The methodology used to gather the data and information for the hearings analysis in Chapter 5 utilizes two sources, namely the “Legislative History” page of the Pro Quest Congressional website (at http://www.congressional.proquest.com) and hearings testimony published in print form by the U.S. Government Printing Office. (*Pro Quest) The Pro Quest listing of hearings under the enacted laws “PL” number and also the hearings summary descriptions provided there was especially useful for determining at the outset which of the hearings to select for analysis. For purposes of manageability and also my interest in probing witness testimony as systematically as possible, the hearings contained in the Pro Quest listing were selected on the basis of several criteria. First, only those hearings held during the Congress in which the crime laws were adopted are examined. Second, hearings listed by Pro Quest as “published” or “related” were included and unpublished hearings excluded.

Next, I selected hearings that involved direct advocacy. This included both those hearings held to address crime bills formally introduced in the House or Senate as well as those that involved testimony in which witnesses expressly recommended or objected to legislative action or in which witnesses offered “lessons” or policy approaches for Congress to follow or implement. This list was then further narrowed by way of eliminating hearings described on the Pro Quest listing as chiefly concerned with agency coordination, creation and oversight of grant programs, and budget authorization and appropriations hearings. To help maintain the study’s focus on street crime, also excluded were hearings on subjects such as domestic violence, bank fraud, money laundering, juvenile justice, pornography and obscenity, Indian Lands, anabolic steroid and prescription drug abuse, mail fraud, foreign interdiction, foreign aid, and the like. Of special interest were hearings and testimony that dealt with enforcement and prevention issues in the United States as a whole, as opposed to those pertaining to individual states or cities. The opening statements of committee members were excluded, since committee members are the intended receivers of hearing information and testimony.