    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

         PROJECT EXILE: A CASE STUDY IN SUCCESSFUL GUN LAW ENFORCEMENT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
                        DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                               GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                NOVEMBER 4, 1999

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-141

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    66-358                     WASHINGTON : 2000

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
    BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       TOM LANTOS, California
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    STEPHEN HORN, California             PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana                  DC
    JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
        Carolina                         ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    BOB BARR, Georgia                    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    DAN MILLER, Florida                  JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             JIM TURNER, Texas
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DOUG OSE, California                             ------
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho              (Independent)
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

                          Kevin Binger, Staff Director
                     Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
               David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
                          Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
                     Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

       Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources

                        JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
    BOB BARR, Georgia                    PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             JIM TURNER, Texas
    DOUG OSE, California                 JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

                                   Ex Officio

    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
               Sharon Pinkerton, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                    Mason Alinger, Professional Staff Member
                  Carson Nightwine, Professional Staff Member
                              Lisa Wandler, Clerk
                        Cherri Branson, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on November 4, 1999.................................     1
    Statement of:
        Gooch, Teresa, deputy chief of police, Richmond Bureau of
          Police, accompanied by Sergeant Norris L. Evans, and
          Officer Douglas P. Vilkoski, Richmond Bureau of Police; and
          Susan Long, professor, codirector, Transactional Records
          Access Clearinghouse, Syracuse University..................   109
        Heston, Charlton, president, National Rifle Association; Mark
          Earley, attorney general, State of Virginia; and Helen
          Fahey, U.S. attorney, Eastern District of Virginia.........     9
    Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
        Barr, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Georgia:
            Chart entitled length of prison sentences 1998...........   162
            Information concerning BATF firearms prosecution
              referrals drop.........................................   139
        Earley, Mark, attorney general, State of Virginia, prepared
          statement of...............................................    19
        Fahey, Helen, U.S. attorney, Eastern District of Virginia,
          prepared statement of......................................    26
        Gooch, Teresa, deputy chief of police, Richmond Bureau of
          Police, prepared statement of..............................   113
        Heston, Charlton, president, National Rifle Association,
          prepared statement of......................................    12
        Long, Susan, professor, codirector, Transactional Records
          Access Clearinghouse, Syracuse University, prepared
          statement of...............................................   120
        Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Florida:
            Followup questions and responses.........................   166
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
            Project Exile and Virginia Exile.........................   173

         PROJECT EXILE: A CASE STUDY IN SUCCESSFUL GUN LAW ENFORCEMENT

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1999

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
                                       Human Resources,
                                Committee on Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Mica, Barr, Hutchinson, Ose, Mink,
    Kucinich, Turner, Tierney, and Schakowsky.
        Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, staff director and chief
    counsel; Steve Dillingham, special counsel; Mason Alinger and
    Carson Nightwine, professional staff members; Lisa Wandler,
    clerk; Cherri Branson, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa,
    minority staff assistant.
        Mr. Mica. Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of
    the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
    Resources to order. I will start today's hearing by having
    opening statements from members of the committee. We have two
    panels this morning, and the topic of today's hearing is
    Project Exile: A Case Study in Successful Gun Law Enforcement.
    I will begin with an opening statement and will yield to other
    Members.
        Today's hearing before the Subcommittee on Criminal
    Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources will examine Project
    Exile, a gun law enforcement program initiated in Richmond, VA.
    This approach has been so successful, that it is now being
    replicated statewide as Virginia Exile, and also numerous
    cities across the Nation from Rochester, NY, to Denver, CO, are
    adopting programs modeled after Project Exile.
        Today's hearing will examine the elements and experiences
    of this successful crime-fighting initiative and consider some
    of the benefits of implementing Project Exile approaches to gun
    law enforcement on a broader basis.
        We will hear today from witnesses who I believe are very
    knowledgeable about the Richmond experience with Project Exile.
    At the time it began, Richmond was among the top five cities in
    the Nation with the highest per capita murder rates. In 1997,
    an assistant U.S. attorney with the support of his office began
    a coordinated effort with local police, State police and
    Federal investigators, including the FBI and the ATF, along
    with local and Federal prosecutors to respond to serious crime
    and gun violence. Project officials enlisted support from a
    coalition of businesses, civic organizations, community and
    church leaders.
        Since the project began, the results have been evident.
    More than 200 armed criminals were removed from Richmond
    streets during the first year of Project Exile alone. An entire
    gang responsible for multiple murders has been dismantled.
        In 1998, murders were 33 percent below 1997, the lowest
    number since 1987. In 1999, murders are down yet another 29
    percent. Today, we will hear that a key element of Project
    Exile has been, in fact, the ability to prosecute in Federal
    court cases that involve felons with guns, or drugs and guns,
    or domestic violence and guns.
        The advantage of Federal prosecutions include stiff bond
    rules and tough sentences, including minimum mandatory
    sentences. Another innovation of Project Exile has been its
    outreach and advertising effort. Much of the financial support
    for the media has come from the private sector contributions
    and donations. The media message in this program is quite
    simple: An illegal gun will get you 5 years in Federal prison.
    In Richmond, and now in other areas in the State, the message
    is conveyed by television, radio, and billboards.
        By all informed accounts, Project Exile has been successful
    and has saved lives. Virginia has now passed its own tough laws
    so that Federal prosecutions are often unnecessary. Project
    Exile has received bipartisan support and support from a wide
    range of groups seeking to protect our citizens, ranging from
    the National Rifle Association to Handgun Control, Inc.
        By learning as much as we can about Project Exile's
    success, we can assist our law enforcement officers,
    prosecutors and communities in replicating the project's
    successes.
        I am very pleased today that we have such a distinguished
    group testifying. I want to also divert a second from my
    prepared comments and say that we had planned this hearing for
    some time. It is unfortunate that we have had several
    horrendous incidents involving firearms, both in Hawaii, where
    our ranking member is from, and then yesterday in Seattle. This
    is most unfortunate.
        I had coffee this morning and picked up this Washington
    Post story of crimes in the District. This is Thursday,
    November 4, today. And it cites the homicides in the District
    of Columbia. Let me just read a couple of these:
        October 16th, ``unidentified person was found unconscious
    with multiple gunshot wounds to the head.'' That is the first
    one. Another one: ``An unidentified man was found unconscious
    in the street with gunshot wounds to the head.'' Another one on
    Morris Street, ``an unidentified person was found in the back
    seat of a car with multiple gunshot wounds to the body.'' I
    will skip to the Northwest section. ``An unidentified person
    was found with gunshot wounds to the chest.'' Then to the
    Southeast section, Sterling Avenue, ``an unidentified person
    was found on the sidewalk with gunshot wound to the leg.'' The
    victim was taken to D.C. General Hospital, where he was
    pronounced dead.
        All these are homicides. Another one on Langston Place, a
    24-year-old--and most of these are young males in the most
    productive period of their life--found in the street with
    gunshot wounds to the neck, shoulder and chest. On Yuma Street,
    an unidentified man was found in the street with a gunshot
    wound to the lower back. In the Southwest section of the city,
    on First Street, an unidentified man was found in a car with a
    gunshot wound to the head. That's just today's report from
    Washington.
        We do know that projects like Project Exile work where you
    have tough enforcement. Where is the chart that we had here? If
    we look at New York City, which has also had a zero tolerance
    under the leadership of Mayor Giuliani, we see murders down
    some 70 percent from over 2,000 to 600, just a little over 600,
    an incredible success story.
        So we need to find out what we need to do to make our
    streets safer, our communities safer. If it is projects like
    this, Project Exile, if it is increased mental health support,
    we need that. If it is tough enforcement and zero tolerance, I
    think the public and the Congress will demand that we take
    action.
        I am very pleased to highlight a successful program, one,
    again, that brings together diverse interests, some different
    ends of the spectrum relating to gun control, but all
    determined to make a difference.
        We are extremely pleased to have Mr. Charlton Heston, a
    recognized figure throughout the world, who is now helping to
    lead the effort to bring national attention to the success of
    Project Exile. We are also pleased to have the top prosecutor
    for the State of Virginia, Attorney General Mark Earley, a
    strong supporter of Project Exile, who is now working to
    institute Project Virginia Exile. Likewise we are honored to
    have the U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia,
    Ms. Helen Fahey, who supervises the office that began the
    project and has actively promoted its success.
        On our second panel, we are also fortunate to have a
    frontline law enforcement official from Richmond, Deputy Chief
    Teresa Gooch, who has seen the success of Project Exile
    firsthand. The deputy chief is devoted to continuing the
    project's success and in saving lives each and every day.
        Finally, we are honored to have a leading researcher on the
    topic of Federal gun law enforcement, Dr. Susan Long, and look
    forward to hearing about her research findings on this topic.
        I am very thankful that we have many talented law
    enforcement officials and career attorneys who day in and day
    out work to promote the safety of our citizens and families. It
    is my hope that we can help ensure that the Federal Government
    and State government and other agencies work together to do
    whatever is needed to help resolve the problems we have in this
    area.
        I intend to urge the Department of Justice to do much more
    in supporting this lifesaving initiative. There will be some
    questions we ask today, and one of the questions before us is
    why save lives only in Richmond? Why not do this in Washington,
    DC, our Nation's Capital? I just read the tragedy in this
    morning's paper. Why not across the Nation?
        I would like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing
    today, and I look forward to hearing from each you as we
    explore how we can repeat the success of Project Exile and
    protect our communities and our families throughout the land.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.002

        Mr. Mica. I am pleased now to yield to our ranking member,
    the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Mrs. Mink.
        Mrs. Mink. I thank the chairman for yielding me time, and I
    certainly want to join with him in acknowledging the importance
    of today's hearings, and to extend my own welcome to the
    distinguished witnesses that have been invited to testify at
    these hearings.
        It is an important effort on the part of the oversight
    responsibilities of Congress to look at the various programs
    that have been put in place that are under the jurisdiction of
    the Federal Government, and Project Exile is certainly one of
    those programs that merits our attention.
        As the chairman said a few days ago, Hawaii was shocked by
    an incident that took the lives of seven people in an otherwise
    quiet, benign neighborhood in the offices of the Xerox Corp.
    And while this has been an incident that has never occurred in
    Hawaii ever before, what it illustrates is that it could happen
    anywhere. And so the whole subject of homicides and crimes of
    this nature are important considerations that all levels of
    government must pay attention to.
        The Congress has been wrestling with various legislation
    dealing with gun control, gun safety, and many of my
    constituents who write to me about the issue emphasize the
    importance of law enforcement. They are concerned that the
    control of guns are not going to eliminate criminals, we have
    to go against criminals. I mean, that is the little postcard
    that we get. So it is important that we look at it from their
    perspective. But it certainly does not diminish my interest and
    support for control legislation that still languishes in the
    Congress and has not come to a final enactment.
        Project Exile is a program that is designed to prosecute
    criminals that are apprehended in the commission of a crime
    with a gun. It was initiated in March 1997. As of 1998,
    September, the project was responsible for the conviction of
    over 200 people, and the seizure of over 400 guns. It is
    credited with a 33 percent decline in Richmond's homicide rate
    and a 30 percent decline in the armed robberies in that city.
        These are impressive numbers, and this oversight committee
    needs to explore the success of this achievement and examine
    the costs also to the Federal Government. Project Exile, after
    all, uses Federal law enforcement officers, Federal
    investigators, Federal prosecutors to process the crimes, and
    if convicted, the criminals go to a Federal prison.
        I am reminded by the words of Chief Justice Rehnquist, who,
    in his 1998 year-end report, cautioned against increased
    Federalization of crimes. Rehnquist admonished that the
    threshold criteria for Federal prosecution of essentially State
    offenses is something that we need to caution ourselves about.
    Clearly that threshold argument needs to be examined by this
    committee.
        Mr. Chairman, a recent Federal court opinion called Project
    Exile a substantial Federal incursion into a sovereign State's
    area of authority and responsibility. That is a matter which I
    believe is appropriate for this committee to consider in these
    deliberations.
        We are all interested in reducing crime in our communities,
    in our State and throughout the country, and so any innovation
    such as Project Exile, if it works and can be supported and
    substantiated, is a program that needs to be replicated in
    other areas of the country.
        So, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for holding these
    hearings and look forward to the testimony by these witnesses.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlewoman.
        Now I am pleased to introduce the vice chairman of our
    panel, the gentleman who has been very active in trying to call
    attention to Project Exile and really responsible some time ago
    for encouraging the subcommittee to take up this subject and
    the success of this project and also to call this hearing, the
    gentleman from Georgia Mr. Barr. You are recognized.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    distinguished panels that we have today, and the police
    officers that are with us today also, as an illustration of
    their support for this program. I know everybody in this room,
    not just those of us on this panel, wants to recognize the
    tremendous sacrifice that our men and women in blue make every
    single day, and we do appreciate it very much.
        Mr. Chairman, sometimes we drive ourselves crazy up here in
    Washington trying to be rocket scientists and come up with all
    sorts of newfangled ideas and unusual approaches to problems
    and plug all sorts of things into those vast computers that we
    have up here to try and solve problems, and sometimes we lose
    sight of the forest for the trees. Project Exile illustrates
    that you don't need to be a rocket scientist to solve the
    problem of crime in our communities, you just need to use good
    common sense and the tools that have been available to us to
    prosecute, and police officers and public officials, since we
    have existed as a Nation, and that is our laws, in this case
    the criminal code of this country, and in the case of Virginia,
    the Criminal Code of Virginia, and the manpower existing
    already in our Federal prosecutors' offices, our State
    prosecutors' offices, our local prosecutors' offices, and our
    police offices in our communities.
        You don't need to reinvent the wheel to solve the problem
    of crime in America, and that is an important message that
    Project Exile brings.
        One of the most interesting aspects, I think, Mr. Chairman,
    of Project Exile, in my review of the voluminous material that
    has been printed about it, is the fact that it brings together
    people with otherwise very differing views of some of the
    issues that consume our time here in Washington in support of a
    program that actually works. It helps our children, it helps
    our citizens. And I speak particularly of two agencies that are
    both very active in their own spheres of influence, the
    National Rifle Association, which has been very supportive of
    Project Exile and other projects across America to help law
    enforcement officers, and Handgun Control, Inc.
        The phenomenon of Ms. Fahey and Mr. Schiller in putting
    Project Exile into force, and Virginia Exile by Mr. Earley and
    the Governor, and bringing the NRA and Handgun Control in
    together in praising a program is something that is unrivaled
    in the annals of history, perhaps only by Mr. Heston's parting
    of the Red Sea, and it has been many years since that occurred.
    The bringing together of such otherwise disparate groups in
    praise of a program that really works is something that I think
    we all ought to take a moment to think about, to reflect on,
    and do what we can, as you are doing here today, Mr. Chairman,
    through this hearing, to try and encourage the Department of
    Justice to use this program all across America and to encourage
    States, insofar as we and Mr. Earley and Governor Gilmore can
    through their persuasive abilities, to use and institute
    Project Exile in communities all across America, because it
    does work.
        If you have a gun, you are going to do the time. As the
    sign in front of Ms. Fahey says, an illegal gun gets you 5
    years in Federal prison. That is a very simple message, but it
    is a profound one. It works because the men and women here
    today and Mr. Schiller and others who have been so active in
    this program recognize that each one of them as citizens can
    indeed have an impact if they just use the tools available to
    them.
        I think it is a phenomenon, Ms. Fahey, that this program
    works in the way that it does because you have marshalled and
    coordinated a comprehensive effort here in the community, and
    it goes beyond simply the law enforcement effort. You have
    brought into this effort the State authorities. You have
    brought into this effort, as your literature and other
    literature clearly illustrates, the private sector community,
    chambers of commerce, private organizations that have given not
    only of their time in support of the program, but their
    resources as well to publicize it, because we also know that no
    matter how good a project or a program is, if people don't know
    that it exists, its success is going to be severely limited.
        So it is a phenomenal project and program that we encourage
    the Department of Justice to pay more attention to, to use
    more, because it does work. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    bringing together these distinguished panels and those of us
    here today in support of this effort to exercise oversight
    responsibility in a way that perhaps too infrequently we have
    the opportunity to do, and that is in praise of a government
    program. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Barr.
        I now would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas Mr.
    Turner. You are recognized.
        Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding
    this hearing. Anything that any State or local government can
    do to prosecute more vigorously those who have illegal firearms
    I certainly support. And I think that when we look at this
    issue, we need to all keep in mind that it is best approached
    in a bipartisan way. Efforts to strengthen our laws, to put
    more policemen on the streets, these are goals that we all hold
    irrespective of what party we may be in. I think it is a credit
    to the Chair today to hold this hearing on a program that is
    working, that does work, and that I hope that many other States
    will adopt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Mica. I would like to recognize now the distinguished
    gentleman from Arkansas, our second U.S. attorney and member of
    the Judiciary Committee on our subcommittee panel, Mr.
    Hutchinson. You are recognized.
        Mr. Hutchinson. I thank the Chair and will just make a few
    comments because I am anxious to hear the testimony of these
    distinguished witnesses. I certainly agree that we in Congress
    should focus on things that do not work well in government to
    make sure we remedy problems, but we should also focus on those
    things that work well, to highlight those, and I see this as an
    opportunity today.
        I do believe that in other areas of the country, we could
    look to Virginia and Project Exile that has worked so well
    there, for guidance. But at the same time I was impressed by
    the testimony of U.S. Attorney Fahey who emphasized from the
    Department of Justice standpoint that each jurisdiction needs
    to determine what works best for them, and I think we do need
    to have that type of flexibility. So this is one example of
    something that works well that might work well in another part
    of the country. But as a former U.S. attorney in a small
    jurisdiction, I know there is a lot to cover, a lot to do, and
    I do hope that we can maintain that type of flexibility; that
    we can see what works best in every different area of the
    country and learn from each other to see how we can improve our
    prosecutions of violent crime.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony
    of the distinguished panel.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman, and now will go to our
    first panel. Our first panel, again, consists of Mr. Charlton
    Heston, president of the National Rifle Association; the
    Honorable Mark Earley, attorney general of the State of
    Virginia; and the Honorable Helen Fahey, the U.S. attorney for
    the Eastern District of Virginia.
        First, let me inform the panel and witnesses that this is
    an investigations and oversight subcommittee of Congress, and
    in just a moment I will swear you in. We do swear in all of our
    witnesses.
        Also, we try to ask you to limit your oral remarks to about
    5 minutes. Since there are only three, we will be somewhat
    liberal with the time. But if you have lengthy or additional
    statements or data that you would like to be made a part of the
    record, we will do that. That will be done by unanimous
    consent.
        At this time I would like to ask our witnesses if they
    could please stand and be sworn.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Mica. The witnesses, the record will reflect, answered
    in the affirmative, and I would like to again welcome you.
    Thank you each again for your participation.
        We have a very distinguished first panel. The first witness
    really needs no introduction. As Mr. Barr said, we hope he can
    help us part the seas here and also lead us from exile and give
    us more information about his cooperative effort and support of
    Project Exile today.
        So Mr. Heston, welcome, and you are recognized, sir.

       STATEMENTS OF CHARLTON HESTON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE
    ASSOCIATION; MARK EARLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF VIRGINIA;
      AND HELEN FAHEY, U.S. ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

        Mr. Heston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
    the Honorable ladies and gentlemen. I must begin, just take a
    sentence, to clarify for the Honorable gentleman from Georgia,
    I have only limited control over that staff, you understand. To
    actually use it, I need instructions from a much higher body.
        But I am also, I must confess to you, a little bit tired
    this morning. I had an engagement in St. Louis which did not
    get me to Washington, to my surprise, until 1:15 a.m. But I
    will try to do my best for you.
        I would also like to limit--in the interest of compressing
    the hearing as appropriately as possible, I would like not to
    talk about the issues we disagree on. That is open knowledge.
    We know where we disagree. I would rather instead focus on what
    is not in dispute, indeed what is indisputable.
        There is no dispute that just 150 miles from here in sleepy
    Richmond, VA, they cut homicides by one-half in just 1 year.
    They employed the awesome simplicity of enforcing existing
    Federal gun laws. It's called, as you know, Project Exile. The
    word is out now on the streets of Richmond if you are a felon
    caught with a gun, you will go to jail for 5 years; no plea
    bargaining, no parole, 5 years.
        They are actually changing criminal behavior down there and
    saving lives. Now, that is not partisan. That is not
    conjecture, it's not hyperbole, that is a fact. Thanks to the
    fearless prosecutors whom the chairman has recognized, innocent
    Americans are alive today in Richmond that would have died at
    the hands of armed felons.
        But elsewhere across this land, innocent Americans alive
    today will be dead tomorrow or next month or next year because
    this administration, as a policy, is putting gun-toting felons
    on the streets in record numbers.
        Now, if you don't believe me or the NRA, believe the recent
    independent Syracuse University studies which revealed that
    Federal prosecutions of gun crimes have dropped by 44 percent
    during the Clinton-Gore administration.
        Right here in our Nation's Capital, there were some 2,400
    violent crimes committed with firearms last year. Guess how
    many of those were prosecuted? Two. Two out of 2,400 arrested.
        In fact, in little old Richmond there were more
    prosecutions under Federal gun laws in that one State--that one
    city than in California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington,
    DC, combined. I find that a staggering statement.
        Now, why does the President, I ask myself and I ask you,
    ask for more Federal gun laws if he is not going to enforce the
    ones we already have, which is 22,000? This deadly charade is
    killing people and will surely kill more. When political hot
    air is turning into cold blood, when duplicitous spin is
    becoming lethal, someone has got to speak up.
        Why does the President ask for more police if he will not
    prosecute their arrests?
        No lives will be saved talking about how many hours a
    waiting period should be, or how many rounds a magazine should
    hold, or how cheap a Saturday night special should be. But if
    you want to impact gun crime now, you must demand that Project
    Exile be implemented in major U.S. cities now.
        I wish you luck. A lot of luck. For a year we have
    challenged, urged and pleaded with the Clinton administration
    to take $50 million out of $14 billion budget and implement
    Project Exile's enforcement program nationwide. What was their
    response? A Justice Department spokesman told USA Today, and I
    quote, it's not the Federal Government's role to prosecute
    these gun cases. I think also of a session--Senator Sessions
    held a hearing last summer in which, in fact, someone from the
    administration, I do not know who, appeared and was asked this
    question: Why won't you prosecute? And I am not kidding, his
    answer was, well, we have come to the conclusion that if you
    incarcerate a felon for a crime, his place will simply be taken
    by another felon. I submit that is the most ridiculous
    statement I have ever heard offered in governmental discourse.
        Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder ridiculed Project Exile
    as a ``cookie cutter'' approach to fighting crime. Cookie
    cutting. He called it fundamentally wrong to earmark funds for
    enforcing Federal gun laws. ``Fundamentally'' wrong, he said.
        A senior official of the BATF tried to explain away the 44
    percent decrease in Federal prosecutions of gun crimes by
    saying, well, we seek to prosecute the few sharks at the top
    rather than the numerous guppies of the criminal enterprise.
    Mr. Chairman, those guppies with guns are murdering innocent
    Americans who are left defenseless by a White House and a
    Justice Department that lack either the time or the spine to
    enforce existing gun laws against violent criminals.
        We challenge Bill Clinton to direct Attorney General Janet
    Reno to call upon all of the district attorneys around this
    country and instruct them to take on just 10, just 10 more
    Federal gun cases each month. That is their job, after all. The
    result would be the prosecution of about 10,000, 10,000 more
    violent felons with guns, 10,000 potential murderers taken off
    the streets of America.
        And we urge this body to do what the White House won't, to
    appropriate $50 million to implement Project Exile in major
    cities across the country. And if the President calls that
    fundamentally wrong, ask him what you call it when the odds of
    doing time for armed crime are no worse than the flip of a
    coin. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Heston follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.006

        Mr. Mica. We will withhold questions until we have heard
    from all of our witnesses.
        Our next witness is the Honorable Mark Earley, the attorney
    general from the State of Virginia, who has taken on advocacy
    of Project Exile, and I see from your biography you have a
    great interest in making this a success. I think you have six
    children; is that correct? That is a great concern for the
    future. Welcome, and you are recognized, sir.
        Mr. Earley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
    of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here with you today.
    Again, my name is Mark Earley, and I am the attorney general
    for the Commonwealth of Virginia. For many years, it is hard to
    believe, the capital of Richmond was called the murder capital
    of the world. And it was because of that, as your chairman has
    noted, that of the major cities in the United States, we bore a
    very unhonorable distinction, and that was having an incredible
    member of murders per capita in our city. In fact, it peaked in
    1997 with 170 homicides.
        Under the leadership of Helen Fahey, the U.S. attorney for
    the Eastern District of Virginia, Project Exile was
    implemented, and the results have been dramatic.
        What is Project Exile? It is a partnership between Federal,
    State, and local law enforcement authorities to aggressively
    prosecute the illegal possession and use of guns by criminals.
    If you are a felon with a conviction, you will go to jail if
    you possess a gun. If you have been convicted of domestic abuse
    and you own a gun, you will go to jail. If you are a drug
    dealer with a gun, you will go to jail. And if you use drugs
    illegally, you will go to jail. These are Federal laws that
    have been passed that with their aggressive enforcement under
    Project Exile have had dramatic results. These call for
    mandatory prison sentences, and the average sentences are 56
    months, just shy of 5 years.
        Added to that stiff punishment is the fact that while
    awaiting trial, there is generally no bail. There is a
    presumption that you do not qualify for bail if you are
    arrested. And it is called Project Exile because if you are
    convicted in the city of Richmond under Project Exile for one
    of these crimes, you, in fact, are going to be exiled to a
    Federal prison far away from your community and your friends
    and where you are threatening the public.
        Has it worked? The answer is absolutely yes. From 1998, the
    homicide rate in Richmond dropped a precipitous 33 percent. And
    we are continuing to drive down the numbers this year.
        656 guns have been removed from the hands of criminals; 405
    individuals have been convicted, again with an average sentence
    of 56 months.
        Why has it worked? It is really very simple. We have
    separated the criminals from their guns. We have then separated
    the criminals from their community, and we are aggressively
    reminding people through a very strong social marketing
    campaign that an illegal gun gets you 5 years in prison.
        The sign that you see on our table here this morning is
    also a shrink wrap that exists on several major mass transit
    buses in Richmond. You will hear from Deputy Teresa Gooch a lot
    of incidents from the Richmond City Police where they are now
    arresting people for gun crimes and other crimes, and when they
    ask them if they have a gun, they say, ``Are you kidding? I
    don't carry a gun in Richmond anymore because of that Project
    Exile.'' They have gotten the message.
        What has been our role in the attorney general's office in
    the State of Virginia? Working with Helen Fahey and her staff,
    we have dedicated a full-time assistant attorney general to the
    U.S. attorney's office to prosecute these gun crimes, and it
    has been a remarkable partnership. We have two of our
    prosecutors, our assistant attorney generals, here with us this
    morning, Lisa McKeel and Richard Campbell, who have done an
    outstanding job working with the outstanding prosecutors in Ms.
    Fahey's office. We plan to continue that work program and
    working with them in the future.
        Also we have had tremendous support from the local
    Commonwealth's attorney. The Commonwealth's attorney for the
    city of Richmond, David Hicks, has dedicated a full-time local
    prosecutor to work with the U.S. attorney's office. His
    prosecutor and mine have been sworn in by the U.S. attorney's
    office to practice in their office.
        Our Governor recognized what all of you would recognize in
    a few short moments, and that is if this is working so well in
    the city of Richmond, why should it not be available to every
    county, city, and town in the State of Virginia, and for that
    matter throughout the United States?
        Working under that presumption the Governor introduced
    basically Virginia Exile, and it was passed by the legislature
    overwhelmingly at the beginning of this year. It was
    bipartisan, supported by Democrats, Republicans and
    Independents alike. And now in Virginia we have laws that
    mirror and in some cases are tougher than the Federal laws.
        Under Virginia Exile if you have a prior conviction for a
    violent felony, and you are convicted of possessing a firearm,
    you will go to jail for a mandatory 5 years. If you are
    convicted of possessing a firearm on school property with the
    intent to use it or display it in a threatening manner, you
    will go to jail for 5 years. And if you are convicted of
    possessing a firearm with illegal drugs, you are looking at no
    less than 5 years in prison.
        We have taken a page out of the Project Exile that Helen
    Fahey implemented in Richmond, and we have an aggressive social
    marketing program around the State. We now have signs on
    Interstates 64, 81 and 95 as you enter the State of Virginia
    advising everyone that an illegal gun in Virginia will get you
    a mandatory prison sentence. That is now the law in Virginia as
    of July 1, 1999.
        In short, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this
    kind of partnership with the Federal, State and local
    prosecutors and law enforcement authorities is having a
    dramatic effect, and it is having a dramatic effect for a very
    common-sense reason, and that is we are saying to the criminals
    that if you possess a gun in any sense illegally, you will go
    to jail. And I think the results are indisputable, and it
    provides a model not only for other U.S. attorneys' offices
    around the Nation, but certainly other attorney generals.
        I will be presenting next week here in Washington to the
    other attorney generals and all of the heads of their criminal
    divisions what we are doing in Virginia. The attorney general
    of South Carolina, Charlie Condon, and the attorney general of
    Texas, John Cornyn, are implementing similar programs as we
    speak in their States, and we hope that we can get the
    cooperation of attorney generals nationwide to work with their
    U.S. attorneys to implement the same kind of partnership. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Earley.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Early follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.010

        Mr. Mica. And I now would like to recognize the U.S.
    attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Honorable
    Helen Fahey, who has helped lead Federal efforts in prosecuting
    and also in promoting Project Exile. First of all, welcome. You
    are recognized.
        Ms. Fahey. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
    members of the committee. It is a pleasure for me to be here
    before this committee. It is also a pleasure for me to be here
    in the company of two former U.S. attorneys.
        I would like to, if it is acceptable to the committee, to
    deviate somewhat from my prepared statement in part because I
    don't want to repeat things that have already been said by both
    witnesses and also by members of the committee.
        Mr. Mica. Without objection, your entire statement then
    will be made part of the record. Proceed.
        Ms. Fahey. I would also like to ask that the entire
    statement of the Department of Justice be made part of the
    record.
        Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
        Ms. Fahey. Thank you.
        In 1997, when the U.S. attorney's office in the Eastern
    District of Virginia initiated Project Exile in Richmond, it
    was in response to a particular problem in a particular
    location. It was in response to the terrible homicide rate
    existing in Richmond at that time.
        I can assure each of you that when we started it, we had no
    idea what it would grow into and how it would be received
    across the country. We also really had no idea how extensive it
    would become even in Richmond.
        The goal of Project Exile was to reduce gun violence by
    changing the culture in Richmond using a comprehensive
    multidimensional strategy. The strategy included law
    enforcement and prosecution efforts as well as community
    outreach and education programs.
        Project Exile is simple and straightforward in its
    execution and requires relatively limited prosecution and law
    enforcement resources. The message of Project Exile, an illegal
    gun gets you 5 years in Federal prison, is clear, simple, and
    easy to understand. For gun-carrying criminals, the
    consequences have been swift, sure, and severe. For the
    citizens of Richmond, the results have been a safer community
    in which to live, work and raise a family.
        As Attorney General Mark Earley said, this has been a real
    partnership, a real cooperative effort. It has included all the
    Federal law enforcement agencies. It has included the police
    department in the city of Richmond, had has also included the
    State police. It has included the elected prosecutor, David
    Hicks in Richmond as well as the Federal prosecutors. It has
    involved members of the community, both the business community
    and the community at large. It has not been something that has
    just been a Federal program.
        I will not go through the numbers of prosecutions, except
    to say over 500 people have been indicted since the program
    began, and there have been almost 700 guns seized.
        One of the things that I really want to emphasize, because
    as we have gone along I have come to realize how important it
    has been to the success of the program, I spent 17 years as a
    local prosecutor prior to becoming the U.S. attorney. I was a
    prosecutor, and then I was the elected prosecutor in Arlington,
    VA. I think we all know the message that we believed that our
    enforcement and prosecution of individuals was sending out to
    the community. The goals of prosecution were such things as
    punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence.
        I think that we all felt, and maybe all of us in this
    business felt, that by prosecuting a certain individual for a
    certain crime, the message would get out to the community that
    it would not be a good idea for other individuals to commit
    those crimes. I think what Project Exile and what the media
    program part of Project Exile has done is gotten across to me
    and to many other people how important the message itself has
    been in creating the deterrence in the community and also in
    changing the culture of violence.
        One of the most important parts of it, I think, is to get
    the message out all over the city, the State, and the country
    that illegal possession of guns will no longer be tolerated.
    This has required in Richmond something that except perhaps in
    the drug area and also drunk driving has never been done in the
    law enforcement area, and that is to send out this clear
    message. It could not be sent out just by us in law enforcement
    for one reason: We did not have the money. But it required a
    coalition of business, community, and church leaders.
        Some of the business organizations were the Retail
    Merchants Association and the Chamber of Commerce. The
    coalition operating as Project Exile Citizen Support Foundation
    has funded a creative advertising program including TV and
    radio commercials; billboards; a city bus fully painted in
    black with the logo: An Illegal Guns Gets You 5 Years in
    Federal Prison; 15,000 business cards, which I notice
    Congressman Barr has one up there; and various print
    advertising.
        The outreach program has been hugely successful increasing
    citizen reports about guns and energizing the community to
    support police efforts.
        Through these efforts, hundreds of armed criminals have
    been removed from Richmond streets, violent gangs responsible
    for many murders have been destroyed, and the rate of gun-
    carrying by criminals has been cut. Officers now report drug
    dealers throwing down weapons before running instead of taking
    the risk of being caught with the weapons. And a large number
    of homicides have been solved with information obtained from
    defendants in these cases.
        Most importantly, these efforts seem to be stemming the
    tide of violence. Homicides were down in 1998, 33 percent from
    1997. So far this year they are down an additional 29 percent.
    As a result, the citizens not only feel safer, but are safer.
    Because of the demonstrated results in Richmond, the U.S.
    attorney's office in the Eastern District of Virginia has
    expanded Project Exile to the Tidewater area of Virginia and is
    committed to continuing Project Exile as long as the need
    exists.
        In 1999, new legislation was passed in Virginia to make
    State laws more comparable to Federal laws on bond and gun
    offenses, and we look forward to working with Richmond's
    Commonwealth attorney as well as the other Commonwealth
    attorneys in Virginia to have appropriate gun cases prosecuted
    in the local courts as opposed to the Federal courts.
        Other cities have taken note of Project Exile's impact on
    the city of Richmond. The project model has been adopted in
    Rochester, Philadelphia, Oakland, Camden, Atlanta, New Orleans,
    Denver, the State of Texas, and other areas as well.
        Project Exile has proven that a comprehensive
    multidimensional strategy can work. With a little ingenuity it
    can be a very successful tool in accomplishing one of the
    President's priorities, reducing the gun violence on our
    streets.
        But I would hope that Project Exile will not be viewed just
    as a Federal program or a program requiring just Federal
    prosecution. It needs to be tailored to individual districts. I
    think what you are seeing in the State of Virginia is what we
    would expect to happen all over the country. We may start out
    with a program that is exclusively a Federal program. We may
    then end up with changes in State laws to increase the
    penalties, and then we may have a program, which is where we
    expect Virginia will be, which will be both Federal prosecution
    and State prosecution.
        But the message needs to be kept the same simple message
    that we have now, that an illegal gun will result in a
    substantial period of incarceration. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Fahey and the information
    referred to follow:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.077

        Mr. Mica. Thank you, and I thank each of our witnesses for
    their testimony. Let me start with a few questions for our
    panelists.
        Mr. Heston, you cited the fact that one city, Richmond, had
    more Federal gun enforcement prosecutions than the District of
    Columbia, California, and New Jersey?
        Mr. Heston. And the District combined.
        Mr. Mica. Combined?
        Mr. Heston. Not just more than each of those, but more than
    the sum total of those cities.
        Mr. Mica. So through this type of approach--and I think I
    had them blow up some of the information that was given to us.
    But this would coincide with your figures, prosecution of
    Federal gun laws. Two in the District.
        And Mr. Holder, you said, also has basically said that he
    has no interest in the program, and that he is the U.S.
    attorney or was the U.S. attorney in the District. Was he the
    U.S. attorney when he made that statement?
        Mr. Heston. Yes, he was.
        Mr. Mica. He was. OK.
        Attorney General, in the State of Virginia, was it you or
    the Federal agency, the U.S. attorney's office, that initiated
    the program?
        Mr. Earley. Project Exile was initiated in the U.S.
    attorney's office by Helen Fahey. When I became attorney
    general about 18 months ago, we met and talked, and Helen
    suggested a working relationship between our offices, and we
    were very open to that. We thought it was a great opportunity.
    And the way we worked on out was simply by detailing an
    assistant attorney general from our office to the U.S.
    attorney's office. They were sworn in as--I'm not sure what the
    correct terminology is, a special assistant, special U.S.
    attorney to help prosecute those.
        Mr. Mica. So you provided two personnel from your staff who
    were sworn in and worked with----
        Mr. Earley. Actually, we provided one, and the
    Commonwealth's attorney for the city of Richmond provided one,
    and we had two individuals serve in that capacity over the last
    12 months.
        Mr. Mica. So it was a Federal initiative and in cooperation
    with the State.
        Could you estimate, Ms. Fahey, how much in resources this
    costs the Eastern District? Can you put any price tag on this
    as far as the cost for the program?
        Ms. Fahey. I don't think I could put a price tag on it. I
    think that I could say from the point of view of attorney
    resources, that we would estimate approximately three attorney
    resources, which includes the attorney from the attorney
    general's office as well as the Richmond Commonwealth
    Attorney's office, and at least one full-time assistant U.S.
    attorney from my office as well, obviously, as support and
    management-type resources.
        Mr. Mica. The basic program, though, is being funded
    through existing resources? There is no additional Federal
    money coming in to support this, or State? Do you have an
    additional State appropriation, or is there a local
    contribution toward financing the project? Maybe you could
    answer, Attorney General.
        Mr. Earley. Mr. Chairman, from our perspective what we did
    is we went through--as you know, each State has an agency which
    basically is the funnel for Federal grant money, and we
    basically applied for a grant through the Department of
    Criminal Justice Services in Virginia for a full-time attorney,
    and so ours is being paid for by grant money. And if it were
    not--we would have done it anyway, but for our internal
    purposes it allowed us to keep our resources intact and fund
    this prosecutor through a grant from the State of Virginia, and
    it has been a very positive thing.
        I will also mention in terms of attorney resources, one of
    the things to consider is personnel and the number. The other
    thing is the time. And what you have to understand in most of
    these Project Exile cases is that these cases generally don't
    go to trial. Almost all of the defendants plead. You will
    generally have some preliminary motions, but after that, it is
    a relatively efficient method of conviction.
        Mr. Mica. Ms. Fahey, your organization has had no extra
    appropriation for this project, or have they, from Department
    of Justice? Or are you working out of existing budget?
        Ms. Fahey. We are working essentially out of existing
    resources a lot. Department of Justice did have attorneys
    detailed to our office at various times. But I would like to
    comment briefly because of some of the comments made about Eric
    Holder, who is both my colleague and my dear friend.
        He has been extremely supportive of Project Exile in
    Richmond from the very beginning. He attended numerous meetings
    with all of the Federal law enforcement agencies to get them to
    put more resources in Richmond to work on the problem. He has
    helped get additional training money for the police department
    in Richmond so that they would be able to better deal with
    these types of cases and also to generally upgrade their
    general capabilities.
        Mr. Mica. Do you know why he hasn't insisted on initiating
    a program in Washington, DC, which has been plagued by
    incredible violence----
        Ms. Fahey. Well, I certainly don't know----
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. And has the tightest gun control
    laws, I think, in the Nation? It is almost impossible to own--
    --
        Mr. Heston. Hawaii has more.
        Ms. Fahey. I think when you look at those numbers, you need
    to keep in mind that the U.S. attorney in the District of
    Columbia controls both Federal prosecution and also local
    prosecution. So they----
        Mr. Mica. But it doesn't look like they have done either--
    --
        Ms. Fahey. That is only Federal prosecutions----
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. From a Federal prosecutorial
    standpoint.
        Ms. Fahey [continuing]. That doesn't include the cases that
    would have been prosecuted in Superior Court in the District of
    Columbia, because that would be--they would be the cases that
    would be prosecuted as violations of the D.C. Law, not Federal
    laws.
        Mr. Mica. Well, the statistics I have, also from a chart
    that was given me on Federal prosecutions, show from 1993
    basically to the current time, each year there has been a
    decrease in Federal prosecutions. And this is from whose
    testimony? Ms. Long, who is in our second panel, we have both
    graphic chart and then numerical display showing from 12,000 in
    1992 criminal referrals, and that were prosecuted going from
    12,000 down to 5,600, every year just about declining, which
    concerns me.
        Finally, let me just turn to Mr. Heston for a last
    question.
        Mr. Heston. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. Your organization, NRA, has been criticized
    because of their stance on some gun control legislation. We
    have a program here that is very successful, and I want to know
    what your organization, NRA, is doing to promote, encourage and
    foster a program that is as successful like this. Maybe you
    could comment.
        Mr. Heston. The NRA contributed early money to Project
    Exile and plans to continue to do so.
        I would also like to seize this chance to speak to Ms.
    Fahey, because obviously this is not on your plate, but you are
    in the Department of Justice. Do you detect any kind of
    movement from the administration about providing the $50
    million it will take to implement more extensively? We have
    heard silence, but no comment one way or the other.
        Mr. Mica. You might want to address the question to the
    Chair, and I could----
        Mr. Heston. I beg your pardon.
        Mr. Mica. Just for protocol. Would you like to respond?
        Ms. Fahey. I don't know specifically what the state of the
    budget is. The last thing I heard was that all of our budgets
    might be cut by 1 percent. I assume that that would mean that
    there would not be additional resources for any of us to
    prosecute gun cases. And one of the versions of the budget that
    I saw had a number of earmarks for some districts to prosecute
    additional gun cases, which might mean for a district like mine
    that I would actually lose resources.
        Mr. Mica. I believe that was 1 percent of the increase,
    proposed increases.
        But let me yield at this point to the gentlewoman from
    Hawaii, Mrs. Mink.
        Mrs. Mink. Thank you.
        The complete testimony which you have submitted, Ms. Fahey,
    has parts of it which really need to be looked at in this
    context of what we are discussing. There is an implication by
    the questions and statements that have been made thus far that
    the Federal Government has been less than enthusiastic in
    prosecuting the violent crimes committed with firearms. And the
    charts are pointed to as illustrative of the lessened
    commitment by the Federal Government. But as I read your
    testimony, it indicates that overall the country has
    experienced a very sharp decline in violent crimes committed
    with firearms. Is that correct?
        Ms. Fahey. That is correct. My understanding is that gun
    violence nationwide is down approximately 35 percent since
    1992.
        Mrs. Mink. So that the prosecutions would also be reduced
    by that percentage at the least if there are less crimes being
    committed during that period? Isn't that a correct assumption?
        Ms. Fahey. I think all of us would hope that the end result
    would be that there would be fewer violent criminals out there
    for us to prosecute.
        Mrs. Mink. The charts that the chairman just referred to,
    how would you comment on the figures, if they are true, that
    the Federal Government is not sharpening its emphasis on
    violent crimes with guns and whether the charts are correct in
    the inference that seems to be cast here that the Federal
    Government is lessening its interests in prosecutions?
        Ms. Fahey. Well, I am not sure which chart Congressman Barr
    has in front of him, and I don't think I could possibly see
    that far, but I would like to comment on one thing because I am
    not suggesting, and I don't think anyone would suggest, that
    the drop in homicides in the city of Richmond is totally
    attributable to Project Exile. It certainly is not. It is
    attributable to many factors: a lot of good work by the police
    department, a lot of work in the community. Many, many factors.
        I believe very strongly that Project Exile was a very
    significant factor in opening the door and allowing other
    things to go on in the city. But even in the city of Richmond,
    Project Exile was not the only thing that the U.S. attorney's
    office was doing to deal with the problem of violent crime.
        We have taken out dozens and dozens of violent drug dealers
    from the streets of the city of Richmond, people who were
    committing multiple homicides in Richmond. That is being done
    all over the country in every U.S. attorney's office. That was
    the priority of the President. It was a priority of the
    attorney general. The first thing that we were asked to look at
    when we became U.S. attorneys was what can we do to reduce
    violent crime in this country, and there is no one single
    thing. And that is true, even in the city of Richmond, even
    from a Federal perspective.
        Mrs. Mink. My assumption, when the Federal Government
    embarks, as you have done, on a unique program and tests out a
    particular theory, as your department has, on very, very strict
    enforcement of Federal laws that already exist, that this is
    done with the hope that it would stimulate throughout the
    country similar emphasis by other U.S. attorneys and in other
    collaborative efforts with local communities. If that is the
    case then, would you say that it was that type of approach that
    led to other communities like Philadelphia and others that have
    been mentioned here in embarking upon similar programs to
    connect Federal enforcement together with much stronger and
    greater local and State efforts?
        Ms. Fahey. I think that is absolutely true. We did not
    begin this as a program that we thought should be a national
    program. We started it in response to a particular problem.
        As it started to appear that the program was successful,
    and perhaps a good idea for other areas to adopt, I think we
    have seen that in other areas of the country.
        Mrs. Mink. So would you measure the success of Project
    Exile in the number of replications that you have in other
    districts by other U.S. attorneys, collaborating with other
    State attorney generals and trying to emphasize local
    enforcement rather than a takeover of law enforcement by the
    Federal Government?
        Ms. Fahey. I think every district has to look at its own
    particular problems, its own State's laws, its own local and
    Federal resources and determine what type of a program would
    work best in that jurisdiction.
        But I feel very strongly that there should be strict
    enforcement of gun laws, whether it is done federally or at the
    local offices, and there should be a very clear message sent
    out.
        Mrs. Mink. I have just one final question to Attorney
    General Earley. Do you feel, Mr. Earley, that based upon the
    new laws that have been enacted in Virginia that, according to
    your testimony, are now comparable to the Federal laws, that
    there will come a time when the State of Virginia will be able
    to take over this Project Exile and fully implement it as part
    of the governmental responsibilities of the State of Virginia?
        Mr. Earley. I hope it would always remain a partnership. I
    think that is what has been the very successful dynamic in the
    city of Richmond, and I think it is what will be the successful
    dynamic for the State.
        You know, the fact of the matter is that in America, we do
    have different levels of law enforcement and prosecution. We do
    have Federal laws and Federal prosecutors; we have State laws
    and State prosecutors. And we need to play to our strengths. We
    have some very tough Federal laws on criminals possessing guns.
    In many instances they are tougher than many State and local
    laws. And I think the beauty of Project Exile is if you can
    have the kind of leadership we had with Helen Fahey in Richmond
    in having the Federal prosecutors take the lead, it is an
    extraordinary catalyst in then forming a partnership with State
    and local prosecutors. There is no question that the Federal
    leadership on Project Exile in Richmond was a catalyst for
    change in State laws statewide in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
        What is happening now in the city of Richmond after only 3
    months of now having our new State Virginia Exile laws is that
    the Commonwealth's attorney for the city of Richmond, David
    Hicks, confers with the U.S. attorney and our prosecutors and
    their office about each particular gun case, and the question
    is asked: Who will prosecute this case? Oftentimes the criteria
    is based on where we think we can get the most severe sentence.
        Any kind of homicide rate in any city is a tragedy. And I
    think what we have been able to demonstrate in Richmond with
    this partnership--and Helen is right, it is not simply one
    thing, but I don't think you can underestimate the power of
    getting criminals who carry guns off the street. And if we can
    determine the most effective means of prosecuting those and
    getting them separated from the community for the longest time,
    we are going to all be better off, and I think the results in
    Richmond have showed that.
        Mrs. Mink. If the Federal laws on gun possession are so
    successful in reducing the felonies committed by these
    criminals, why would the State of Virginia not want to
    replicate the severity of the Federal laws in its own laws?
        Mr. Earley. We have. That is what the Virginia Exile
    program that was passed last year is.
        Mrs. Mink. It's comparable?
        Mr. Earley. It is similar. There are a few differences here
    and there, and in a few cases the prosecutorial efforts at the
    Federal level we think can be still more effective. This is
    called Project Exile because it gets criminals who carry guns
    out of the community. It gets them off the street very quickly.
    And one of the things that the Federal program will always have
    as an advantage is the ability to place people in prisons that
    are far away from their communities.
        Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Barr [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady from Hawaii.
        Again, I want to thank--Mr. Heston?
        Mr. Heston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make
    one comment. While the NRA is very proud of our involvement in
    Project Exile in the Richmond and now in Georgia, last year we,
    with the vigorous help of Mayor Rendell and Senator Specter,
    managed to get the beginning of such a program in the city of
    Philadelphia, which also has a huge crime rate.
        I differ with Ms. Fahey in saying that passing gun laws
    will help solve crime. Passing gun laws is almost a complete
    failure. We have 22,000 gun laws on the books in the United
    States. The arrest rate is pretty good. The prosecution rate is
    practically zero.
        To give a significant example, in the past 2 years, 6,000
    young students, meaning not children but not adults, have been
    arrested for carrying firearms onto school campuses in almost
    every municipality. That is the law and properly that is a good
    law. Of those 6,000, over the last 2 years there have been 10
    prosecutions; 10 out of 6,000.
        The Federal Government must take in hand the problem of
    prosecuting arrested criminals. Simply the whole structure
    could fall apart on that simple problem.
        Mr. Barr. In other words, it isn't the passage of gun laws
    that stops crime; it is the enforcement of gun laws that stops
    crime.
        Mr. Heston. With all respect to the Honorable gentlewoman
    from Hawaii, Hawaii--and it is a marvelously effective
    example--has the most stringent gun control laws in America,
    very possibly in the world. You have to register ammunition for
    a gun in Hawaii. And the tragic incident the day before
    yesterday demonstrates that that does not help things. It is a
    nice placebo you can suck your thumb and say we have all of
    those gun laws, perhaps we should pass a couple more, that
    would do it. It will not do it.
        Prosecuting criminals, that is what made Mayor Giuliani's
    boast, his determination to reduce crime in the city of New
    York, that is how that worked, prosecuting criminals.
        Mr. Barr. We have a vote on, Mr. Heston. I know you have an
    engagement with another very distinguished American, former
    Secretary of Defense Weinberger, and we would excuse you. Thank
    you for your testimony today. It is an honor to have you here.
    I appreciate it very much.
        Mr. Heston. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, honorable
    ladies and gentlemen and fellow citizens.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Heston.
        Mr. Earley and Mrs. Fahey, would you all be able to wait so
    that I could go vote quickly and come back and reconvene?
        Ms. Fahey. I would be happy to.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you. We are in recess until we reconvene
    after that vote on the floor.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Mica [presiding]. If we could have the two witnesses
    who are remaining from our first panel, Attorney General Mark
    Earley, and U.S. Attorney Helen Fahey, please return.
        I believe we were going to try to proceed during the vote,
    and unfortunately Monday some of us missed some votes through
    airplane mechanical problems, so we are all trying to keep our
    voting record as high as we can, but we do want to keep the
    hearing moving and proceed with the witnesses.
        I had some questions that I did not get to in my first
    round, and when Mr. Barr, our vice chairman, returns, we will
    yield to him and then any other Members as they return from
    votes on the floor.
        One of the questions that I wanted to ask in regard to
    Project Exile that you described, Mr. Attorney General, was
    that when you were transitioning from Project Exile to Project
    Virginia Exile, and you said that it was necessary to also have
    the State pass laws, I believe some of those were implemented
    in Virginia were passed in June of this past year.
        Could you tell us a little bit about the transition, and
    will we expect to see more State prosecutions as opposed to
    Federal prosecutions? What was the transition, and what are we
    going to see?
        Mr. Earley. Well, I think, first of all, it is important to
    understand the context that the Project Exile that came out of
    the U.S. attorney's office under Helen Fahey's leadership was
    targeted at the city of Richmond. We have a big State in
    Virginia. We have over 160 various jurisdictions. We have local
    prosecutors in each of those jurisdictions that are
    independently elected. And it obviously would be, I think,
    unreasonable to expect the U.S. attorney's office to prosecute
    gun crimes in every local jurisdiction throughout the United
    States.
        I think the kind of approach that needs to be taken is what
    happened in Richmond, and that is to target the major cities
    where you have a presence of a U.S. attorney's office and good
    resources and tackle where we have some of these really high
    out-of-control homicide rates where people are just carrying
    guns with criminal intent on a regular basis.
        But in Virginia, we said this is so effective at reducing
    the homicide rate, we want our prosecutors to be able to have
    this ability in every jurisdiction; whether it is the city of
    Virginia Beach, the city of Norfolk, the city of Roanoke, or
    the county of Fairfax, this ought to work everywhere, and we
    have prosecutors everywhere. So the idea was to take this tough
    ability to separate guns from criminals and to put criminals
    away for a very definitive long period of time that we thought
    we ought to be able to emulate around the Commonwealth of
    Virginia.
        So Virginia Exile was never envisioned as a way to replace
    the efforts of the U.S. attorney's office down in Project Exile
    in Richmond. I believe there is still going to be a strong need
    for that, and that is why we continue to have a strong
    partnership with them in those cities, but we want our citizens
    to have the protection and the benefit of that kind of law
    enforcement in every jurisdiction.
        Mr. Mica. My other question was for Ms. Fahey. You did
    undertake this project as an initiative within the U.S.
    attorney's office through existing resources, and obviously
    that was a subjective determination that was made by you in
    your department.
        Is it not possible for others to also institute through
    existing resources adoption of Project Exile and focus it on
    areas where you have a high incidence of crime and use of
    illegal weapons?
        Ms. Fahey. Well, as I am sure you know, the President gave
    a directive to the Justice Department which was given to all
    U.S. attorneys that each office was to develop a gun violence
    reduction initiative, and that is being finalized at the
    present time.
        Mr. Mica. When was that issued?
        Ms. Fahey. Excuse me?
        Mr. Mica. When was that issued?
        Ms. Fahey. Perhaps April of this year.
        Mr. Mica. And it still is not finalized?
        Ms. Fahey. Well, that does not mean that people are not
    doing things in their district. They are. They are finalizing
    the papers that have gone into the Justice Department. But they
    had a meeting within the last 2 days at the National Advocacy
    Center down in South Carolina of all of the gun enforcement
    coordinators from every U.S. attorney's office in the country
    to discuss the programs that every district has. So----
        Mr. Mica. I would like our staff to get a copy of the
    directive, and then maybe we could get an inventory of where we
    are, since that was April, and we are now approaching the end
    of the year, and maybe we can see where the Department of
    Justice is on this initiative.
        I did want to continue the hearing. Mr. Barr was about to
    start questions. I will recognize him and then we will go to
    Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Barr.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again want to commend
    your office and you personally, Ms. Fahey, and those who work
    under you, including Mr. David Schiller, who is one of the
    leading attorneys to begin Project Exile in your office for
    your work.
        I do wish we would see a little more support from main
    Justice and from the attorney general and deputy attorney
    general for this project. I think that the attorney general and
    the deputy could provide tremendous leadership in this instance
    and really help other jurisdictions.
        I think the deputy attorney general's choice of words was
    unfortunate, as has been alluded to earlier, and as he was
    quoted in New York Times of February 10th of this year, calling
    this a ``cookie-cutter'' approach, somewhat derogatorily. And
    another Justice official Kent Marcus last year in August was
    quoted in the Wall Street Journal as dismissing Project Exile
    as an assembly line prosecution.
        Now, while I certainly understand, being a former U.S.
    attorney myself, and as Mr. Hutchinson, also being a former
    U.S. attorney, indicated in his opening remarks, and as I know
    you understand, one of the great strengths of U.S. attorney's
    offices is that they have a great deal of flexibility in terms
    of prosecutorial discretion and how to use the resources in
    their offices, and that is something that has always been the
    strength of our U.S. attorneys system.
        But by the same token, if there are projects and programs
    that work, let's use them. Even a cookie cutter, if it produces
    good cookies, is something that is worthwhile. Even an assembly
    line, if it produces a good car, is worthwhile.
        I think back to my days as a U.S. attorney, one of the most
    successful anticrime programs in the history of our Department
    of Justice is the OCDETF program, the Organized Crime and Drug
    Enforcement Task Force approach, instituted in the early 1980's
    by President Reagan and continued by every President and every
    attorney general since then. OCDETF, very similar to Project
    Exile, except on a much broader scale because it was directed
    from main Justice, and U.S. attorneys across the country,
    including in the 13 core cities, were required to institute it
    and be a part of it, did, I think, exactly what Project Exile
    is supposed to do.
        I read from the Project Exile pamphlet that you all have
    put out, and it includes four basic aspects or basic components
    of Project Exile. And I will paraphrase here: Full coordination
    from the officer on the beat up to and including the Federal
    prosecutor. Full coordination with the State officials, the
    attorney general's office, and the Commonwealth's attorney's
    offices. Active coordination of all police agencies, a
    simplified reporting system, and, No. 4, coordinated use of
    innovative and aggressive policing methods.
        The common term in each one of those four components or
    aspects of Project Exile and why it works is the word
    ``coordination.'' It does somewhat mystify me why some of your
    colleagues at main Justice seem to take umbrage and denigrate a
    coordinated approach to law enforcement. That is all Project
    Exile is at its core. It is simply a decision by the
    prosecuting authorities to better coordinate in a very
    conscious way the resources and the process of investigating
    and prosecuting certain types of crime, and it works.
        I really am mystified, particularly in a day when perhaps
    there is frequently far too much criticism of far too many
    programs, that we're going to the Department of Justice and
    saying, here is an approach that works. Please use it
    elsewhere. We will give you the money for it. We want you to do
    it. And what we get back is a high hat saying that is a cookie-
    cutter approach or that is an assembly line approach, and we
    don't want to replicate it.
        I think, also, some of the arguments that there are not
    enough resources--and we will get into this a little bit more
    with the next panel--are a little bit disingenuous by people up
    here in Washington as well. Now, I know that we had some
    discussion during a previous question about a proposed 1
    percent cut and the increase in an agency's budgets. The fact
    of the matter is, though, there has been just over the past 5
    years a 50 percent increase in ATF's budget from $385 million
    to almost $600 million, and in the Justice budget as well.
    There has been over that same 5-year period from 1995 to 1999
    also a 50 percent increase in the budget.
        So I really don't think that arguments that there simply
    isn't enough money at main Justice to do these things really
    flies with the tremendous increases in budgets that have been
    afforded the Department of Justice and ATF and U.S. attorneys'
    offices.
        I would just implore you to use whatever influence you
    might have with the attorney general and with the deputy
    attorney general to, first of all, maybe just in a very kind
    way ask them to not use those sorts of terms in describing a
    project that works tremendously well, and urge them to direct
    more resources to U.S. attorneys' offices, particularly, as Mr.
    Earley has said, also in major cities where we obviously have
    problems of violent crime and the use of firearms so that there
    is simply a better coordinated approach all the way up and down
    the line and a better coordinated process.
        I mean, that is, again, at its core what Project Exile
    does. I cannot imagine that anybody--and if even you all
    disagree with it, certainly tell me--finding fault with an
    approach that simply says coordinate at all levels of
    prosecution and investigation, coordinate the reporting process
    and streamline it, and coordinate every aspect of these. It has
    worked in OCDETF with drug cases and worked with the organized
    strike crime forces going back to Attorney General Kennedy's
    days. It works with Project Exile.
        So for heaven's sake, please, whatever you all can do to
    urge the administration to use this program to direct other
    major city U.S. attorneys' offices to use it, would be deeply
    appreciated not just by those of us in Congress, but by the
    people in those cities such as the citizens of Richmond, who I
    know from hearing from many of them deeply appreciate the
    efforts of your two offices and the police department in
    Richmond.
        So thank you very much, and I do hope that you will assist
    us in that effort.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
        I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. Tierney.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret the fact
    that Mr. Heston apparently had to leave in our absence. I do
    that only because I think we caught Moses in a misstatement
    there. Before he left, he was going to present all the things
    we agreed upon and leave the things that we disagreed on, and
    then proceeded to do just the opposite. I had wanted to have
    the opportunity to share with him some of the administration's
    figures on fighting crime and prosecuting crime that he should
    be, and I suspect probably is, knowledgeable of.
        And I think there has been a good two-step process here
    where substantial Federal resources have been given to prevent
    the access to firearms by prohibited persons and to incarcerate
    violent gun offenders. And I think that has been successful.
    And we have also had these partnerships that we are talking
    about with the various State and local authorities.
        I am a little bit concerned about the Federalization of all
    crimes. I have always thought that a good deal of the law
    enforcement was particular to the States, and that their
    resources were properly put on that. I was interested to see a
    statement by John Justice, who is the President of the National
    District Attorneys Association, who essentially says just that,
    that about 90 percent of the crimes in the United States,
    including gun laws, are prosecuted by the 3,000 or so local
    prosecutors, and that is the way it should be; that the Federal
    Government has about 100 U.S. attorneys, and they are stretched
    pretty thin, and they can probably assist and help out on that,
    but it would seem appropriate--and I would like your comments
    on the idea of why are we turning this on its head and trying
    to push this toward the Federal Government when, in fact, it
    seems that it is appropriate for the States to undertake the
    prosecution of a majority of these crimes, and the States that
    have the laws, that they ought to toughen up their laws to have
    an illegal gun gets you 5 years in prison. They are certainly
    capable of doing that and then using their resources to
    prosecute that. Either one of you want to touch on that?
        Mr. Earley. I will be happy to go first. As with most
    things in life, this is not an either/or proposition. It is
    both/and.
        The fact of the matter is it was a policy decision on the
    part of the U.S. Congress to pass a number of these tough gun
    laws a long time ago. Most of these laws that are being
    prosecuted under Project Exile were passed by the Congress in
    the late 1960's.
        Mr. Tierney. I guess what I am saying, if you want to get
    tough on this and you like the law, apparently you want to
    enforce it and bang around on it, so what is holding back the
    States, many of whom have surpluses and a number of
    prosecutors, from going out there and passing these tough laws
    and prosecuting under State law?
        Mr. Earley. Well, we hope they will follow the lead of
    Governor Gilmore in the State of Virginia in passing similar
    kinds of laws and enforcing them.
        Mr. Tierney. That is not what I am hearing here. I am
    hearing that you want the Federal Government to step up and do
    the work for you.
        Mr. Earley. Well, with all due respect, I think it is a
    question of simply recognizing that everybody has a role in
    this. It doesn't make any sense to me for anyone to suggest
    that the Federal Government should not prosecute the laws it
    has passed. Nor does it make any sense to me for anyone to
    suggest that the States should not be aggressively involved in
    prosecuting their gun laws.
        Mr. Tierney. Let's not go there. Nobody made that
    statement. We certainly think the States should be aggressively
    enforcing their laws, and that is what I am talking about, that
    they should. They have far more in line of resources to do just
    that than the Federal Government apparently does with 100 or so
    U.S. attorneys that they have.
        So I do think it is a cooperative effort, but I am
    wondering where we are putting the emphasis on this and why the
    States are not stepping up and enforcing these types of laws
    and having some Federal assistance on this, but maybe doing
    more of it.
        The other side of that is that, you know, you look and do--
    prosecute it on the Federal end, of course the people that are
    convicted end up in a Federal prison. And in Richmond, as one
    of the recent Federal District Court Judges recently noted,
    they end up in a Federal prison close to Richmond, leaving the
    State prisons so freed up that they are able to then rent space
    in them to the Federal Government. Again, everybody is tapping
    into the Federal resources there, and I wonder what we're doing
    here.
        Mr. Earley. Well, I think what we're doing is implementing
    what has also been true in the American prosecutorial system,
    and that is prosecuting the laws at every level. And I think
    that has been unique about Project Exile at the Federal level
    is there is, for whatever reason historically, a tremendous
    deterrent effect on the criminal element about the fact they
    could potentially be prosecuted under Federal law.
        Mr. Tierney. And you don't think there would be such a
    deterrent effect if you had a similar State law as you do in
    Virginia? You don't think that has the same effect?
        Mr. Earley. I would hope that it does, but I think
    historically you can't discount the ability of Federal
    prosecutions in certain major areas like organized crime, and
    significant drug conspiracies and drug dealing as well as
    violent gun crime to have a very potent effect.
        Mr. Tierney. But are we not to really concentrate our
    Federal resources on just that, the categories that you just
    spoke, and leave the other crimes, including your garden
    variety crimes with the possession of a handgun, to the States
    to prosecute and to imprison on that basis? I think that is a
    point well made, that you want to really use the best resources
    in combination, then you take the scarcer Federal resources for
    those purposes and concentrate them on the more egregious
    crimes, and then you have the prosecutors at the State level
    undertake the responsibility for the others.
        Mr. Earley. Well, at least I know in Richmond we consider
    the high homicide rate we had to be very egregious, and I think
    if you look at what concerns----
        Mr. Tierney. I understand that. That is exactly why the
    U.S. attorney's office went in in that particular instance. So
    if you are telling me that you want to have the Federal
    Government play a major role in those areas in this country
    where it is an egregious problem, it seems to be a different
    message than the one that I heard, which is that you wanted
    them to jump in and Federalize it across the board. But I think
    there would be more room for discussion on that.
        Mr. Earley. Well, you might have been out of the room. You
    didn't hear me say that. I think that the suggestion we have
    had on this panel unanimously is that these ought to be
    targeted in areas of the United States where you have a
    significant problem of gun homicides and homicides in general,
    which are going to be large major metropolitan areas. And
    Project Exile is very well suited to be prosecuted through the
    U.S. attorneys' offices in those areas, particularly with the
    cooperation and partnership like we have in Virginia with the
    State and local authorities.
        Ms. Fahey. I would just like to respond briefly. I don't
    think anyone, certainly not me, has suggested that all of these
    crimes be prosecuted federally or that these crimes be
    Federalized across the country. It would not be wise, and it is
    not feasible.
        When we started Project Exile in Richmond, it was a
    response to a tragic level of violence in the city. It was a
    feeling that something needed to be done, and perhaps we could
    use the Federal system effectively to deal with the problem or
    to make a difference.
        We could have spent a lot of time sitting around talking
    about what other people could or should do about the problem,
    but we decided as a group instead to decide what we could do
    about the problem in a cooperative manner and came up with what
    was initially exclusive Federal prosecution. But one of the
    things that the success of Project Exile did was to encourage
    the State to change the State laws so that they were more
    comparable to the Federal law so that more of these cases could
    be prosecuted in the State. And my understanding is that is
    taking place in other parts of the country as well. And the
    general message, which is vigorous enforcement of gun laws,
    whether it be State or Federal, gets across to the community
    and to the criminals.
        Mr. Tierney. Are you now finding that your office is
    shifting more of the prosecutions over to the State resources?
        Ms. Fahey. The law just went into effect July 1st, so we're
    just beginning that process, but we're going to do it in a
    cooperative manner. We are going to sit down and look at every
    single case and decide where it would be best prosecuted for a
    number of reasons.
        Mr. Tierney. What are the other reasons besides resource
    allocation?
        Ms. Fahey. There may be individuals that we think are
    linked to a drug gang that we want to keep in Federal court
    because we may want their cooperation for something; people who
    have been involved in other types of crimes which are Federal;
    people who have guns, but are also distributing large
    quantities of narcotics, those types of things.
        Mr. Tierney. So if I am following you, then you want to
    keep the really more egregious cases, the ones that might have
    been of multiple different offenses, some of them being heavily
    Federal-oriented, in your ball court, but shift over the larger
    gun-related crimes to the State prosecution where it would seem
    to be appropriate.
        Ms. Fahey. We expect eventually that someone convicted of
    domestic violence who is in possession of a gun can be
    prosecuted. My understanding is that is not yet possible under
    State law. So it will not also be a major drug dealer. It may
    be some other types of situations as well.
        But I think that we work together so well with all of our
    colleagues in law enforcement and in prosecution and in the
    attorney general's office that we will come up with the most
    effective way to handle these cases. And I don't think there
    has ever been a suggestion on the State's side that we should
    do these cases just so they don't have to pay for them. That
    has never been the State's goal. I think everyone looked at it
    as people are being murdered every day on the streets of the
    city of Richmond, and we all have an obligation to do what we
    can at a particular time, and that's what we did. I think we
    really have helped the city. We have helped the citizens of the
    city of Richmond. We have made their lives much better, and
    much safer. And that's very important to all of us.
        Mr. Tierney. I think you have done a good deed there. And I
    think that the States are perfectly capable of taking some of
    the initiative, particularly after seeing the example of what
    happened there under the leadership of the Federal involvement.
    But I am still not convinced that the Federal Government has to
    take the lead and be that involved in every situation; that the
    States cannot look at the model of what you have done and start
    to take some initiative on their own in different situations
    and allocate it down under the normal participatory rate
    between the Federal focusing on the more egregious crimes and
    the State focusing on others.
        Ms. Fahey. I think that has happened in places.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
        I now would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois
    Mrs. Schakowsky.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the
    witnesses. I am concerned about which individuals have the
    discretion to divert cases from State to Federal courts. And I
    am looking at U.S. v. Jones, where the court itself expresses
    that it is concerned about the discretion afforded individuals
    who divert cases from State to Federal court for prosecution.
    Witnesses from the office of both the Commonwealth's attorney
    and the U.S. attorney were unable to detail the specific
    process by which this review and diversion occurs. A local
    police officer is apparently individually responsible for this
    task, and that does concern me.
        I wondered if you wanted to respond to that, if, in fact,
    it is individual police officers who ultimately have that
    discretion.
        Ms. Fahey. No, I don't think I would describe it that way.
    The individual police officer who makes the stop on the street,
    for example, is the one who begins the process. When he finds a
    gun, he calls the ATF to find out whether or not the
    circumstances of that particular case would qualify for Federal
    prosecution and whether there is sufficient evidence in that
    case.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Will that happen in every single case
    involving a gun?
        Ms. Fahey. Yes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So they don't filter out.
        Ms. Fahey. No. No. I mean, it is being done in every case
    in part so that there will be no discrimination.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Why is it then that the court raised that
    concern and found that?
        Ms. Fahey. Well, I know that Judge Williams who wrote that
    opinion believes very strongly that these types of cases should
    be prosecuted in State court and not in Federal court for
    largely philosophical reasons. And so he has objected on a
    number of grounds to the project.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Well, one of the reasons I believe that was
    given is that 90 percent of the Project Exile defendants are
    African Americans, and the court noted that the inability to
    explain the procedure used, ``casts some doubt on the assertion
    that race plays no role in deciding whether a particular case
    is to be federally prosecuted.'' So that was the concern that--
    --
        Ms. Fahey. Actually, there was no finding by the court that
    there was any evidence of discrimination, no finding whatsoever
    by the court; a lot of discussion, but no finding.
        But let me talk a little bit about the numbers because I
    think that creates a distortion. What is not mentioned in there
    is that almost somewhere between 85 and 90 percent of the
    homicide victims in the city of Richmond are African American.
    It is that particular segment of the society in Richmond that
    is being most victimized by the gun-carrying criminals.
        I have been a prosecutor for a long time. One of the
    complaints for many years was that law enforcement did not take
    crimes against minorities as seriously as it did crimes against
    whites. We have looked at the situation in Richmond. We have
    looked at who was being killed, and if you look at crime
    statistics, and they are not just in Richmond, they are all
    over the country, most homicides are committed within a
    particular race. Most murders, the vast majority of murders of
    African Americans are committed by African Americans. Most, the
    vast majority of murders of whites are committed by whites.
    There is not anywhere near as high an interracial aspect to
    that as many people think.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Could I interrupt you for 1 second then?
    Then why shouldn't Richmond jurors that also reflect that
    population be those that decide in those cases? In other words,
    they would also reflect the population of Richmond and might
    more accurately be jurors of peers of those individuals.
        Ms. Fahey. Well, we started the program because there was a
    rising homicide problem, and it was not getting better. It
    appeared to be related to criminals carrying guns, drug dealers
    with guns.
        The prosecutor's office in the city of Richmond, in part
    because of the overwhelming level of crime in the city, did not
    have the resources to give the attention to these types of
    crimes as they needed to have to have them effectively
    prosecuted.
        If you take an office like in the city of Richmond that has
    a total of 30 prosecutors, and you have 110, 130, 160 homicides
    a year, plus rapes, plus armed robberies, plus burglaries, they
    do not have the resources to put on these types of what you
    might call status cases.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Let me express my concern here. The jury
    pool for Richmond itself is about 75 percent African American.
    The jury pool for the Richmond Division of the Eastern Division
    of Virginia is drawn from a broader geographical area and is,
    in contrast, about 10 percent African American. If you are
    saying that 90, 85 or 90 percent of the cases involve African
    Americans, it would seem to me that if we are trying to
    establish a jury of peers, that it might be fairer. And it does
    concern me that we are talking about this concentration of one
    racial group in terms of those that are brought to Federal
    court.
        Ms. Fahey. First of all, the jury composition in Richmond
    had absolutely nothing to do with where these cases were
    prosecuted, absolutely nothing.
        The police chief in the city of Richmond is African
    American. The elected prosecutor in the city of Richmond is
    African American. Both of them have been heavily involved and
    totally supportive of this program.
        I don't think if we look at the country nationwide that
    there is any way that we could say that any U.S. attorney's
    office should not prosecute a case if their jury pool would be
    different from the jury pool in one of the cities in which they
    were prosecuting cases. It would just be an absolute
    impossibility.
        In addition to that, the vast majority of these people
    plead guilty. They are not jury trials.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlewoman.
        Do any of the other Members have any additional questions?
        Mrs. Mink. Yes, I have a question.
        Mr. Mica. Mrs. Mink.
        Mrs. Mink. There has been comments made and questions asked
    about the lackadaisical attitude of the Department of Justice
    and the leadership of the Department with respect to coming to
    grips with their responsibility to take the lead on matters
    affecting crimes using a gun or firearms. I wanted to just note
    that staff has given me a report issued by the U.S. Department
    of Justice called Promising Strategies to Reduce Gun Violence.
    I wanted to ask Ms. Fahey if she was familiar with this report
    or contributed to it or----
        Ms. Fahey. I am. I am not familiar in detail with all of
    the things that are in it.
        Mrs. Mink. But you are familiar with the report?
        Ms. Fahey. Yes, I am.
        Mrs. Mink. It was issued in February 1999. And do you think
    it accurately describes the overall efforts being made to
    reduce gun violence, and that it illustrates the importance
    that the Department of Justice gives to this whole question of
    Federal, State, and local responsibility to do something about
    guns in their communities?
        Ms. Fahey. Well, I think that that particular publication
    outlines all of the programs that had been initiated probably
    prior to the last year, year and a half, and since then,
    additional programs aimed at reducing gun violence have been
    initiated in U.S. attorney's offices throughout the country.
        Mrs. Mink. Now, in the early pages of this report, profile
    No. 2, it discusses at great length the Boston strategy to
    prevent gun violence. Are you familiar with the Boston
    situation?
        Ms. Fahey. To some extent.
        Mrs. Mink. It apparently precedes that of Richmond.
        Ms. Fahey. I am to some extent, yes.
        Mrs. Mink. Do you think that program has been effective,
    and to what extent did the Federal Government become involved
    in the initiation and prosecution of that project?
        Ms. Fahey. I don't know when the Federal Government became
    involved in it. I know that it was a major effort for various
    segments of the law enforcement community and society and
    various agencies in Boston.
        Mrs. Mink. Throughout this report, there is indication that
    the administration has been well into urging and promoting
    promising strategies to reduce gun violence, and many of the
    reports deal with projects that began in 1992 and carried on
    until the present time.
        So, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there has been
    so much criticism about the administration's lack of interest
    in prosecuting the matter of gun violence, I ask unanimous
    consent that this report be placed into the record at this
    point.
        Mr. Mica. Without objection, the report will be cited in
    the record.
        Mrs. Mink. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. Well, I want to take this opportunity to thank
    both of the remaining two panelists, the attorney general and
    the U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia, and to
    express my appreciation for your coming forward, for your
    leadership on this project.
        We hope that it can be replicated not only throughout
    Virginia, but throughout the United States. We are all looking
    for successful answers and solutions to the problem that we
    have with gun violence and stopping crime and other problems
    that we have had in our streets, in our communities, our
    schools and neighborhoods.
        So we will again say thank you and excuse you at this time.
        Mr. Earley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. I would like to call our second panel this
    morning.
        The second panel consists of two witnesses, Ms. Teresa
    Gooch, who is the deputy chief of police for the Richmond
    Bureau of Police. The second witness is Professor Susan Long,
    and Professor Long is codirector of the Transactional Records
    Access Clearinghouse with Syracuse University, and I believe
    her study was referred to in this first panel.
        I want to welcome both of our witnesses and again remind
    you that this is an investigations and oversight subcommittee
    of the House of Representatives. We do swear in our witnesses,
    and you will be under oath when you testify. And we also will
    ask to you limit your remarks to 5 minutes and request that any
    lengthy statements or documents be submitted for the record
    through unanimous consent.
        You are standing. Would you please raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Mica. The witnesses have answered in the affirmative,
    and we are pleased to have you both with us today. We have
    heard a little bit about how Project Exile was instituted in
    and for Richmond, and we are pleased to recognize at this time
    Teresa Gooch, who is the deputy chief of police with the
    Richmond Bureau of Police. I am sure you will be able to
    provide us with more information and background relating to
    your success story. Welcome, and you are recognized.

     STATEMENTS OF TERESA GOOCH, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE, RICHMOND
    BUREAU OF POLICE, ACCOMPANIED BY SERGEANT NORRIS L. EVANS, AND
      OFFICER DOUGLAS P. VILKOSKI, RICHMOND BUREAU OF POLICE; AND
    SUSAN LONG, PROFESSOR, CODIRECTOR, TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS
                   CLEARINGHOUSE, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

        Chief Gooch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee. I would like to take a brief moment to introduce you
    also to two officers that have accompanied me here, Sergeant
    Norris L. Evans and Officer Douglas Vilkoski. Both are members
    of the police department and have been and continue to be
    involved in Project Exile cases.
        Mr. Mica. We would like to welcome your colleagues and
    thank you for recognizing them.
        Chief Gooch. And thank you for this opportunity to speak
    before you today.
        Project Exile is a product of a desire to explore creative
    alternative strategies to address the difficult urban problems
    of gun, drugs and violent crime. The program was developed in
    late 1996 from a successful partnership between the Richmond
    Police Department and the U.S. attorney for the Eastern
    District of Virginia. Together with Helen Fahey, the U.S.
    attorney for the Eastern District, and the Richmond Police
    Department, we joined forces to devise a plan to prevent
    Richmond from experiencing another 1994. Five years ago, a
    record 160 persons were murdered, and 3,500 violent crimes were
    reported in a city of just more than 200,000 people.
        Richmond followed the nationwide trend in that its crime
    problem stemmed from illegal drug trafficking, particularly
    crack cocaine, and the violent competitive behavior associated
    with illegal drug sales. Guns and drugs were commonplace in
    many of our neighborhoods and on our street corners, and
    Richmond was gaining a reputation of having a very high carry
    rate for guns.
        Thank to the tireless efforts and dedication of James B.
    Comey, deputy assistant U.S. attorney for the Richmond area,
    and David Schiller, assistant U.S. attorney and chief Federal
    prosecutor for Project Exile, a program was created to
    aggressively target and prosecute firearm-toting criminals in
    the city of Richmond.
        From Project Exile's inception, the Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco and Firearms was brought on board as a sponsoring
    Federal agency. It became the third member of our team. Agents
    from the local office are assigned as part of Project Exile
    task force to aid our officers in their investigations and to
    adopt cases that meet certain criteria for prosecution within
    the Federal courts system under 18 U.S.C. 922 and 924.
        As outlined in earlier testimony from the Honorable Mark
    Earley and attorney Helen Fahey, there are eight basic criteria
    that they had to meet in order to meet the standard for the
    prosecution. A typical Project Exile case in the city of
    Richmond would involve an officer who might be assigned to a
    precinct beat car or to any other uniformed or plain clothes
    unit of their agency encountering or arresting an individual
    who has used or is in the possession of a firearm. If during
    the course of the investigation of that incident it is learned
    that the person meets any of the previously listed criteria,
    the case is referred to the Project Exile Task Force for review
    and possible adoption. State charges may or may not be placed
    against the person at that time, depending upon the
    circumstances of the encounter.
        So this new--the prosecutorial strategy offered three
    distinct advantages for us. No. 1 was stiffer sentencing
    guidelines for those using firearms in the commission of drug
    offenses or crimes of violence. No. 2 was a no bail provision
    prior to an offender's first court appearance, and the
    likelihood of serving a number of years in a prison far from
    home and associates. So in effect they would be exiled from the
    Richmond community.
        So other agencies soon joined our efforts. The Honorable
    Mark Earley, who testified earlier, assigned members of his
    staff to provide assistance. Our local Commonwealth attorney,
    David Hicks, assigned another prosecutor to the U.S. attorney's
    office. Other law enforcement agencies that participate include
    Virginia State Police and the FBI.
        The Project Exile Task Force has now staffed with Federal,
    State and local law enforcement officers along with Federal and
    State prosecutors, and the Richmond Police Department has
    assigned three officers to help facilitate the prosecution of
    these cases.
        We also have staff that track each case and research all
    firearms seized by the Richmond Police Department. And we are
    assisted in our efforts by, of course, the alcohol, tobacco and
    firearms agency.
        As has already been mentioned in 1997, when the initiative
    kicked off, we had experienced numerous successful
    prosecutions. In fact, this aggressive prosecution by the
    prosecutors brought an end to the violence by neighborhood-
    based drug groups known as the ``Poison Clan'' and the ``Dogg
    Pound.'' Richmond's city manager along with the city council
    and its public safety committee were instrumental in helping to
    devise and support not only these police strategies, but also a
    number of initiatives across the spectrum of city government
    services.
        As was stated earlier, there was an aggressive marketing
    campaign, so word began to spread on the street about the
    impact of Project Exile. They were very aggressive in that
    marketing campaign and used numerous private funding sources to
    help spread the word.
        So has it worked? Our city residents think so. The daughter
    of an elderly woman who lives in one of our city's communities
    thanked us recently. She said she had witnessed her mother do
    something the other day that she had never seen her do before:
    walk by herself to a corner grocery. The woman's mother had
    never felt safe enough to walk a few blocks, and she does now.
        The attitude of Richmond's would-be criminals is changing,
    too. When a Richmond detective recently questioned a suspect
    about whether he was carrying a gun, the suspect was quick to
    reply: Carry a gun in Richmond? I don't think so. I don't want
    to go to jail for 5 years.
        And as noted also, our statistics speak for themselves. In
    1998, it is important to note that Richmond's overall homicide
    rate was the lowest since 1987. In fact, other violent crime
    categories decreased also. This year our homicide rate is 29
    percent lower than it was even in 1998. So compared to our
    record year of 1994, our homicide rate has dropped nearly 60
    percent.
        Our efforts through Project Exile, as I have stated, have
    garnered regional and national recognition, and, in fact, other
    law enforcement agencies now pursue similar avenues of
    prosecution. In addition, other cities throughout the Nation
    are exploring this effort.
        But most importantly, our efforts have gained the
    confidence of our community. The successes that Project Exile
    has enjoyed in Richmond have helped us to build confidence in
    the community and credibility in our police department. We view
    Project Exile as one of our greatest success stories during the
    past years. It has truly strengthened the partnerships the
    Richmond Police Department has forged with other agencies and
    with the community.
        As we stated, or as Mark Earley stated earlier, we now have
    Virginia Exile, and the laws closely mirror the sanctions and
    procedures found in the Federal Code, and they will also
    provide other Virginia localities with aggressive policing
    tools needed to combat crime violence in their communities. We
    continue to work closely with our State and local prosecutors
    in pursuing aggressive prosecution in State courts while
    building on our successful partnership with the U.S. attorney
    and other members of our Project Exile team.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Chief Gooch follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.081

        Mr. Mica. I want to thank you for your testimony, and
    before we get to questions, we will hear from Professor Susan
    Long, the codirector of Transactional Records Access
    Clearinghouse with Syracuse University. Welcome, and you are
    recognized.
        Ms. Long. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of this
    subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to come today to
    testify about the results from our recent research study
    conducted by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at
    Syracuse University on the enforcement of Federal weapons laws
    by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
        By way of background, the clearinghouse, commonly known as
    TRAC, is a data-gathering, data research and data distribution
    organization at Syracuse University. I, along with David
    Burnham, who is a research faculty member in the Newhouse
    School at Syracuse, serve as the center's codirectors. My
    specialty is statistics, data and measurement, and I am a
    faculty member in the Department of Quantitative Methods at
    Syracuse's School of Management.
        TRAC focuses its research efforts on Federal enforcement
    and regulatory activities. Since its founding in 1989, TRAC has
    sought to provide the American people with comprehensive
    information about the activities of Federal enforcement and
    regulatory agencies.
        TRAC's information is based on masses of detailed data that
    it obtains from Federal agencies through the systematic and
    informed use of the Freedom of Information Act. With the use of
    a variety of sophisticated statistical techniques, the raw
    information obtained from the agencies is checked and verified.
    Where possible, data from one agency is compared with another
    for general consistency. Detailed studies on specific agencies
    and topical areas are carried out. We also undertake special
    studies concerning the accuracy and reliability of data from
    various government data systems and publish our findings about
    apparent trustworthiness of official counts that an agency
    issues about its activities.
        As part of TRAC's series about each of the major Federal
    law enforcement agencies, TRAC's study on the ATF was published
    in August of this year. It updated an earlier TRAC study on the
    ATF that was done in 1996. The full study is available on
    TRAC's website. I refer anyone interested in more details to
    the full report.
        In the brief time I have here, I can only highlight five
    key findings.
        First, among all Federal agencies, ATF has long been the
    preeminent Federal law enforcement agency in the weapons area.
    It is the lead investigatory agency in most Federal firearms
    prosecutions, accounting for 82 percent of all referrals
    recorded by Federal prosecutors with weapons as a lead charge
    in 1992 and 75 percent in 1998.
        Second, the level of criminal enforcement activity of
    firearms laws by the ATF is down sharply. From a peak in fiscal
    year 1992, ATF matters sent to Federal prosecutors declined by
    44 percent, dropping from just under 10,000 in 1992 to a bit
    over 5,000 in 1998. A similar sharp decline is also shown when
    ATF referrals to State and local prosecutors, not just to the
    Feds, are included.
        Thus, this decline in ATF criminal enforcement of firearms
    laws does not represent a shift from Federal to State and local
    enforcement, but an overall decline in the magnitude of ATF
    enforcement activity at all levels. There is an accompanying
    graph and table that is in my prepared statement that I would
    like included in the record.
        Mr. Mica. Without objection, that will be made part of the
    record.
        Ms. Long. ATF staffing levels are also down, although not
    as sharply. One factor contributing to the drop in ATF
    enforcement has been cutbacks in its staff. While the number of
    criminal investigators on the Federal payroll grew more than 20
    percent between 1992 and 1998, ATF staffing declined. The
    number of ATF special agents, who are the ones that take the
    primary lead in criminal investigations, dropped by 14 percent
    in the last 7 years, from just under 2,100 in 1992, to just
    under 1,800 in 1998.
        Fourth point. There is little evidence to suggest that the
    decline since the mid-1990's represents better targeting on
    more significant matters. When an agency's referrals go into a
    slump, administrators often assert that this is because its
    investigators are focusing on a smaller number of more
    significant matters. Targeting more serious criminals and
    crimes is a worthy objective; however, such conclusions are
    always hard to quantify.
        One possible useful indicator is to examine change in the
    prison time that results from an agency's investigations. Under
    Federal sentencing guidelines, higher prison times are
    generally assigned to what society judges as more serious
    crimes. In the case of the ATF, no clear trend toward more or
    less serious sentences has occurred. Initially as referrals
    fell from their peak in 1992, prison sentences did rise. This
    would be consistent with a better targeting argument. However
    in 1996, median sentences--half got more, half got less--peaked
    at 57 months. In the next year the median dropped to 48 months.
    In 1998, it went to 46 months. Further, the actual number of
    defendants sentenced to prison terms of 5 years or more,
    including life, peaked in 1993 and has fallen sharply since
    then, particularly since 1996.
        Fifth, and my last point, the study found wide regional
    variations in how the ATF enforces the law in different parts
    of the Nation. Median sentences resulting from an ATF
    investigation varied greatly around the country. Some of these
    variations appear to be grounded in the underlying enforcement
    challenges facing the agency. Arizona, for example, obviously
    has very different problems than Maine, but the rationale
    behind some contrasting results as the following are very hard
    to discern.
        In three districts, Illinois Central (Springfield), North
    Carolina East (Raleigh), and North Carolina Middle
    (Greensboro), the median 1998 sentences were over 100 months.
    By contrast, the median sentences--half more, half were less--
    in Philadelphia East--excuse me, Pennsylvania East
    (Philadelphia), New York South (Manhattan), and Arizona
    (Phoenix) were all 36 months or less. Because the sentencing
    guidelines limit the sentencing discretion of judges, and very
    few Federal cases are decided by a jury, the sentencing
    variations are mostly the result of the kinds of cases the ATF
    agents and assistant U.S. attorneys select for prosecution in
    the different districts.
        ATF enforcement activities also vary in different parts of
    the country. In terms of the level of activity in relation to
    population, there were at least six times more ATF referrals
    for criminal prosecution in a number of more rural Federal
    judicial districts like Oklahoma North (Tulsa), Tennessee East
    (Knoxville), West Virginia South (Charleston), and North
    Carolina West (Asheville) than in major urban centers such as
    California North (San Francisco), California Central around Los
    Angeles, Illinois North (Chicago), and New Jersey centered in
    Newark.
        This concludes my prepared statement. I would like to have
    the full statement for the record because it does have a number
    of accompanying tables and one graph.
        If anyone would like further details concerning this study
    as mentioned earlier, it is available in its entirety on our
    website at TRAC.SYR.EDU under the icon for ATF. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony and for
    providing us with this information and background for the
    subcommittee.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Long follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.098

        Mr. Mica. Ms. Gooch, some critics of Project Exile have
    dismissed the program as assembly line prosecution and said
    that it takes away from other prosecutions of, say, drug crimes
    and other crimes and illegal activities. How would you respond?
        Chief Gooch. Project Exile is one of the most successful
    tools that we have used in recent years. I've been a Richmond
    police officer for well over 20 years, and I've seen the level
    and rate of violent crime rise. The benefit and the opportunity
    presented to us through the Project Exile initiative is
    actually quite simple in that it has allowed us through this
    partnership, this multiagency partnership, to expand the
    capacity of our police department, of our police officer on the
    street.
        We recognize the very real danger and impact of what used
    to be the high carry rate of guns by criminals on the street.
    Project Exile initially was an opportunity for our officers to
    use tools, legal tools available to them through the Federal
    system to have a marked impact, a direct and significant impact
    on the rate of violent crime.
        Mr. Mica. Ms. Long, how is your operation funded? TRAC,
    this program, does it receive Federal funding?
        Ms. Long. No, we do not receive any Federal funds. We are a
    self-supporting research center, obviously with support from
    Syracuse for facilities, and we are supported by research
    grants largely.
        Mr. Mica. Well, you appear to be one of the most thorough
    clearinghouses and sources of information about statistics on
    prosecution of gun laws and some of the other activities you
    have described. Have you had difficulty in obtaining
    information from the Federal Government or Federal agencies to
    compile your statistical information?
        Ms. Long. Yes, I could certainly say that is true.
        Mr. Mica. In what manner? Have you had to go to court to
    try to get some of that information?
        Ms. Long. Yes, we certainly have. And I have about 30 years
    of experience in using the Freedom of Information Act, trying
    to obtain records from many agencies. And we did have to file a
    lawsuit against the Justice Department, which resulted in a
    consent decree in this past summer. This sort of capped 10
    years of effort on the part of TRAC to obtain these records
    under several administrations.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you. We don't have too much time left. We
    have a vote pending. I will yield the balance of time to Mr.
    Barr.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you. And I appreciate, Ms. Gooch, you being
    here with two of your fellow officers, and I want to commend
    you and your police chief for the fine job that you have been
    doing. Again, as we talked about earlier, we hope that through
    this hearing today and your continued work and the continued
    work of the U.S. attorney, we will see this program and this
    approach, which is, you know, a basic approach that really
    works to simply coordinate better gun prosecutions used
    elsewhere in the country, and I think will benefit our citizens
    tremendously. So thank you very much.
        Chief Gooch. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Barr. Ms. Long, thank you, I have read your work. I
    appreciate the fact that it will be a part of our record. I
    think it is very, very telling. It is unfortunate that you have
    to sue the Department of Justice to get information, but at
    least you did.
        It is somewhat disturbing, and I note that the chairman is
    concerned about this also, and hopefully we will inquire into
    it further in other proceedings, particularly your work and
    what it shows regarding a very significant drop-off in ATF
    prosecutions of gun crimes. Notwithstanding their rhetoric that
    this simply means that they are going after the bigger cases,
    that is not the case because it is not reflected in the
    sentencing, for example, as you have discovered, and it is also
    not a result of lack of funding.
        I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to have
    inserted into the record the funding figures that I used
    earlier regarding ATF, which shows, for example, that from 1995
    to the current fiscal year, there has been a 50 percent
    increase in ATF funding.
        Similarly, Mr. Chairman, there has been a virtually
    identical percentage increase in Justice Department funding of
    almost 50 percent during this period of time.
        Now, it may be that both ATF and Justice used that money
    for different purposes and don't, as in the case of ATF--
    apparently put the money into more agents to prosecute more
    cases. But that's a policy decision that they have made. I
    don't think that there is any way, with a straight face at
    least, that they could argue it is a lack of resources. We have
    given them the resources in hundreds of millions of dollars.
    Now, if they choose not to use it to prosecute these gun cases,
    then I think we have a serious problem, but it is not a
    funding.
        Mr. Mica. Without objection, those documents and
    information will be made a part of the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.120

        Mr. Barr. And I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that a
    further chart entitled Length of Prison Sentences 1998,
    Districts and Rank Order be included as well as a packet of
    material, the front page of which is entitled BATF Firearms
    Prosecutions Referrals Drop be included in the record.
        Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.123

        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Well, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank
    both of you. I am going to leave the record open for 2 weeks
    for additional information and testimony. We may have
    additional questions for some of our witnesses here today.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.124

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.125

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.126

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.129

        Mr. Mica. But I do want to thank Teresa Gooch, the deputy
    chief of police of Richmond, for being with us, for sharing
    with us your successful program and efforts of the community,
    State and Federal agencies to bring a difficult situation under
    control.
        Ms. Long, thank you for being with us and providing us
    background information from your studies. We may have
    additional questions for you. Unfortunately, we do have a vote
    being called at this time and just a few minutes remaining to
    go to the floor. But I think this has been a good hearing to
    review a program that couldn't be in a more timely fashion to
    address serious problems relating to gun violence in our
    streets and our communities. Hopefully, the hearing today will
    highlight the successes of Project Exile, and we can also prod
    our Federal agencies to do a little better job toward, again,
    looking at successful solutions to the problems we've seen
    again most recently.
        There being no further business to come before the
    Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
    Resources, this meeting is adjourned.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.151

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.152

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.153

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.154

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.155

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.156

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.157

        [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.158

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6358.159