 

UTAH 

Mr. WARNER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee, and thank you, Chairman Hatch for that kind introduction. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify before the 

Committee on the critical subject of reducing gun violence through 

Utah’s Project Safe Neighborhoods. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will summarize the 

major points I would like the Committee to understand and I request that my entire statement be made part of the record. 

Chairman HATCH. Without objection. 

Mr. WARNER. I would first like to say, Senator Hatch, that few 

people serving here in Washington are as well-attuned to the issue 

of gun violence as you are, and that few have done as much as you 

have in providing the leadership to address it. 

Over 3 years ago, Mr. Chairman, you had a vision and a name 

for an anti-gun violence program. That name, Project CUFF, Criminal Use of Firearms by Felons, and that program was the beginning of Project Safe Neighborhoods, or PSN, in Utah. 

Gun violence continues to pose a real threat to the safety of our 

citizens. Consequently, there is a need in Utah to vigorously enforce existing gun laws in order to combat the problem of gun violence. This need is now being addressed through PSN. President 

Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have made this project a top 

criminal justice priority. 

PSN is statewide in Utah. The State and local response has been 

tremendous. What started originally as a few ATF officers and a 

couple of Federal prosecutors has now grown into a task force of 

over 45 individuals representing nearly three dozen Federal, State 

and local organizations. 

The gun unit in my office currently has nine Federal, State and 

local prosecutors dedicated to prosecuting gun violence in the Federal system. To date, over 800 cases have been indicted by Federal 

grand juries in Utah under PSN. Last year alone, my office brought 

300 firearms cases. The success achieved so far under Utah PSN 

could not have been realized without the energy and enthusiasm 

of our law enforcement partners. 

The primary focus of PSN in Utah is to aggressively investigate 

and prosecute firearms offenses. Our prosecution guidelines are 

consistent with Attorney General Ashcroft’s announced priorities: 

first, to target and disrupt violent organizations and offenders, including armed career criminals; second, to dismantle illegal gun 

trafficking; and, third, to aggressively prosecute prohibited persons 

found in possession of firearms. 

Let me take just a moment to give you examples of what is being 

done. A real problem is firearms trafficking, enabling the most dangerous members of our communities to acquire firearms illegally. 

Those most likely to use a firearm in the commission of a crime are 

often able to get their firearms without risking a background check. 

6

Therefore, a major emphasis of Utah PSN is disrupting illegal gun 

trafficking. 

A recent investigation is illustrative. In December 2001, a small 

firearms dealer in a rural area of Utah was burglarized. Fifteen 

handguns were stolen. The two individuals responsible for the burglaries have been apprehended and face Federal firearms charges. 

To date, 10 of the 15 firearms have been recovered. Of the firearms 

recovered, all were found in the hands of prohibited persons. Many 

have been used in crimes. 

Another area of our focus is on prohibited persons in possession 

of firearms. The positive impact on public safety of prosecuting felons in possession can be considerable. A recent case illustrates 

what is being accomplished through our PSN partnerships. 

On July 6, 2001, Roosevelt City, Utah, lost a beloved public servant when Police Chief Cecil Gurr was violently gunned down by a 

convicted felon armed with a rifle. State and local authorities apprehended the shooter. Evidence indicated that another individual 

had given the rifle to the shooter. The question became: what about 

prosecuting the individual who provided the gun? 

Deputy Keith Campbell of the Uintah County Sheriff’s Office, a 

PSN partner, enlisted the resources of many to build a Federal gun 

case against the individual that provided the rifle used to kill Chief 

Gurr. The result was a solid case done thoroughly and quickly, 

using Federal, State and local cooperation. The shooter, prosecuted 

by the local DA’s office, received life in prison without possibility 

of parole. And the provider of the rifle, prosecuted by my office 

under PSN, received the maximum 10 years in prison. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Project Safe Neighborhoods is 

working in Utah. Regardless of whether a partner is from a rural 

town or downtown Salt Lake City, Project Safe Neighborhoods has 

provided a means of disrupting and deterring gun violence in Utah. 

Thanks to your leadership and the support of the Department of 

Justice, we have the tools and resources to sustain this effort. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions from the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Warner appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Warner. 

Mr. Warner is the United States Attorney for the District of 

Utah. 

We are going to turn to Mr. Paul McNulty, who is the United 

States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Then we will 

go to Hon. Todd P. Graves, who is the United States Attorney for 

the Western District of Missouri, and then finally to Hon. Patrick 

L. Meehan, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania. 

We are really honored to have all of you U.S. Attorneys here. 

You do terrific work, often unheralded, and without your efforts we 

just wouldn’t be as well off today in this country as we are from 

criminal activity. So we really appreciate all the work you do. 

Paul, it is nice to welcome you back. You spent a lot of years on 

Capitol Hill. I hope you are enjoying your new job. 

7

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL J. MCNULTY, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 

Mr. MCNULTY. I really am. Thank you, and it is a real pleasure 

to have the opportunity to— 

Chairman HATCH. If you will excuse me, I have got to leave and 

go to another meeting. So Senator Craig is going to conduct the 

rest of these hearings and we are just happy that he is willing to 

do that and we appreciate it. This is a very important hearing and 

we think it is time the public really understands what all of you 

are doing. So we appreciate all you are doing and I appreciate Senator Craig. 

Senator CRAIG. [presiding] Thank you, Orrin. 

Paul, please continue, and it is good to see you. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator CRAIG. I have fond memories of working with you and 

your former boss, Congressman Bill McCollum, over the years on 

issues like this one and others. 

Please proceed. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Senator. It is a pleasure to be here 

and have this opportunity. 

I have a unique perspective on Project Safe Neighborhoods because at the start of this administration, I chaired the working 

group that developed Project Safe Neighborhoods and now have the 

opportunity as a U.S. Attorney to be in the real world, you might 

say, implementing the program that we developed right after the 

transition. 

I am also very fortunate to be in a district that has such a great 

track record in relation to combating gun violence and is the birthplace of a program that has received so much attention, Project 

Exile. That program, which is firmly established in our district, is 

one of the centerpieces of the Project Safe Neighborhoods approach. 

Let me quickly talk about the experience we had in developing 

Project Safe Neighborhoods. We came to the working group with a 

couple of key principles. The first was that we recognized there 

were a number of different practices going on around the country 

and we didn’t want to reinvent the wheel. We wanted to build upon 

what had already worked effectively, and so we looked to efforts 

like Project Exile and Project Achilles and Project Triggerlock and 

Operation Ceasefire, all of these programs that had been used in 

various places in the country to reduce gun violence. Each of them 

had essentially the core feature of holding violent criminals accountable and to impose firm punishment on those who use guns 

against other people in criminal acts. 

The second principle we recognized was that this was a partnership, that the battle against violent crime was primarily a State 

and local struggle and we had to respect the primacy of State and 

local law enforcement. We also had to realize that it was not going 

to be one-size-fits-all, that there needed to be a local approach developed in partnership with Federal law enforcement. 

We assembled a group of outside law enforcement organizations 

to help us think through the elements, and in my testimony I identify those organizations. They were very helpful in bringing to us 

more information about best practices and to explain how the poVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 Oct 21, 2003 Jkt 089886 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89886.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
8

lice departments, the district attorneys, in my State, ‘‘Commonwealth Attorneys,’’ how law enforcement at the State and local 

level viewed the most effective programs and what would be necessary to strengthen the partnership. 

So with that, we then identified five elements that would be a 

part of Project Safe Neighborhoods. Those five elements are, first, 

partnership. Whatever happened had to be done together with 

State and local law enforcement. In the case of Virginia, we already 

had a strong partnership in place with Richmond law enforcement, 

in particular. 

We convened a summit in January of 2002, about 3 months after 

I was sworn in, and we called together every police chief, every 

sheriff, every local prosecutor—that is, the commonwealth attorney—to meet in Richmond for a day together develop a common vision for how we wanted to combat gun crime throughout eastern 

Virginia. That was an unprecedented gathering and it helped us 

develop a strategy that would be district-wide, not just in the city 

of Richmond. 

The second element of PSN is strategic planning. Once the partnership is in place, you must identify the problem through intelligence and other information available to law enforcement and 

then put together a plan for enforcement that makes sense. 

Now, this gives me an opportunity to mention briefly something 

about Exile. Exile is really at its heart a process for identifying 

good cases that can go into the Federal system to be prosecuted aggressively using 5-year mandatory sentences and other tough penalties. 

The nature of Exile is something that can be easily moved into 

other localities. It is built upon a process of having an intake system that reviews cases quickly, Federal and State together, to decide where each case would be best prosecuted. The statistics from 

Richmond are clear in terms of the impact that Exile had on the 

crime rate there that was really out of control in the early 1990’s 

and mid–1990’s. 

To move quickly, let me just say that the other elements include 

training. We do the training in eastern Virginia by going to roll 

calls and to State prosecutor offices and explain what Federal laws 

are so that everyone is aware of the tools available to use against 

violent criminals. Training has to, in a sense, support the strategy 

that has been developed. 

The fourth element is outreach, and a lot can be said here, getting the message out that there will be swift and sure punishment 

for violent crime. The Exile outreach effort has been well documented and we hope that in Project Safe Neighborhoods we will 

see a nationwide outreach effort. That is now in the process of 

being developed and implemented around the country. 

Finally, accountability, and that means that we are ready to 

have the results of this effort measured, to hold those who have 

been put in charge of this effort accountable to make sure that real 

improvement in the lives of people is accomplished. 

So those are the five elements, Senator, for Project Safe Neighborhoods. I am excited about the fact that through the clear leadership of the President and the Attorney General, we are going to 

have every U.S. Attorney implementing these five elements in the 

9

way that makes the most sense in their districts. That is why we 

are having such great results so far. 

Even in Virginia where we had such good success with Exile, 

now that we have taken that approach throughout the district to 

places like Newport News and Portsmouth and Norfolk and other 

areas within the district, we have seen even more of a reduction 

in violent crime district-wide as a result of this kind of enthusiastic 

and aggressive enforcement. 

Thank you very much, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McNulty appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CRAIG. Paul, thank you very much, and it has to be 

pleasing for you to have been there at the beginning and to watch 

this develop across our country as it gets implemented. 

Now, we look forward to U.S. Attorney Todd Graves’ testimony 

from the Western District of Missouri. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TODD P. GRAVES, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Senator. Thank you to Chairman Hatch 

and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. It is an honor to have an opportunity to speak to the Committee regarding the Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative and our version of that anti-crime initiative, 

which in Kansas City we call Project Ceasefire. 

The United States Attorney’s Office of the Western District of 

Missouri works with several other organizations to fight gun 

crimes in our community. It has been a top priority of ours since 

late 1999, when we realized that a problem with gun crimes was 

brewing. 

During 1998 alone, assaults with a firearm reached 1,990 in 

Kansas City. Shortly after the release of that statistic, several organizations banned together to form Project Ceasefire, and since 

then we have actively been prosecuting felons who illegally carry 

firearms to see that they are held accountable for their actions. 

In addition to the United States Attorney’s Office, the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Kansas City Crime 

Commission, the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and Kansas 

City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas, police departments, are 

also contributing resources to Project Ceasefire in order to reduce 

crime in the metropolitan area. Collectively, the organizations’ 

hard work is achieving the ultimate goal. 

Since 1998, when 1,990 firearms assaults were reported in the 

Kansas City area, the frequency of the same type of crime has 

dropped to 1,191 in 2002. That means nearly 800 fewer firearm assaults are occurring on our streets every year. 

At the same time, prosecutions are increasing. In Kansas City, 

the Federal prosecution of gun crimes increased 26 percent, while 

the murder rate dropped 23 percent to its lowest level in three decades. The Kansas City Star recently marked homicides in the city 

at a 30-year low, and this reduction translates into real people. 

Twenty-seven people are living today that would have been murdered the preceding year. 

10

Since Project Ceasefire’s inception, the United States Attorney’s 

Office in the Western District of Missouri has aggressively convicted 350 criminals in Kansas City. More than 300 of those defendants have already been sentenced to hard time in Federal prison. And let me make this clear: they are not first-time offenders. 

These criminals have extensive histories of crime in Kansas City. 

The criminals we go after are strictly repeat offenders. In fact, 

of the 350 convicted defendants that I mentioned under Project 

Ceasefire so far, collectively they have more than 930 prior criminal felony convictions under their belt. 

Our program is not only putting these criminals behind bars. 

Project Ceasefire also aims at educating the community as to the 

consequences felons face if they carry a firearm. The way in which 

we get that message across is through the Project Safe Neighborhoods media campaign for Project Ceasefire. 

The Kansas City Crime Commission, our private sector partner, 

which consists of 40 volunteer board members, has collected $1.4 

million in private money to help fund the Project Ceasefire advertisements which are intended to increase awareness in the community. The main point of the advertisements is this: felons with guns 

burn 5 years in Federal prison. It is plain and simple. 

Evidence of the media campaign’s success has been found 

through studies conducted by the University of Missouri–Kansas 

City. We decided to do baseline studies right up front so that we 

would be able to measure our progress. The university’s extensive 

research consists of survey results collected mainly from felons in 

the Missouri State probation and parole offices. 

The results show that nearly 79 percent of offenders have been 

exposed in some way to the Ceasefire campaign, and 73 percent of 

offenders have seen the Project Ceasefire advertisement. In turn, 

nearly 74 percent of offenders that took part in the university 

study said that they believe it is, quote, ‘‘very likely’’ that a person 

with a prior felony would be charged with a crime if caught with 

a gun. 

More importantly, KCPD statistics also show that the partnership in Project Safe Neighborhoods is effective. The department recently reported decreases in nearly every category of crime from 

2001 to 2002. Examples include a 29-percent decrease in homicides, 

a 15-percent decrease in robberies, and a 17-percent decrease in 

auto thefts. That is in contrast to recent modest rises in crime nationwide. 

Since Project Ceasefire was created in Kansas City, violent 

crimes have been on a steady decline. Again, the Kansas City Star 

reported homicides at a 30-year low in 2002. The Kansas City Police Department reported decreases in crime across the board this 

year. 

Project Ceasefire has had a direct impact on our community’s 

crime rate. It is an invaluable program that brings our community 

together across both sides of the State line to effectively fight crime 

in our neighborhoods. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Graves appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

11

Senator CRAIG. Todd, thank you for your time and that testimony. Those are fascinating and very important statistics. I am 

sure the folks in Kansas City are appreciating them. 

Now, let me turn to U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Welcome before the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK L. MEEHAN, UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MEEHAN. Good morning, Senator. Thank you for having me 

here. I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Hatch for 

holding this hearing, as well as the Senator from my own State, 

Senator Arlen Specter, of this Committee, who has been a tremendous supporter of this program and for law enforcement initiatives 

in our State. 

Senator CRAIG. Arlen and I got involved in a program like this 

for the Philadelphia area some years ago and he has been a leader 

in that area. Thank you for recognizing that. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you for your support for that, Senator. 

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak with you about 

the successes we have had, but also the challenges we still face in 

fighting gun crime in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

In many ways, the nine-county district is a microcosm of America. The district is anchored in one corner by Philadelphia, our Nation’s fifth largest city. But between the quiet suburbs and the 

rural farmland in the other eight counties, there are cities, small 

and medium—Allentown, Reading, Lancaster, Easton—that are 

suffering from the violence triggered by the illegal use of firearms. 

In my district alone last year, there was more than 1 murder a 

day, more than 3 rapes a day, more than 26 robberies and 33 aggravated assaults each day. 

Before I became the United States Attorney in September of 

2001, I was the district attorney in Delaware County, just west of 

Philadelphia. As a State prosecutor, I was heartened when President Bush targeted gun violence as a top domestic priority. And as 

a new Federal prosecutor, I was genuinely inspired when Congress 

supported that priority with the impressive resources of Project 

Safe Neighborhoods. 

As a result, even before assuming the position of United States 

Attorney, I reached out to the nine district attorneys in my district 

and obtained commitments from each of them to be partners in an 

unprecedented district-wide effort to substantially reduce firearms 

violence. 

Over the past 18 months, with my partners on board, my office 

has moved aggressively to implement Project Safe Neighborhoods 

by taking a number of critical actions. First, we have more than 

doubled the size of the firearms section in the U.S. Attorney’s office, from 5 prosecutors to 12 full-time prosecutors, and I thank you 

for the resources that enabled us to do that. 

Second, because of Project Safe Neighborhood funding for State 

prosecutors, all nine district attorneys immediately agreed to crossdesignate at least one assistant district attorney to handle firearms 

cases in Federal court as special assistant United States attorneys. 

12

Within months, each district attorney at least doubled the number of prosecutors assigned to the program. We have trained each 

of the State prosecutors in Federal practice and provided them 

with senior Federal prosecutors as mentors, which means that in 

my district we now have 40 prosecutors participating in Project 

Safe Neighborhoods. 

Third, we established a PSN task force with Federal, State and 

local law enforcement and community leaders. But these task 

forces were established in each of the nine communities and each 

task force has developed and implemented its own strategic plan 

to target the most violent offenders, organizations and problems in 

that particular county. And we have retained the commitment of 

the FBI, and particularly the ATF. I have an ATF agent assigned 

to virtually every county that works exclusively with the district 

attorney and our office. 

Fourth, working with the FBI and other agencies, we have established a Hobbs Act robbery task force. This task force, one of only 

a few of its kind in the country, focuses exclusively on gangs that 

commit Hobbs Act, or in effect commercial armed robberies, often 

going across county boundaries and eluding the ability for one local 

law enforcement officer to tie together their various crimes. 

Fifth, we are training local law enforcement officials in Federal 

law enforcement practice and assisting them in refining police 

practice to strengthen the evidence in gun cases that are brought 

into Federal court. This includes the use of gun and ballistic tracing as effectively as we can. 

Sixth, we have used the PSN grant of $170,000 to try to get our 

message out. We have created a powerful videotape on our PSN efforts and use it to speak to community groups and law enforcement 

organizations. But in a brand new program, most importantly we 

are instituting this in each of the prisons in our county so that, 

upon exit from that county, we are encouraging the wardens to 

show this film about what they could face if they use a gun in a 

future crime. 

Last year, my office indicted the greatest number of firearms 

cases, 230, and the greatest number of defendants, 316, in our office’s history. We are targeting the most violent criminals. Let me 

give you an example of two of the stories behind the numbers. 

Ken Coffie’s criminal record of 10 prior convictions included 5 

armed robberies and an armed carjacking. We convicted him of 

being an armed career criminal in possession of a gun. He is now 

serving a sentence of 19 years and 7 months. Robert Baynard had 

a gun with him when he was stopped for a DUI. Baynard had 26 

prior convictions for burglary. He pled guilty in Federal court of 

being an armed career criminal and was sentenced to 15 years. 

Our task force was focused not just on violent individuals like 

Coffie and Baynard, but more importantly on violent organizations 

and gangs that use firearms to commit crimes. 

For example, in the past 8 months investigations by the Berks 

County Task Force have targeted two violent crack cocaine distribution organizations that have terrorized neighborhoods in the 

city of Reading. One of these organizations involving 14 members 

was operating close to an elementary school. 

13

So far, 21 members of the organization have been indicted. All 

but 2 are in custody and 12 have pled guilty to face sentences of 

up to life in prison. We charged 6 gangs, including 17 defendants, 

with committing 32 Hobbs Act armed robberies. In one case, United 

States v. Jeremy Fontanez, 7 defendants were charged with committing 12 armed robberies across the length of the district. This 

was in Montgomery, Lehigh, Bucks, Delaware and Philadelphia 

counties. And based on further investigation, we were able to solve 

an unsolved murder in a 13th. 

I want to use this occasion to say that although we can always 

use additional resources, we have been quite pleased with the level 

of support that Congress has provided for all aspects of the PSN 

initiative. But there is one area, gun trafficking and gun purchasing, in which the statutes and Sentencing Guidelines do not 

seem to provide for sufficiently severe penalties for us to do as 

much as we could to stop these dangerous crimes. 

We have targeted gun traffickers and straw purchasers. We have 

charged 12 defendants in my district with illegally trafficking, and 

61 defendants with straw purchasing in just the last year. We obtained a guilty plea from David Faruqi, a 21-count indictment 

charging him with dealing in firearms without a license. One of the 

guns purchased by Faruqi was linked through ballistics to the Lex 

Street murders, the largest mass murder in recent Philadelphia 

history, where 7 people were murdered and 3 more were wounded. 

We have been able to put traffickers in prison, but the law does 

not provide sufficiently tough penalties for firearms traffickers who 

illegally sell guns often to violent criminals. 

I want to conclude by saying that the enthusiastic participation 

of the nine district attorneys remains the linchpin of our program. 

I am committed to continuing to work closely with the district attorneys and the task forces to make a real difference in the lives 

of the citizens of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

I thank you for this opportunity to speak with you, Senator, and 

I know that the Department had prepared a tape that was used at 

a recent nationwide conference on Project Safe Neighborhoods. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meehan appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator CRAIG. I understand that that is planned. Before that 

tape is played, let me recognize two of my colleagues that have 

joined us that are certainly seasoned prosecutors in their own right 

as U.S. Senators also; first of all, your Senator, Senator Arlen Specter, of Pennsylvania, and Senator Jeff Sessions. 

Would either of you like to make opening comments or comments 

prior watching a video that Mr. Meehan has brought. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you 

for scheduling this hearing and I am delighted to see this array of 

distinguished prosecutors and law enforcement officers who are 

here today on this very, very important subject. 

Going back to my days as District Attorney of Philadelphia, I 

saw the tremendous need for Federal court involvement in the area 

of those who violate the law with guns. We had a tremendous probVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 Oct 21, 2003 Jkt 089886 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89886.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
14

lem with judge-shopping in Philadelphia, light sentences. My first 

legislative initiative was the armed career criminal bill to provide 

life sentences for career criminals who were caught with a firearm, 

and I am glad to see the very active enforcement efforts. 

I commend all of those who are here on both panels and I note 

the presence and just heard the concluding testimony of U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan. I am sorry I wasn’t here earlier to introduce 

him. He had been my key deputy while I was in the Senate. He 

has had a very distinguished career as District Attorney of Delaware County, and now as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District 

of Pennsylvania. That is a very, very high calling. 

Being a public prosecutor is the second best job. The best job is 

assistant public prosecutor because then you get to try the cases 

and don’t have to do all the administrative work. 

I also want to welcome District Attorney Don Totaro, from Lancaster County, who is here on the second panel. DA Totaro is a career prosecutor; I understand 16 years in the DA’s office and recently elected to the position. That is very, very good to see. 

I am going to have to excuse myself at this time. I think you 

know that we have multiple Committee assignments and I am 

chairing the Subcommittee on Education. So I will be following the 

testimony. I am staffed here. 

I thank you prosecutors for what you are doing and you have the 

support of the entire U.S. Government behind you. The President 

himself, as you know, kicked off this program in Philadelphia and 

has the great support of the Attorney General of the Department 

of Justice and Senator Craig and Senator Sessions and myself. 

Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. Arlen, thank you. 

Senator Sessions? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Larry. 

I am just pleased to hear U.S. Attorney Meehan’s comments. It 

reminds me of some of the things that I know have gone on in your 

district in the past. I remember, of course, Arlen Specter set the 

standard, I guess, for aggressive prosecution over the years. 

But I remember your predecessor when I was United States Attorney. He would arrest people on a big sweep of some of these big 

gangs of drug dealers and they would all want to know which ones 

were going to Federal court, because none of them wanted to go to 

Federal court. 

Most people in the country do not know, Mr. Chairman, that 

Federal law is much tougher than State law in many areas. Some 

of the crack cocaine penalties are very tough. The gun penalties are 

very tough. We have the ability to deny bail for especially dangerous offenders who may be already out on parole or bail, or who 

are in danger of fleeing. It is a very effective tool. There is no doubt 

in my mind that consistent, aggressive prosecution of criminals 

with firearms will make the streets safer and will reduce murder. 

You go back to the days of Miami in the early 1980’s and former 

President Bush was sent down there as the Vice President, to coordinate an effort, and criminals there were carrying machine guns 

15

and automatic weapons. We passed laws here, in Congress—I was 

a prosecutor at the time—to make it 30 years without parole if you 

carried an automatic weapon during a drug crime. And the criminals stopped carrying them, too. Murder rates have gone down 

since then. I remember that drug and gun violations represent 

some of the best tools against the most dangerous criminals. So I 

think they are good. 

One of the things I have thought odd around here is that the 

people who want to pass more laws have not been very aggressive 

in utilizing the ones we have. When I came to this body and I 

pulled out the Department of Justice statistics that showed prosecutions, the Clinton administration was bombarding us with new 

and more regulations to fight gun crime, that impacted law-abiding 

citizens. And I noticed that their prosecutions had dropped 40 percent since former President Bush had left office. We got on the 

Clinton Justice Department; we challenged Attorney General Reno 

and the Chief of the Criminal Division, in this Committee, and a 

little progress was made. 

But I notice in Alabama—I have got some of the numbers—virtually every district has doubled their prosecutions since President 

Bush has taken office. This is the right approach. It will save innocent lives. It will make our streets safer. How many murders can 

be avoided by targeting these criminals, I don’t know, but I have 

no doubt this approach will avoid a significant number and a lot 

of people will be able to live out their lives in happiness rather 

than being disabled or in the graveyard. 

It is just a big deal and I think it is a very effective role for 

United States Attorneys to play. I am glad that the Attorney General has taken the advice that I gave him at his confirmation, and 

a challenge I gave him at his confirmation, which was to get these 

numbers up. They had dropped down too far and what we needed 

to see was dangerous criminals, who were using guns, going to jail. 

It was a shame that we had allowed that number to slip down 

some. 

So I am pleased to hear this report and some of the other experts 

with their opinions on these matters. It is very important to our 

country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. Jeff, thank you. While all of the gentlemen have 

given excellent testimony this morning, Todd Graves, from the 

Kansas City area, gave some interesting statistics that have come 

out of that effort in Kansas City alone that clearly echo exactly 

what you are saying. 

Mr. Meehan, if you would now show us—is this the video that 

you show felons when they exit the prisons? 

Mr. MEEHAN. No, this is not. That is a separate video which I 

would be more than pleased to forward to the Committee. 

Senator CRAIG. Frankly, I would like to see it because when 

those convicted criminals who have served their time leave the 

prison system, they ought to be served notice right up front very 

hard and very clear: cross that line again and you are going to be 

right back here. 

16

Mr. MEEHAN. Senator, we actually sent one of our Assistant 

United States Attorneys to sit in the holding area with a variety 

of prisoners and he delivered that message. That is not the film. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, we will see this film, but if you would also 

send that film, I think that would be valuable for the Committee 

and I would like to see it myself. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I will be pleased to do that. 

[Videotape shown.] 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you. That certainly corresponds with 

much of your testimony this morning. Let me ask some questions 

of you all. 

Attorney Warner, what were the challenges that you faced in 

putting together a statewide program, as opposed to a multiple of 

efforts addressing, let’s say, distinct geographic areas, and how 

have you been able to coordinate all of the many local law enforcement and communities across Utah? 

Mr. WARNER. Well, Senator, as you know, coming from a neighboring State— 

Senator CRAIG. Geography becomes a problem sometimes. 

Mr. WARNER. It does indeed. Utah has a very diverse geography 

and a large area with primarily rural areas, but some large metropolitan areas as well. 

I think the biggest challenge we are dealing with is just the 

sheer numbers of State and local prosecutors, as well as a number 

of police departments and sheriffs’ offices, and so forth, and coordinating all of those. We have found that by bringing key law enforcement partners in from each sector and getting them to sign on 

to the project that through their local leadership we were able to 

get others to come on board. 

We have tried to coordinate those efforts through a monthly 

meeting that is held to bring as many of the partners together as 

possible to coordinate our activities. I have personally attended 

those meetings and visited there and presented awards and the 

like. 

We develop common goals for the entire district throughout the 

State and part of that common goal, I think, is ending the revolving door concept that we saw so many times under State law. As 

Senator Sessions accurately pointed out, the Federal gun statutes 

tend to be stiffer. We can get better and longer sentences. 

Local law enforcement, I think, has come to appreciate that in 

Utah and they are pleased to work with us to see local criminals 

going to Federal prisons, and I might add going to Federal prisons 

on Federal tax dollars that aren’t filling up local jails and local 

prisons. So it is kind of win-win, and I think we have a commonality of goals that have brought us together. 

Senator CRAIG. With that experience of State-local–Federal cooperation—and, of course, sharing resources at a time when States 

are struggling certainly can be helpful—what additional resources 

or measures would help you or your office in continuing to prosecute aggressively? 

Mr. WARNER. Well, I am always pleased to be asked what additional things can help because, you know, we always, I guess, never 

seem to have enough. But I am pleased to report that we have been 

17

very blessed to have the resources that the Congress and the Department of Justice have provided us. 

I think it is absolutely essential to maintain what we already 

have. There have been a number of grants that have come to State 

and local agencies through Project Safe Neighborhoods. To be able 

to maintain the grants for community outreach activities and for 

education, training and the like, as well as the grants that have 

provided us local and State prosecutors that can be cross-designated—I think maintaining those resources is critical to us because, in my experience, consistency in our effort is what makes 

the difference. 

There are too many programs, I believe, that are kind of flashin-the-pan. It is a good idea. We go out there, we hit it hard, and 

then we move on to the next crime du jour, whatever makes us excited that day. I think our credibility with our local law enforcement and our State officials, particularly in PSN, has been our 

staying power. 

We started this a couple of years ago. We have stayed at it, we 

intend to stay at it. This isn’t going away, and I think that by our 

consistent effort we have built our credibility and we have built 

proven results. And I would strongly urge the Congress to continue 

to provide us the resources to maintain that consistency. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much. 

Paul, as I had mentioned, over the years we have worked together on a variety of projects in law enforcement, especially focusing on crime and the use of a firearm in the commission of that 

crime. 

Project Exile which you referenced in Richmond is one of the cutting-edge programs designed to tackle gun violence in the Eastern 

District of Virginia, and I understand that you have taken steps, 

and you have explained some of those steps, in the expansion of it. 

Can you describe how you expanded the program and adapted it 

to meet the community needs throughout the district? You have 

mentioned some early meetings, coordinated efforts. Take us beyond that, if you can. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes, Senator, thank you. The key to Project 

Exiles’s success is educating police officers about Federal penalties. 

If the police officer on a beat discovers a drug suspect in possession 

of a firearm, then the extent to which the officer is aware of federal 

law will help facilitate the transfer of that case to a Federal prosecutor, to the U.S. Attorney’s office, for further action. 

The key to Exile is Educating police officers about the tools available in Federal law, having a process in the squad room where the 

reports are filed whereby they are picked up and taken to the local 

prosecutor and sorted out. We sit down together and we determine 

if each case is a good one for transfer to the Federal system or not. 

We determine if we use Federal sentences, given this person’s 

criminal history, more effectively than a State penalty. 

Virginia actually has some good State penalties. Unlike a lot of 

States, Virginia has improved its sentencing laws. We have abolished parole—Senator Allen was the Governor at the time—and 

that made a substantial contribution to holding people accountable. 

Now, that process of working together closely with the police department and the commonwealth attorney can be taken to any loVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 Oct 21, 2003 Jkt 089886 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89886.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
18

cality. The Chief of Police of Newport News is here today and he 

will describe later how we have set up a system in Newport News 

with the commonwealth attorney there to move cases that his officers are identifying on the streets into the Federal system. The 

task force and ATF are involved with that. 

That is basically the idea, Senator, that is putting together a 

process that allows for the quick identification and transfer of appropriate cases for Federal prosecution. I might add that Paul Warner mentioned how grants can help. In our case, we are using the 

Project Safe Neighborhoods grants to fund facilitators or administrators who will be employed by either the police department or the 

commonwealth attorney to keep this process moving, to make sure 

that the coordination is a daily thing so that those cases are quickly identified and transferred over. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I thank you for that testimony. I know that 

early on we began to pay attention to what was going on in Richmond as an opportunity to grow a process that clearly the one we 

are talking about today is an offshoot of, along with a lot of other 

State and community efforts across the country. 

U.S. Attorney Graves, you had mentioned the whole of your effort: accelerated charging of gun crimes and gun possession, a 

media campaign, your efforts with the Kansas City Crime Commission, research conducted by the University of Missouri–Kansas 

City. 

Can you describe the importance of your program’s relationship 

to the Kansas City Crime Commission? That sounds like a local–

Federal partnership that must be working by the statistics you 

offer us. 

Mr. GRAVES. Yes. We are very proud of the partnership that we 

have with the Crime Commission. The Crime Commission has a 

long and proud tradition. It was actually started in Kansas City. 

We once had basically boss rule in the city in the 1930’s and the 

Kansas City Crime Commission was part of the group that came 

together to clean that up. 

In the U.S. Attorney’s Office, they have supported us for years. 

They helped us achieve a strike force in the 1970’s when we had 

a different kind of crime problem. They have stepped up to this 

program. They have stepped up to some computer crime issues. So 

they are a huge partner. 

They were in front of the Project Safe Neighborhoods grant 

money to do TV outreach commercials. The Kansas City Crime 

Commission, leading the way, actually went forward and raised 

money before that grant money became available. We are now able 

to use that grant money to leverage even more private money. 

They have been a great partner. 

They also raised the money to initially hire the researchers before the PSN money became available, and we think it is important 

that this program be documented on the front end. You know, it 

is still early on with a lot of these statistics to know the true story, 

but we have got a baseline to start from. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, tell us, if you can—I understand there was 

some research coordinated with the University of Missouri–Kansas 

City. What type of work went on there at the university level? 

19

Mr. GRAVES. Well, that is ongoing and they are continuing to refine what they are doing, but one of their biggest projects was to 

conduct a survey among offenders being supervised by the probation and parole offices in Jackson County, where the greatest part 

of Kansas City is located. There are 12,000 offenders on parole in 

Jackson County at any one time and they interviewed them as to 

how much information they had received. 

With 12,000 people, we can’t put all the people in jail that might 

come into our view, but we want to stop them from carrying a gun 

and decrease the violence before it gets to a court matter. The 

rescarchers found out by interviewing parolees that the media campaign was reaching the felons. 

They found out that 79 percent of felons in our area had been 

exposed to the campaign, and 73 percent of them had seen the TV 

ads. That seemed to be the most effective medium. And 74 percent 

believed that it was very likely they would be charged with a felon 

in possession crime if they were caught with a gun. We have many, 

many anecdotal examples of police coming back saying that as they 

arrested a prior felon, he was reciting the commercials and reciting 

back the things that our campaign had put into the community. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, it must have been making it to their minds, 

and hopefully it will make it to their actions. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. Meehan, you talked about an urban and a rural combining. 

Of course, the urban character of Philadelphia and the size of it 

create a certain type of law enforcement complication in itself that 

I am probably unaware of to some regard. Certainly, my State is 

much more rural State. 

Can you tell us how you got your district attorneys to buy in as 

it related to the cooperative effort, the training that went on and 

the commitment to work together on this kind of a program? We 

talked about staying power with the program, the consistency of 

keeping it. You have got to get the folks to buy into it first, with 

the belief that it will work. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Senator, I would be pleased to. I think really the 

key to the successes that we have had has been this partnership. 

It begins first with an experience that I had as a district attorney 

myself. Each of these men and women were my colleagues, so we 

had that personal relationship already. 

But when I was able to identify that Project Safe Neighborhoods 

dollars were coming in, we began to discuss the possibility. We all 

got together in Philadelphia, all nine district attorneys, and discussed the potential that we could work together to identify problems that would be unique to each area. 

Philadelphia, as a major urban center, has problems, as do many 

of our largest cities. But what often escapes people’s notice is in 

places like Pennsylvania there are many urban, primarily industrial cities that are struggling to change into a new economy. But 

they are beginning to face, with the expansion of the drug trade, 

the infusion of violent criminals in their areas—Lancaster City; Allentown; Reading, which per capita had among the highest murder 

rates in the entire United States. 

So it was a very easy proposition to join together in the idea that 

we would partner and use the leverage of the Federal criminal 

20

statutes to be able to create stiff penalties for violent criminals and 

people who are felons in possession. 

Simultaneously, it is the district attorneys who know best the 

local law enforcement. They have the relationship with the local 

police, and by giving an Assistant United States Attorney and a 

Federal ATF agent or FBI agent to a full-time task force in each 

district, they create the ability to identify local problems, and then 

the resources are focused where we see the greatest need. 

Senator CRAIG. Patrick, some have raised concern about Project 

Safe Neighborhoods by suggesting that the program concentrates 

only on law enforcement of violation of Section 922(g), possession 

of firearms by prohibited persons, and Section 922(c), use, carrying 

and possession of a firearm during and in Relation to a crime of 

violence or drug trafficking crime. 

What response do you have to those criticisms? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, my first response would be, Senator, those 

should be some of the people we are putting away for a long time— 

Senator CRAIG. I would think so. 

Mr. MEEHAN. —people who are using guns in the commission of 

serious felony crimes. But I would also suggest that that kind of 

an observation does not really touch the surface of what we are all 

experiencing in our own initiatives in each of our areas. 

I highlighted before the effort we have underway to work together in a multi-county way to look at these gangs that are moving along and committing armed robberies. Once you have a group 

that will do it, they will move from convenience store to convenience store. One group we broke up was going out late at night into 

hotels and robbing desk clerks. 

It is just a matter of time—I have seen it from experience—before somebody dies in that kind of an encounter. So we have used 

the Hobbs Act, as an example. Most importantly, we go after violent gangs and we have the ability at times to get somebody in possession of a weapon, and now we have the leverage and we can flip 

them and work up the line and get to serious people we haven’t 

had the ability to get to before by leveraging all of these resources. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Senator, may I add something to that? 

Senator CRAIG. If you would, surely. Now that you have the 

mike, let me ask another question that I would like to have you 

dovetail into your comments on this particular question, and that 

is that some have suggested that the decline of homicides and violent crime in Richmond were not due to Project Exile, but would 

have occurred without Project Exile. I think you are aware of some 

of those claims. Combine that with the use of these particular 

areas of the criminal code and how you have dealt with them. 

Mr. MCNULTY. In addition to the importance of taking those who 

commit violent crimes with firearms off the streets as a priority, 

we recently had an indictment—and the cases have all been, I 

think, successfully completed at this point—of over 30 people who 

were straw purchasers, that is people who do not have felony 

records who buy guns for people who do have felony records. 

A lot of effort has been placed in the last couple of decades on 

point-of-purchase identification to screen out felons who buy firearms. But, the fact is that if someone attempts to buy a girearm 

21

who does not have a criminal history record, that is not going to 

be an effective screen at all. 

We found an organization that had been recruiting people to buy 

guns and then to sell them out of the State, and we charged all 

of those individuals who were the straw purchasers with felonies 

based on another section of Chapter 44 of Title 18. The indictment 

had over 250 counts. So we are prepared to use other tools available to us, and we will. 

Now, with regard to the study concerning the impact of Project 

Exile in Richmond, I guess I really would have two things to say 

about that. First of all, as we said before, the results that Richmond experienced were startling. There was an enormous drop in 

violent crime when Project Exile was being implemented. 

Homicides dropped 48 percent. Crimes involving guns dropped 65 

percent. Aggravated assaults dropped 39 percent, overall violent 

crime dropped 35 percent. Every police officer was saying that people just weren’t carrying firearms on the streets the way they had 

before, which was a serious problem. 

A large portion of those individuals had serious criminal histories, and so it defies common sense, pure and simple, to suggest 

that incapacitating individuals who had committed multiple offenses prior to their arrest and their serious punishment in the 

Federal system were not going to be committing future crimes if 

they remained on the streets. In other words, crime was averted, 

and there can be no question about the clear impact of incapacitating repeat violent criminals. 

Secondly, I know this study looks at the way in which crime 

dropped in other jurisdictions and concluded that Richmond may 

have achieved the same drop in crime because other places had a 

drop in crime that didn’t employ Exile. My response to that is I 

have no doubt that there are other reasons why violent crime can 

be reduced. There are other methods, there are other effective 

tools. 

In fact, Project Safe Neighborhoods is designed to not be onesize-fits-all and to adapt to what is being used in other communities. So the notion that there may be reductions in other places 

that have been effective, to me, does not in any way suggest that 

the impact Exile has had has not been meaningful. 

The police officers and the prosecutors in Richmond will tell you 

that they noticed the result immediately when they started to see 

a number of the most violent people just simply off the streets, and 

that is what the program was all about. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, gentlemen, thank you all very much for 

your time and your testimony and the efforts that you have underway in your States in relation to PSN. The coordinated efforts and 

the resources that we are putting behind them now, and I am confident we will continue to put behind them, are valuable. The statistics are mounting up and criminals are beginning to recognize 

that the streets are not necessarily a safe place for them, and that 

is what this is all about. So thank you all very much. 

We have a second panel and I will ask that panel to come forward, please. I am going to put the Committee in recess for just 

a moment and step away just for one moment and I will be right 

back. 

22

[The Committee stood in recess from 10:54 a.m. to 10:56 a.m.] 

Senator CRAIG. The Committee will come back to order, and I 

would ask our next panel to be seated, please. 

Again, the Committee wants to thank you for your time and effort to be here and to offer testimony as we build a record on this 

program and better understand how it is working across our country. 

First on our panel today is Russell Edward Spann, a captain 

with the West Valley Police Department, in Utah. As an important 

partner in Utah’s coordinated effort, he supports Project Safe 

Neighborhoods, as his testimony says, because it allows them to go 

after repeat offenders and lock them away. 

Captain, we look forward to your testimony. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL EDWARD SPANN, CAPTAIN, WEST 

VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, WEST VALLEY, UTAH 

Captain SPANN. Yes, Senator. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come before you today and discuss with you our efforts 

to reduce gun violence through Utah’s Project Safe Neighborhoods 

program. 

In overview, I would like to express my appreciation to President 

Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft for their foresight in conceiving this very important program. I thank Senator Hatch for his 

leadership in bringing this program to Utah, and I also thank Hon. 

Paul Warner, United States Attorney for Utah, for his dedication 

and success in uniting Utah law enforcement and prosecuting 

agencies at all levels throughout Utah. 

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, as the 

host agency for our PSN task force, provides guidance, resources 

and training, all of which ensures this program is successful. 

I would like to express to this Committee that the success of this 

program has been immediate for our local city of West Valley, and 

I am also assigned currently as the commander for the ATF Project 

Safe Neighborhoods task force in the State of Utah. As Mr. Warner 

has stated, this program is a statewide task force, not just in one 

area. 

I have worked in the last 26 years on a number of task forces, 

Federal, State and local, and I will tell you that this has been the 

most rewarding and successful in all of that time. 

For me, gun violence is a personal issue. In May 1991, I was shot 

during a SWAT entry of a drug dealer’s home. Another officer, 

Kelly Rushton, was also shot and survived only because he was 

wearing a bullet-proof vest. 

In August of 1997, West Valley City police detective Robert Idle 

was shot seven times by a parolee. In 1999, Murray police officer 

Russ Huff was also shot by a parolee four times. Both of these officers survived. 

On July 6, 2001, Roosevelt City Police Chief Cecil Gurr, my dear 

friend and former chief, was murdered by a parolee and a meth 

user. In the following month, Lehi police officer Joe Adams was 

shot and killed while attempting to arrest a drug suspect with an 

outstanding misdemeanor warrant. And this past November 19, 

2002, West Jordan police officer Ron Wood was shot and killed by 

23

a juvenile wielding a .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol during a foot 

pursuit. 

The most shocking aspect of these deaths is that the murder 

guns were either stolen or used in previous crimes. In each one of 

these murders, the shooter illegally possessed the gun when he 

pointed it at the police officer. 

The common denominator in each of these tragic examples has 

been guns and drugs. The lethal combination of rim fire rage, gun 

powder and methamphetamine in Utah homes has a synergistic effect on domestic violence. Nationally, domestic violence murders account for 11 percent of all homicides. In Utah, more than 45 percent of our homicides are domestic-related. 

We have a very high per-capita consumption of 

methamphetamines, and unfortunately meth is the number one 

drug of choice for Utah women. Add that to the fact that 65 percent 

of all of our domestic violence in Utah is meth-related and the proliferation of domestic gun violence is self-evident. 

This project is our best hope in interdicting gun violence generated by these risk factors. This task force is unique in several 

perspectives. Unlike many task forces I have been involved in 

where information is passed on and a confidential file is opened, in 

this case we embrace the local agency that refers the case and keep 

them as a partner throughout the investigation. They know the 

area best, they know their crooks the best, and they know the best 

solution for the prosecution we are going to select. 

Our task force members mentor the local officer who originally 

detects a gun crime or gun-related violence. This officer retains 

ownership of the case and thus has a vested interest in its outcome. Each case has and will create a long-term partnership between the task force, the local agency, the community and the individual officer. 

The mission of our task force is expressed through three different 

priorities. They hold equal importance in reducing gun violence in 

Utah. The first is our message. Through our sister media outreach 

programs, we have developed a message that will educate the public about gun violence risk factors and how to report gun crimes before they escalate into violence. This educational process has made 

the general public, along with a number of our violators, very 

aware of the serious nature of illegal gun trafficking and gun possession. 

The next area is training. I am proud to inform this Committee 

that the Project Safe Neighborhoods Utah Task Force has trained 

almost 1,000 Federal, State, county and local police officers 

throughout the State during this past year. Our training includes 

basic recognition, reporting, gun tracing, and Federal laws and 

penalties. The message of the Project Safe Neighborhoods Task 

Force is amplified through each of these officers who attend our 

training. 

The third priority is enforcement. The Utah Project Safe Neighborhoods Task Force subscribes to a one gun, one crook enforcement theory. A number of indictments in Mr. Warner’s complete 

testimony are replete with examples where a single offender with 

one gun was responsible for horrific gun violence. Our experience 

24

demonstrates that the Federal approach is the only sensible approach to these violators. 

Local police departments are frustrated when repeat offenders 

who are arrested numerous times on drug, domestic violence and 

other felony crimes are rarely incarcerated for extended periods of 

time and ofttimes do not see any time in jail at all. 

In one southeastern Utah case, over a five-month period of time 

a drug user was arrested ten times for a number of crimes, including drug use, domestic violence, threats, and burglary. In the State 

court, he received a cumulative total of 6 months in jail. We believe 

this would not be the case when these cases are referred to us. 

The effectiveness of a one gun, one crook strategy is expressed 

in the following numbers, also. Since January of this year, of the 

near 200 cases that have been referred to the U.S. Attorney’s office 

through this task force, 112 of those cases screened had named offenders who currently are or previously have been on probation or 

parole from Utah State Prison. 

We treat every case we work with a local agency as a long-term 

partnership. This task force has demonstrated an ability to work 

with all 110 agencies in Utah. In the last year, we have worked 

with 62 of those agencies in every geographic region of the State. 

Finally, this task force has the ability and resources to follow the 

guns and their traffickers across the State. Most of the agencies in 

the State of a rural nature have the desire, but ofttimes do not 

have the resources to do this, and we are able to do this and track 

these guns. 

Two stolen firearms in the possession of two different felons were 

tracked through three different Utah counties. Ten guns stolen 

during one burglary in one county were tracked to Texas, New 

Mexico and two different counties in Utah. 

I reaffirm my belief that the National Project Safe Neighborhoods program and the Utah Project Safe Neighborhoods Gun Task 

Force are this Nation’s best hope of reducing gun violence. Indeed, 

every case of one crook with one gun may ultimately become one 

finger on one trigger causing one more senseless death. We are 

dedicated to the initiative that removes any gun from any crook’s 

hand. Your continued support in this program will help us in that 

mission. 

Thank you. I would be honored to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Captain Spann appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CRAIG. Well, Captain Spann, thank you very much for 

your testimony. 

Let us turn to the Chief of Police of Newport News, Dennis 

Mook. Thank you, and welcome before the Committee. We move 

from one side of the country almost to the exact opposite. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS A. MOOK, CHIEF OF POLICE, NEWPORT NEWS POLICE DEPARTMENT, NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA 

Chief MOOK. Mr. Chairman, Senators, good morning. I am delighted to have the opportunity to testify before this Committee on 

such an important issue. 

25

I am the Chief of Police of the City of Newport News, Virginia. 

Newport News is a diverse urban city with a population of 182,000 

residents. For perspective, Newport News is known, among other 

things, for building aircraft carriers and submarines for our United 

States Navy. 

I am in my 30th year as a police officer and my 10th year as a 

Chief of Police. For almost all of my adult life, I have worked either 

directly as a police officer or indirectly as a police supervisor or 

manager on the streets of the inner-city. I have witnessed dramatic 

changes in our culture in many respects during my career. Specifically in regard to this Committee’s hearing today, I have witnessed 

dramatic increases in gun violence in the streets of our cities. 

The nature of violence has changed over the years in several respects. One major change is the increase in threats by offenders 

against their victims, their families, friends and witnesses. More 

and more, offenders cannot be brought to justice due to fear experienced by those who have knowledge of their illegal acts. 

In Newport News, we have experienced this very type of intimidation. Several dozen dangerous criminals had repeatedly terrorized certain neighborhoods in our city. In fact, one offender had 

been arrested more than 50 times for felony crimes, but had never 

been convicted due to the reasons I have just stated. 

Why did this happen? After all, the Newport News Police Department is a nationally-known, innovative police department, utilizing 

strategies of problem-solving and community policing. The Newport 

News Police Department is a professional, internationally-accredited agency that stresses suppression and prevention of crime 

through partnerships with our community. We are staffed by some 

of the finest men and women anywhere, so why were we not able 

to stop or deter these serial violent offenders? 

The reason is we tried to attack the issue in a traditional manner. By that I mean we acted as a singular agency. We demonstrated community policing at its best, but that approach was 

not enough. It was not enough because our strategies always focused on using one criminal justice system. 

It was only after we changed strategy and utilized the philosophy 

of taking advantage of the attributes of both the Federal and State 

criminal justice systems simultaneously that we saw real results. 

We partnered with the United States Attorney’s office, the Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Newport News prosecutor’s office to form the Violent Crimes Task Force. Only then were 

we able to achieve success. 

Each criminal justice system, its laws and procedures, has certain strengths that make it advantageous to use for certain specific 

aspects of criminal investigations and prosecutions. In the formation of the Violent Crimes Task Force in 2001, detectives reopened, 

reviewed, reconstructed and reinvestigated hundreds of closed 

cases involving gun crimes. Virtually all of these cases ended in no 

arrest or dismissed charges due to repeated intimidation of victims 

and witnesses. 

The task force carefully chose and targeted 35 individuals who, 

in our opinion, were repeat violent criminals responsible for over 

300 crimes. To date, the task force has been able to arrest all 35 

individuals and have prosecuted successfully all but a few who 

26

have yet to stand trial. Eight of these individuals have been 

charged in six different murders. The others have been charged 

with numerous counts of maiming, robbery, firearm and drug violations. 

As a result of this partnership, reluctant victims and witnesses 

were brought before a Federal grand jury, assured anonymity and 

safety, and testified to the crimes they observed. It was the use of 

the combination of both systems that was necessary, as neither system in and of itself possessed all the attributes to make the effort 

successful. Additionally, none of the agencies alone possessed the 

resources to successfully accomplish the task at hand. 

The violent crime reduction initiative in Newport News resulted 

in a dramatic reduction in homicides and other violent crimes during the subsequent 12 months after its formation. In fact, homicides dropped by 42 percent. 

Project Safe Neighborhoods provides exactly the right ingredients 

and the right approach to assist localities in conducting gun violence reduction programs such as ours. A program such as Project 

Safe Neighborhoods is tailor-made for these efforts. 

Project Safe Neighborhoods provides for the flexibility to choose 

Federal or State prosecution to help ensure longer and more determinative sentences for criminals who possess or use guns illegally. 

The involvement of the Federal criminal justice system sends a 

message to citizens that law enforcement will do whatever is necessary to stop the violence. The message gives citizens confidence 

to come forward with information and cooperation. 

By strengthening the partnerships among local and Federal law 

enforcement agencies, a balanced approach of enforcement, prevention and intervention can be accomplished. Project Safe Neighborhoods provides a methodology for vital information-sharing at every 

level, which results in increased effectiveness. Project Safe Neighborhoods provides the resources to create a program that reinforces 

the message that the community will not tolerate gun violence and 

will, together, do everything to prevent and suppress it. 

In conclusion, Newport News saw a gun violence problem that 

seemed as though it could not be solved. Only by innovative and 

creative partnerships, commitment of necessary manpower, resources and money, as well as the tenacity of local and Federal law 

enforcement officers and prosecutors, did we make a difference in 

the lives of our citizens by taking the most violent-prone serial 

criminals off the streets and out of the community. 

Other localities with similar problems may not have the resources available, nor the willingness of other agencies to achieve 

similar results. The Project Safe Neighborhoods program provides 

the needed assets for a successful strategy to the gun violence reduction issue, as well as generates those resources and incentives 

for the essential partnerships that have to be formed in order to 

remove serial violent offenders from the streets of our city. 

Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Mook appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator CRAIG. Chief, thank you very much for that testimony. 

27

Now, let me turn to the District Attorney from Lancaster County, 

Pennsylvania, Donald Totaro. Welcome before the Committee, Donald. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD R. TOTARO, DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY, LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. TOTARO. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be here and I would like to thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss this morning an issue that is of vital 

concern to Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. 

My name is Don Totaro. I have been a local prosecutor in Lancaster for the past 16 years. We have a population in Lancaster 

County of approximately 470,000 residents. We are located approximately 65 miles west of Philadelphia. 

Despite enjoying a reputation for rolling farmland and the 

Amish, in the late 1990’s and in 2000 we experienced a tremendous 

increase in gun crime, particularly involving drug dealers and gang 

members. In 1999 alone, Lancaster County experienced ten firearm-related murders. One shoot-out took place across from an elementary school while the kids were outside playing. Another occurred near the same school, resulting in the death of an innocent 

bystander. City residents lived in fear and the police faced constant 

danger. 

Unfortunately, in Pennsylvania the penalties for many criminal 

offenders who possess firearms are completely inadequate. For example, a drug dealer who possesses a firearm is one of the most 

dangerous predators on our streets. However, if that armed drug 

dealer possesses less than two grams of cocaine, no mandatory sentence applies and he may be facing a few months in prison or even 

probation. A few months in jail is a simple cost of doing business 

for these drug dealers. The lack of a mandatory minimum sentence 

eliminates any attempt at deterrence. 

Without resources to protect our citizens against dangerous 

criminals, I began to explore other options to attack this problem. 

One program was Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia, that we 

have heard a lot about this morning. 

In that program, I saw that local prosecutors under similar circumstances partnered with the U.S. Attorney to handle firearm offenders in Federal court. I also noted that the gun crime rates in 

Virginia dropped to their lowest levels in nearly a quarter century 

after implementation of the program. 

Armed with this information, on May 23, 2000, I met with the 

former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. And although I was advised at that meeting that we would 

become a part of their Federal Operation Ceasefire program, all 

subsequent cases that we referred to the U.S. Attorney were declined for Federal prosecution. 

To be perfectly candid, I was not surprised because historically 

we had not enjoyed open lines of communication with that office. 

Lancaster County is the western-most county in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and when you contrast the numbers to the 

numbers in Philadelphia, our numbers do not compare. However, 

the severity of Lancaster’s crime problem and the significant imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 Oct 21, 2003 Jkt 089886 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89886.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
28

pact of the increase in Lancaster were significant to those who 

lived in that county. 

Fortunately, in July of 2001 our relationship with the U.S. Attorney changed drastically. Even before taking office as United States 

Attorney, Pat Meehan convened a meeting of all district attorneys 

within the Eastern District, at which time he advised county prosecutors about a Federal program called Project Safe Neighborhoods 

that was being developed to combat gun violence. 

Mr. Meehan encouraged us to apply for Federal grant funding to 

hire additional prosecutors who would be cross-designated as Special Assistant United States Attorneys to prosecute firearm offenses in Federal court. Despite my skepticism from past experience, I supported the efforts of Mr. Meehan and applied for the 

grant funding. We were approved and an additional position was 

created by our county commissioners because of that Federal grant 

funding. 

My expectation was that the gun prosecutor would work with 

Federal authorities to prosecute a limited number of gun offenses 

in Federal court. I quickly discovered, however, that the Project 

Safe Neighborhoods program was serious about referring local firearm cases to Federal court. 

Whereas I initially questioned the commitment of the United 

States Attorney’s office, I now regretted the fact that I did not 

apply for the four prosecutor positions eligible under the grant 

funding proposal. Despite establishing only one position through 

Federal grant funding, I chose to cross-designate a total of four assistant district attorneys as special AUSAs to participate in this 

program. 

To date, over 20 local cases have been adopted for Federal prosecution by the United States Attorney. In one particular case, a repeat offender who was facing a 5-year sentence in State court received a Federal sentence of 15 1/2 years. In another case, a persistent street criminal in Lancaster received a Federal sentence of 

51 months in prison, rather than the possibility of a 15-month recommended sentence in State court. 

These Project Safe Neighborhoods cases have generated significant coverage in the local media. Additionally, this message has 

been reinforced within the confines of Lancaster County Prison, 

which is where that Assistant United States Attorney went to meet 

with some of the inmates. 

The videotape that you will receive is remarkable. You will see 

a transformation from beginning to end in these inmates and their 

perception of reality when they hear of the Federal penalties if 

they re-offend. This videotape will be replayed. We have the commitment of the warden that it will be replayed to new inmates to 

remind them of their fate if they re-offend with a firearm. Further, 

our county probation department now provides all convicted criminals with a form they must sign identifying the Federal consequences of a former convict who possesses a firearm. 

Because of public exposure to lengthy sentences that may be 

served a great distance from Pennsylvania, Project Safe Neighborhoods is serving as a deterrent. Defendants are now asking to 

plead guilty in State court, pursuant to a negotiated plea that 

greatly exceeds the standard range of the State sentencing guideVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 Oct 21, 2003 Jkt 089886 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89886.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
29

lines. One cooperating defendant recently sentenced in State court 

advised a prosecutor that he will continue to sell drugs when he 

is released from prison. However, he will no longer carry a firearm. 

Furthermore, a comparison of Lancaster City robberies committed with firearms between 2001 and 2002 is very promising. In 

2001, there were 119 robberies committed with firearms. In 2002, 

there were 73. Through the first 3 months of this year, there have 

been 14 robberies with firearms. 

In conclusion, our new partnership with the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has been unprecedented. With the implementation of Project Safe Neighborhoods 

and the distribution of Federal grant funds, prosecutors from the 

Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office have worked as a team 

with United States Attorney Pat Meehan and his staff to aggressively prosecute firearm offenders under Federal law. 

We now have critical resources to attack violent criminals, ensuring swift and substantial punishment. The message is clear, concise and easily understood, serving as a deterrent to others. The 

Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office stands in full support 

of Project Safe Neighborhoods, and I would again like to thank you 

for the opportunity to speak this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Totaro appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you. That is fascinating and valuable 

testimony, as we see this program implemented across the country. 

Now, let us turn to Charles Curtis. Mr. Curtis is President of the 

Kansas City Metropolitan Crime Commission, in Kansas City, and 

is Chairman of the Kansas City Crime Commission. 

Mr. Curtis, welcome before the Committee. We understand the 

commission has an interesting history in organized crime. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. CURTIS, PRESIDENT, KANSAS 

CITY METROPOLITAN CRIME COMMISSION, KANSAS CITY, 

MISSOURI 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you for having these hearings and thank you 

for inviting me. 

The commission was started in 1949 as a watchdog group to 

watch over law enforcement to make sure malfeasance didn’t occur 

and over time it has evolved into a group that aids law enforcement. So it was in this capacity that we received a visit from the 

U.S. Attorney in 2000, asking us if we would participate in Project 

Ceasefire. 

An idea came out of the attorney’s office that was, I think, somewhat unique. They said, you know, we can put these people in jail, 

but there are so many of them, it would really be better for all of 

us if we could let people know of the program and just keep the 

felons from carrying the guns, and that would also achieve our 

goals in perhaps a more cost-effective manner. 

So, in addition to the cooperation that we have heard testified to 

today between local law enforcement and Federal law enforcement, 

and in our case across the State line of Missouri and Kansas, we 

had two other goals. The first goal was to publicize this program 

very widely, to advertise, and then, second, to research it thorVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 Oct 21, 2003 Jkt 089886 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89886.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
30

oughly so we could understand if the advertising was being effective. 

As Todd Graves mentioned earlier, we raised this money privately for the most part, $1.4 million, and we felt an obligation to 

our donors to give them that accountability so that they would understand that the advertising was working and making people 

aware of the penalties, and consequently the reduction in crime. 

I think the key number here is the one that Todd referred to that 

we have sentenced over 300 people in the program, so we know the 

sentencing is very effective. What we were interested in was, in addition to that, could we affect the behavior of the 12,000 felons who 

were under supervision, would we persuade them not to carry the 

firearm. 

We wanted to get that message to them not to carry the gun, but 

also those people around them—their mother, their wife, their 

girlfriend—so they would also try to persuade that person not to 

go out of the house with a gun, often a habit that had been established. And so when they would get in trouble, that firearm would 

be awfully convenient. 

So in 2000, at the Kansas City Metropolitan Crime Commission 

we began building a war chest, a private funding for the advertising for a several-month period of time from private companies 

and foundations. We raised $1.4 million and then we used to buy 

advertising on television, billboards, and on bus sides. 

The television commercial featured the well-known defense attorney Johnnie Cochran. When the commercial began—I will see if I 

can describe it to you—the viewer didn’t know who was speaking 

in the commercial. It was Johnnie Cochran, but you didn’t know; 

he was out of camera range. But you could hear his voice and he 

was saying if the police didn’t read you your rights, a good defense 

attorney can probably get you off. And if the prosecution witnesses 

are not credible, a good defense attorney can probably get you off. 

And at that point, he sat down and he came into the light and 

you could see it was Johnnie Cochran, and he said, but if you are 

a felon and you carry a gun, even I can’t get you off. And then the 

closing line was ‘‘Felons with guns serve 5 years,’’ and that was the 

line on the bus sides and the billboards, too. So those ads ran in 

2001 and 2002. 

We turned to the University of Missouri–Kansas City, to two 

criminologists there. We asked them to independently track, before 

the campaign ran, the awareness of gun penalties, and then after 

it ran the awareness of gun penalties. We have had some testimony 

already as to some of those results. 

As we were even gathering the data, we had anecdotal information that this campaign was working. I have a couple of examples 

here. A suspect who confessed to a robbery told detectives, quote, 

‘‘I went to my friend Leon to ask him if I could borrow a gun, and 

he, Leon, said, Sean, you know if you take this gun it is going to 

be 5 years if you get caught.’’ So we could see the 5-year message 

was getting through. 

Another defendant who confessed to passing bad checks denied 

having a gun. He told the detectives that he was a convicted felon 

and not even Johnnie Cochran could get him off if he carried a gun. 

31

So we were hearing that line played back to us. We had the right 

spokesman. 

In the final results, the professors reported that 80 percent of the 

offender population had been exposed, and when we asked them 

the question how much time do felons with guns get, 91 percent 

answered 5 years. So we could see that they were getting the message. As has been testified to earlier, the murder rate in Kansas 

City, Missouri, declined 23 percent last year, to a 30-year low. 

Metro-wide, the report concluded that Project Ceasefire had prevented 22 homicides and 50 violent crimes. 

So we have just launched our third year of Ceasefire advertising. 

It has been expanded to Springfield, Missouri, St. Joseph, and 

Wichita, Kansas. Television commercials and billboards will again 

remind the felons that they will burn 5 years in Federal prison if 

they are caught with a gun. And it is our hope that the anecdotal 

information, as well as the research data that has been promising 

thus far, will continue. 

So thank you again for this hearing and thank you for giving me 

the opportunity to share with you our experience on Project 

Ceasefire and its role in Project Safe Neighborhoods. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Curtis appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you, Mr. Curtis. There is a bit of an 

old adage out there that advertising pays, and I think any of us 

who have been in public life, especially in the first experience when 

our name goes up on television and our image goes up on television, are always amazed at the impact in the public. Messages 

can be communicated and people do respond to messages, and it 

also holds true with the criminal element and apparently your effort is clear proof of that. Thank you very much for that testimony. 

Now, let us move to Professor Alfred Blumstein. Professor 

Blumstein is from Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania. We welcome you before the Committee and look forward to your testimony. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ALFRED BLUMSTEIN, UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, PITTSBURGH, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. BLUMSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Sessions. I am really pleased to be here. My perspectives are obviously going to be different from the people directly involved in implementing phases of Project Safe Neighborhoods. Let me first start 

by summarizing where I sense some of the major understanding 

has emerged over the last several years. 

First, we know how serious a problem the gun violence problem 

is in the United States, and it is a distinctively American problem. 

It just characterizes this enormous difference between us and the 

countries we compare ourselves with. 

We have learned over the last 10, 15 years how dangerous it can 

become when guns get into the hands of young people who don’t 

have the restraint that older folks have. We understand much more 

about the contagion of guns, both the contagion of gun-carrying and 

the contagion of not carrying. As gun-carrying escalates, more and 

32

more people do it. As we find means to stop it and turn it around, 

we see a reduction more broadly. 

We know that many of these guns that are used in crimes come 

through an illegal mechanism, partly burglary, but much more 

through straw purchasers and through illegal purchases or through 

corrupt dealers arranging to send them out. We also know that a 

relatively small, limited number of dealers are responsible for a 

disproportionate amount of the illegal guns. 

We have also learned that the guns used in crimes tend more 

often to be new guns rather than old guns. So that again puts attention to the marketing aspect. We have learned through crimegun tracing an awful lot about the mechanisms by which guns 

move, an awful lot about who is carrying them, and the use of guns 

by gangs and criminals. So there is much more we can do now with 

this new insight coming from the crime gun tracing. 

We also know that aggressive policing in neighborhoods where 

there is a lot of gun crime going on is a means of stopping the gun 

crime. And we can determine where the gun crimes are from 911 

calls, from the reports of the crimes, and simply from the reports 

of shots fired so we know where to target some of that aggressive 

policing. 

We also know that deterrence theory tells us that increasing 

sanctions reduces the volume of the crime, but we also know that 

the certainty of prosecution and the certainty of conviction is more 

powerful than the severity of the conviction or the length of the 

sentence. 

As we pull all of these observations together, we know that with 

gun crimes there are a limited number of themes that drive the effort on gun crimes. One is crime-gun tracing and the follow-up to 

identify the illicit markets that are contributing to the flow of the 

guns in those gun crimes tracing is very helpful in identifying the 

mechanisms of the straw purchasing and the illicit dealers that are 

contributing to the presence of those guns. 

We also know that aggressive police pursuit in high-risk neighborhoods can be effective, and we can run experiments to find out 

how well they work in different contexts. And we know that deterrence is an important and salient mechanism for contributing to 

that. 

Since we have a relatively limited range of kinds of options that 

we can pursue, it becomes particularly valuable to start to coordinate the accumulation of knowledge that is coming out of the 94 

U.S. Attorneys’ offices that are performing in Project Safe Neighborhoods. It argues, therefore, that there ought to be more melding 

together of the effort and of the knowledge. It is important that we 

run more careful studies and more careful analyses so that we can 

identify, not for this year but for the next decade, what kind of tactics are most effective in what kind of contexts. 

And that will come not just in the individual communities of the 

U.S. Attorneys’ offices, but through aggregation of the data across 

the offices. My sense is that is going to be a necessary next phase 

in the development of this program and it will be extremely desirable and important. My sense, therefore, is that we should devote 

at least a significant portion of the program funds in Safe NeighVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 Oct 21, 2003 Jkt 089886 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89886.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
33

borhoods to organizing a coherent multi-site research effort to get 

an assessment of those effects. 

Let me just summarize my main points. I certainly agree that 

gun violence is a crucial and distinctively American problem that 

must be addressed. I certainly accept many of the benefits of the 

decentralized strategy that we have been pursuing, allowing local 

option and local assessment of where the needs are. 

But I think we now are at a position where we could start bringing that information together by coordination through a central operation funded by the National Institute of Justice, with some 

prime contractor coordinating the design and the analysis, working 

in conjunction with the U.S. Attorneys’ offices to start to build the 

knowledge base. 

So far, we have an experience base and if we could transform 

that into a meaningful knowledge base, I think the Nation will be 

much better served in finding how best to apply aggressive patrol, 

how best to interdict illicit markets, and to stop the gun violence 

even before it results in the crimes that are being prosecuted so 

vigorously. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blumstein appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you for that important testimony. 

Our last member of the panel this morning is Professor Jens 

Ludwig, from the Georgetown Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University here in Washington, D.C. 

Welcome before the Committee and thank you for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF JENS LUDWIG, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF 

PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Mr. LUDWIG. Thank you, Chairman Craig and members of the 

Committee. It is an honor to appear before this Committee as you 

consider the role of Project Safe Neighborhoods in reducing gun violence in the United States. 

Project Safe Neighborhoods dedicates hundreds of millions of dollars to reducing gun violence throughout the country. This is an 

important and positive first step, given the substantial costs that 

gun violence imposes on the United States, which are estimated to 

be on the order of $100 billion per year. 

The main theme of my comments is that there may be ways to 

reallocate the funding available for PSN that would enhance the 

program’s effects on gun crime. Specifically, it may be more effective to focus on increasing the certainty with which gun violators 

are caught, for example, by dedicating more money to police patrols 

against illegal guns, compared to the effects we might expect from 

increasing the severity of the prison penalties for those who do get 

arrested for gun violations. 

Project Safe Neighborhoods is modeled in part on Richmond, Virginia’s Project Exile, a program that emphasizes prosecuting gun 

cases in the Federal courts and thereby lengthening the prison sentences handed out to those who violate gun laws. 

The expansion of Project Exile through PSN is motivated in part 

by the perceived success of Exile, which was announced in RichVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 Oct 21, 2003 Jkt 089886 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89886.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
34

mond in February 1997. From 1997 to 1998, gun homicides declined in Richmond by around 40 percent. It is widely believed that 

this reduction was caused by the Project Exile program itself. 

However, in my judgment, Project Exile has had a much more 

modest effect on crime in Richmond than most people believe. In 

a recent study that I conducted with Professor Steven Raphael, of 

the University of California at Berkeley, our analysis of FBI crime 

data suggests that most of the reduction in gun homicides observed 

in Richmond following the launch of Project Exile would have happened anyway, even if Exile had never been implemented. 

The explanation comes from the fact that Richmond experienced 

an unusually dramatic surge in crime before Project Exile went 

into effect. All across the country, cities that experienced unusually 

large increases in crime through the early to mid–1990’s went on 

to experience unusually large declines afterwards. 

Because Richmond is one of those cities that had an especially 

large increase in crime through the mid–1990’s, we would have 

predicted an exceptionally large decline in Richmond after 1997, 

even if Project Exile had never gone into effect. 

This does not necessarily mean that devoting additional resources to prosecuting and imprisoning those who violate firearm 

laws has no effect. I only mean to suggest that the effects of the 

Project Exile strategy are likely to be far more modest than many 

people seem to believe based on current common wisdom about 

Richmond’s experience. 

Put differently, spending money under Project Safe Neighborhoods on Project Exile-style prosecutions is unlikely to be a silver 

bullet for the problem of gun violence. On the other hand, a growing body of research suggests that putting additional resources into 

targeted police patrols against illegal guns may be a more effective 

way of reducing gun crime than handing out longer prison sentences for firearm violations. 

This is consistent with the view that many criminologists and 

economists hold, and was articulated by Professor Blumstein in his 

remarks, that for a given amount of criminal justice spending, we 

can deter more crime by increasing the certainty rather than the 

severity of punishment. 

In sum, if the best research currently available is correct, the 

overall impact of Project Safe Neighborhoods on gun crime might 

be enhanced by redirecting some resources away from trying to 

lengthen the prison sentences handed out to gun offenders and instead devoting these resources to additional police patrols designed 

to catch those who carry guns illegally. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ludwig appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Ludwig, thank you, and thank you for that 

interesting and challenging perspective. We will pursue it in a moment. 

Let me start back down through our panelists with a couple of 

questions. When Senator Sessions joins me, I will turn to him. He 

has to be on the floor by noon, and we want to also try to wrap 

this up at least in that time frame. 

35

Captain, in your testimony you cited an unprecedented level of 

cooperation among Federal and local law enforcement agencies in 

Utah. We have heard frequently the difficulty of coordination, oftentimes rivalries between different levels of law enforcement in 

our country. 

How were you and other law enforcement agencies able to accomplish the coordination you have referenced? 

Captain SPANN. We had the immediate support from Mr. Warner, and his office was going to take the project on and take it on 

seriously. He challenged the different law enforcement and prosecuting agencies in the State to try to overwork him. He said you 

can’t; we will have prosecutors to take the cases. So he delivered 

on the promise that any cases brought forth would be prosecuted 

by his office as long as they met the guidelines. 

We would also try to look toward the Olympics we just had in 

2002, and that level of cooperation that began there continued on 

after the Games. The support we had nationwide from agencies 

that came in in support of the Games, along with all the Federal 

agencies and the local agencies that stepped forward, was instrumental in getting this program to be successful. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I hadn’t thought of that, but I was certainly 

aware of law enforcement communities of Idaho participating with 

you and participating with Utah in some of the coordinating efforts 

that were underway for the Olympics. It was obviously a very highprofile Olympics in a post–9/11 environment. So that makes some 

additional sense, certainly. Thank you. 

Chief, your testimony references me to an obvious frustration you 

had on the streets of Newport News and the inability to get things 

done, and now you sense that things are happening. I am saying 

this in reference to what Professor Ludwig said about—I am a little 

frustrated about rounding them up, but not locking them up, or 

prosecuting them or carrying it through. 

Part of the frustration I have always heard from the law enforcement community is that revolving door out there of putting violence back on the street and ultimately having to take it off again. 

What I am hearing from you, I think—and you mentioned it, I 

think, in the work that is getting done—is the ability to move 

ahead with a higher level of extraction, if you will, from the streets 

of violent criminals in your experience under this program. 

Could you reference that a little more and possibly explain what 

you meant about the uniqueness that this is offering you and the 

task forces involved? 

Chief MOOK. Yes, sir. The particular frustration we experienced 

was using the State criminal justice system alone. There is no fear 

from the criminals of the State system. It is not quite a revolving 

door, but the penalties and the way it is configured are much less 

effective. 

Senator CRAIG. At least it is a slower door. 

Chief MOOK. It is a slower door, yes, sir. But the problem that 

happened is we would arrest individuals for violent crimes and 

they would intimidate their victims or witnesses or families and 

they would be bonded out almost immediately. Therefore, the fear 

of testimony by victims or witnesses was real, and subsequently 

those charges were later dismissed or the person was acquitted. 

36

This went on and on, and the criminals were free to continue to 

commit violent crimes. 

When Mr. McNulty became U.S. Attorney, he came to me and 

said, what can we do, what can my office do to help you in the localities? And I responded by saying we need to form a partnership 

where we use a combination of the State and Federal systems, 

whichever is more appropriate for the particular charges. 

With witnesses, the Federal grand jury system provided anonymity and safety for people to come forward and testify, where they 

were afraid in the State system because as soon as they were arrested, they were bonded back out. The bond was not there for the 

Federal system. Once we had them in Federal custody, they remained in Federal custody until their trial. So the fear was then 

lessened and more and more people came forward, thus a snowballing effect. 

As the word got out in the community, as a City of Newport 

News detective and a Federal law enforcement agent walked arm 

in arm and interviewed people, the word spread quickly that they 

mean business; this is serious, they are taking this to the Federal 

court. 

Senator CRAIG. That is interesting testimony, dovetailed with 

what you have mentioned, Mr. Totaro. You pointed out, I think, in 

your testimony the inadequacy of State sentencing provisions. 

Hence, in the past many felons considered a few months in prison 

simply a cost of doing business. That is a phenomenal statement, 

but I suspect for those who are in the business that is a reality, 

at least to their observation or lifestyle. 

I know you touched on it in your testimony, but I would like you 

to describe in detail whether felons are becoming aware of the consequences of carrying a firearm under what is now going on in 

Pennsylvania and in light of this cooperative effort and sentencing 

through Federal law versus State law. 

Mr. TOTARO. Yes, sir, I would be glad to. As I previously indicated, we anecdotally can identify specific cases where felons have 

approached us. The one comment by the one gentleman who was 

a cooperating witness for us in a homicide who himself had pending drug charges—when his case was resolved, that comment was 

made to the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case that, 

well, basically I am going to, when I serve my time, go back out 

on the street and deal drugs, but I will not have a firearm, fully 

realizing what the penalties were and what we were doing in Lancaster County. 

We have had other cases where, interestingly enough, defense attorneys have tried to, after their client had been arrested for drugs 

and guns or other firearm offenses, quickly schedule a guilty plea 

with the judges in the Court of Common Pleas, thinking that by 

doing so the case would not be referred for Federal prosecution. 

So we have obviously tried to identify at an earlier stage cases 

that we would refer for Federal prosecution, then consult with U.S. 

Attorney Meehan, Rob Reed and other members of their office on 

whether they would, in fact, be forwarded. So we have seen that 

happen. 

As I indicated, we have seen defense attorneys and we have had 

them come to us and ask us for specific offers for some sort of a 

37

negotiated deal in county court that would far exceed what the 

standard range of the sentencing guidelines would call for pursuant 

to the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing because they do not 

want to face the consequences of Federal court. 

I think part of that also is based on the outreach that we are trying to create in Lancaster County. We have put together a community outreach task force with the mayor, with councilmen, with police. We have really tried to bring everybody to the table to determine the best way, the best method of getting this message out to 

the criminals, those most likely to possess these firearms, and I 

think that has helped as well. 

I think I indicated other areas—the videotape at the prison, the 

forms now that must be signed by everybody that goes through the 

county probation system. These are all different ways that we are 

using to get the message out. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I thank you. I have got some other questions, but let me turn to my colleague for any questions he might 

want to ask before he has to leave us. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I talked to the United States Attorney in the Southern District 

of Alabama, my old office. He told me that they have named their 

program throughout the State Project ICE, and people are being 

arrested and they are saying ‘‘don’t ice me.’’ So the message does 

tend to get out, and I think it got out when I was United States 

Attorney when we had Project Triggerlock. I sent out a newsletter 

to all the local sheriffs and chiefs of police, and people picked up 

on it and prosecutions went up substantially. 

The Montgomery, Alabama Chief of Police in the Middle District 

of Alabama attributes Project ICE to a tremendous decrease in violent crime. I understand they expect to have about a 300-percent 

increase in gun prosecutions in Federal court this year. Murders 

this time last year were 16 and there are only 3 this year. 

Now, I know Professor Ludwig would say that is anecdotal and 

probably a lot of factors went into that. But if you have a 20-percent reduction in murders, if we could sustain a 20 percent by this 

one technique, I can’t think of anything else that would be so effective as that. 

Professor Blumstein, I think you are correct, and I am coming 

more to believe that this Department of Justice needs to spend 

more time on research, whether it is how to make a gun court work 

or a drug court work, or how to make Project Safe Neighborhoods 

work. The best science would be what we should apply. So when 

a community decides in Utah or wherever to adopt a plan, it can 

look at really scientific, peer-reviewed, rigorous studies that help 

them with that. 

Considering how much money we spend on all these other things, 

do you think the Department of Justice ought to spend more on research on all kinds of criminal matters? 

Mr. BLUMSTEIN. There is no question that it can and should, and 

that we desperately need the kind of accumulation of knowledge 

that looks at the operations going on and that extracts from those 

operations the knowledge base that will help in making future decisions. 

38

It is not to say we should stop doing what we are doing until the 

knowledge comes in, but to use the information we are getting so 

that future decisions will be much better informed. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, we had hearings here at one 

point several years ago and examined the gun prosecutions of the 

Department of Justice. There were a lot of high-profile crimes 

while you were here before I came, making it a Federal crime to 

carry a firearm on a schoolyard, a Federal crime for various other 

offenses, a whole host of those kinds of discreet offenses. 

But the numbers showed there were only 2 prosecutions a year, 

5 a year, in the whole United States of America. The truth is what 

these prosecutors who testified earlier said—these are the breadand-butter crimes. I don’t know who put that chart up, but 922 and 

924 are carrying a firearm during a drug offense or any crime, or 

you catch an offender at a bank robbery or a drug offense and he 

is using a firearm. They get whacked with 5 years without parole, 

consecutive to any other penalty they get for the underlying criminal offense. That is a very powerful tool that the Federal court has. 

922 deals with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, primarily. It penalizes a person who sells a gun to a convicted felon, 

all kinds of peripheral things. But the bread-and-butter prosecutions are the convicted felons who are possessing firearms. It has 

a less penalty, but it is a significant penalty, enough to deter, I 

think, anyone from carrying that. 

So what I would say is we need to quit talking about new, esoteric penalties that are unlikely to get passed in this body anyway 

that don’t have public support and continue this kind of intensive 

utilization of the crimes that are there everyday and target criminals who are capable on a regular basis of threatening people’s 

lives. 

We had in our district a major drug-dealing organization. The 

neighborhood was really disrupted by it. and I remember, Chief, 

that we had two people; one had been convicted of murder of a policeman and had it set aside because he didn’t have the warrant 

in hand for a misdemeanor that he was making an arrest for. Another one had attempted murder. Several of them had multiple 

criminal histories. They had firearms and that kind of thing, and 

they went off for long periods of time. And that whole neighborhood 

was clearly safer and the people in that neighborhood were very, 

very pleased that that gang had been broken up. 

I like what the Department of Justice is doing. I like what you 

are doing in partnership with one another. For every Federal officer, there are ten State officers, maybe more. If we don’t work together, we don’t have good sense. If you came in here from Mars 

and you wanted to talk about how to decrease crime in America, 

you would certainly not create a plan that did not involve deeply 

the local law enforcement community. 

So I think it is important for us to celebrate some of the things 

that have been happening. This new initiative—I believe that rigorous research will show that it has positively impacted crime in 

America, and if we study it rigorously and intensively, we might 

find some techniques that make it even more effective. 

I am sorry to have to return to the floor, but I just wanted to 

share those thoughts. This has been a very important matter to me 

39

throughout my criminal practice. I was appointed United States Attorney in 1981 and did that for about 12 years and gun prosecutions were a big part of what we did. 

I think it can impact young people. Someone mentioned young 

people carrying guns. There was a program that was established 

and won a national award: Kid With Gun, Call 9–1–1. And so 

grandmothers and other children who saw a young person with a 

gun were encouraged to call the police, and they could come out 

and perhaps intervene before something dangerous happened. 

There are a lot of little things that can be done to reduce gun violence in America. 

We are not going to eviscerate the Second Amendment. I don’t 

think we should and I would resist that and I don’t think the 

American people want that. But we have got a lot of tools now, we 

really do, and some tough penalties, also, that work. 

Senator Craig, I appreciate your leadership on this issue over a 

period of years. There is hardly anyone here in the body, I am sure, 

who knows it more than you do, and I thank you for conducting 

this hearing. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you for your commitment, involvement and the raw experience. You have the kind of experience out 

there in the application of these laws that few of us have and that 

is appreciated on this Committee. 

Obviously, Mr. Curtis, advertising pays, or at least an informational flow going out to the elements of our community that might 

be most reactive to it. It sounds like it is paying off in Kansas City. 

Let me ask this question of the rest of you. We have Pennsylvania, Virginia and Utah. Have you utilized television? Have you 

been able to actually advertise on television to communicate a similar kind of message to that that they did in the Kansas City area? 

Captain SPANN. We have just begun our media outreach program. However, we have utilized a number of the PSAs and news 

broadcasts to get the information out to local groups, but not on the 

media yet. 

Chief MOOK. Yes, sir, we have done most of our advertising 

through Virginia Exile and it is such an important effort to the 

community. Most of the advertising dollars were raised by the community, so it wasn’t that government had to spend the money on 

it. It has been very effective. 

Senator CRAIG. Don? 

Mr. TOTARO. Senator, we are now in the process of doing just 

that. We have looked at some of the public service announcements. 

We are talking to our local stations to see if they will air those. So 

that is something we are absolutely looking forward to. 

Senator CRAIG. Excellent. 

Professor Ludwig, I am curious about some of your observations. 

I hope we have available some of your studies. I am curious to read 

some of your findings or your observations in relation to Project 

Exile and your reaction to it. 

Let me ask this question of you. I make the general assumption 

that when there is a spike in crime that there is a public reaction 

to that, and therefore a reaction in the law enforcement community 

that usually follows. So as that occurs, while Project Exile was implemented and used in the Richmond area, and you mentioned 

40

other areas had crime and it declined, my guess is—and I may 

guess wrong and you can respond because you have studied it—

there were other kinds of efforts underway in response to that 

spike in crime. 

If that is true, was there an effort to evaluate the pieces of the 

process? Here we had in Richmond the use of the Federal firearms 

laws, the sorting out, if you will, and trying to identify those individual actions that could be taken into Federal court versus State, 

and the frustration we have heard because Newport News is down 

the road a bit and is subject to the same laws, at least from a State 

level. 

In your examination and studies, was there a comparative attempted to be drawn between what was used and implemented, or 

are you suggesting this was simply a cultural phenomenon, a spike 

and a decline? 

Mr. LUDWIG. That is a terrific question. I think in order to understand the crime decline that we saw in Richmond and throughout the United States in the 1990’s, it is useful to have some understanding of why crime increased so dramatically from the mid–

1980’s through the early to mid–1990’s. 

Most explanations for that surge in crime center on some combination of growing crack use and distribution, the growing involvement of youth in the crack distribution system, and the growing involvement of guns in crack distribution and the eventual proliferation of guns to other youth as well. 

With that said, there remains some debate about exactly why 

crime has plummeted so dramatically in the United States during 

the 1990’s. Some of the explanations rest with the petering out of 

that cycle of crack, kids and guns. Whatever the cause, and so 

what we have seen is a substantial decline in crime not just in 

Richmond, but in almost every major city in the country. 

The FBI crime data that we have available seems to suggest that 

what happened in Richmond is not unique to anything specifically 

that Richmond did. Put differently, there are two possible explanations for what we see in the data for Richmond. In principle, it 

could be that crime dropped so dramatically because the crack 

problem simply changed in the early to mid–1990’s. 

The other possibility is that crime could have plummeted dramatically because each individual city across the United States implemented their own particular intervention that happened to be 

effective. What we do know is that what happened in Richmond is 

not unusual from what we saw in other cities that had the same 

prior experience. 

In order to determine whether what Richmond did specifically 

seemed to have some effect, we looked at whether the decrease in 

homicide in Richmond was concentrated among adults because, as 

you know, under the Federal statutes that form the heart of Project 

Exile in Richmond, it is primarily adults who are eligible for Federal firearm prosecutions and not youth. 

What we saw in Richmond is that the decline is not disproportionately driven by changes in adults. That finding suggests to me 

in that something else seemed to be responsible for most of the decline in homicides in Richmond rather than the Project Exile program, per se. 

41

Senator CRAIG. In your observation of what is now underway 

across this country with the community effort and the diversity 

within it and the resources being applied, do you believe, based on 

your experience and your studies, that this is an effective use of 

public resources? 

Mr. LUDWIG. I think that the allocation of resources to Project 

Safe Neighborhoods will have some effect in reducing homicide in 

the United States. In my opinion, the effect will be much more 

modest than most people believe, based on common wisdom about 

Richmond. 

In my judgment, I think the impact of the Project Safe Neighborhoods spending could be enhanced by reallocating some of those resources from a focus on prosecution and extending and making 

more severe the prison penalties associated with gun violations and 

instead doing more to enhance the certainty or the probability that 

gun violators are apprehended, prosecuted and imprisoned. And 

one way to do that is through allocating more resources to targeted 

police patrols that focus on getting illegally carried guns and the 

people who carry guns illegally off the street. 

Senator CRAIG. I am a bit confused by that answer because I understand what you are saying, I understand the premise of what 

you are saying, but how do you keep them off the street once you 

have taken them off the street? 

One of the great problems we have is this, if you will, a professional, seasoned, hardened criminal who accelerates his or action 

to the point of using a firearm in the commission of a crime, ultimately killing someone, and, of course, then a felon, and that revolving door of State versus Federal application of the law and the 

severity of the penalty. Visit with me a bit about that. 

Mr. LUDWIG. Certainly, you are absolutely correct, Senator, that 

increased police patrols and increased arrests without incarceration 

of gun offenders would be meaningless and would have no effect on 

crime, or little to no effect on crime. 

The question, then, is if we have a given amount of resources 

available should we either extend prison penalties for gun violations or increase the chances that you are caught and imprisoned 

for some period of time? The research seems to suggest that it is 

more effective to increase the chances that you are caught. 

So, for instance, when Project Exile went into effect in February 

of 1997, in Richmond, the federal prison penalties for the types of 

gun violations that formed the heart of the Project Exile prosecutions were much more severe prison penalties than those in place 

under Virginia State law. But the penalties in place under Virginia 

State law were not nothing; these state penalties did not entail 

zero time in jail for those types of violations. 

Our research suggests that extending the prison sentence from 

what was in place in the State of Virginia under State laws at the 

time to what was in place under the Federal laws did not have a 

very dramatic effect on gun crime in Richmond. The extension of 

prison penalties that was really at the heart of Project Exile in 

Richmond, and that did not seem to have a dramatic, or even discernible, effect on crime in the city. 

On the other hand, in research from Kansas City, from Indianapolis, and most recently, and I think most convincingly, from PittsVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 Oct 21, 2003 Jkt 089886 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89886.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
42

burgh, there is evidence suggesting that when you use the State 

laws for those gun violations in place at those States in those times 

and increase the chances that people who carry guns illegally will 

be apprehended, prosecuted and punished under State law, that is 

a more effective use of scarce resources than enhancing the penalty 

that people serve when they are caught. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, okay, that is an interesting statistic and observation. My guess is—and I don’t have time to pursue this further today—that there are some out here and some who have been 

on the panel who will disagree with that observation. Time is going 

to tell because there are very aggressive efforts underway across 

this country now with this program. 

I think I agree with you, Professor. The opportunity to observe, 

to look at where we are headed and its impact over an extended 

period of time is probably more likely today than it has been in the 

past. So we will probably have you back in times to come to draw 

conclusions from a greater and more extended body of information 

as we proceed down this path. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time before the Committee and the testimony you have offered today. 

Let me also ask unanimous consent that the statements of the 

Ranking Member, Senator Leahy, be made part of the record, along 

with another member of the Committee, Senator Joe Biden. They 

will become a part of the record. 

I must announce that the record will stay open for a period of 

a week for any additional information or questions that might 

come. 

Thank you all. The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Question and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

43


89886.001
44


89886.002
45


89886.003
46


89886.004
47


89886.005
48


89886.006
49


89886.007
50


89886.008
51


89886.009
52


89886.010
53


89886.011
54


89886.012
55


89886.013
56


89886.014
57


89886.015
58


89886.020
59


89886.021
60


89886.022
61


89886.023
62


89886.024
63


89886.025
64


89886.016
65


89886.017
66


89886.018
67


89886.019
68


89886.026
69


89886.027
70


89886.028
71


89886.029
72


89886.030
73


89886.031
74


89886.032
75


89886.033
76


89886.034
77


89886.035
78


89886.036
79


89886.037
80


89886.038
81


89886.039
82


89886.040
83


89886.041
84


89886.042
85


89886.043
86


89886.044
87


89886.045
88


89886.046
89


89886.047
90


89886.048
91


89886.049
92


89886.050
93


89886.051
94


89886.052
95


89886.053
96


89886.054
97


89886.055
98


89886.056
99


89886.084
100


89886.057
101


89886.085
102


89886.058
103


89886.059
104


89886.060
105


89886.061
106


89886.062
107


89886.063
108


89886.064
109


89886.065
110


89886.066
111


89886.067
112


89886.068
113


89886.069
114


89886.070
115


89886.071
116


89886.072
117


89886.073
118


89886.074
119


89886.075
120


89886.076
121


89886.077
122


89886.078
123


89886.079
124


89886.080
125


89886.081
126


89886.082
127

Æ


89886.083