Congress failed to take action last year, Mr. Chairman. And as a result, our crime problem continues to mount at a truly alarming rate. We have before us a sound piece of legislation. We can do the American people a tremendous service by rolling up our sleeves and getting to work now to pass an effective crime package.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to get things rolling.

Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you. I would just let the gentleman know that not only is this hearing on one part of the President's crime bill, next week we will be having a hearing on the death penalty provision portions of the crime bill. We intend to have a hearing a week throughout June on both the parts of the President's crime bill that are in our jurisdiction as well as other proposals that may well be added to the package.

I'd first like to welcome our first panel, and they may take the podium: Mr. Mueller and Mr. McNulty. I'm delighted to welcome our first witness this morning. Mr. Robert S. Mueller has been serving as the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division since October 1990, a position to which he brings years of criminal prosecution.

He served for 4 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in San Francisco, where he was selected to serve as Chief of the Criminal Division. He continued his public service when he moved to the U.S. attorney's office in Boston, where he served as the first assistant and then was appointed by the court to serve as the U.S. attorney. Prior to joining the Attorney General's staff in May 1989, Mr. Mueller was a litigation partner in the august Boston firm of Hill & Barlow-it's a long-time firm, too, I think-at least it was there when I went to law school.

Mr. Mueller is accompanied today by Mr. Paul J. McNulty, the Acting Director of Office of Policy Development.

Mr. Mueller, I know this is your first appearance before this subcommittee, and I look forward to seeing you here many more times. And, Mr. McNulty, it's nice having you back again.

Your entire statement will be placed in the record, without objection, and you may proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MUELLER III, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL MCNULTY, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure for me to appear before this committee for the first time. I, too, am looking forward to a number of future opportunities to discuss the very important issues of criminal law before this committee.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as I have indicated, I am pleased to be here today to express the views of the Department of Justice on the firearms provisions in H.R. 1400, the Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act, submitted by the Presi

dent.

Let me express my appreciation for this hearing. I hope it portends speedy consideration by Congress of all of the President's bill,

including the badly needed provisions on the death penalty, habeas corpus reform, and exclusionary rule modification.

The firearms provisions are in title IV of the bill. I want to emphasize that the focus of these provisions is on punishing the criminal misuse of firearms and not on imposing unnecessary burdens on law-abiding gun owners.

Three of the sections in title IV amend section 924(c) of title 18. This section makes it an offense to use or carry a firearm during and in relation to a Federal crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.

First, section 401 would double the current penalty from a mandatory 5-year prison term under current law to a mandatory 10year term if the firearm is a semiautomatic weapon. Many firearms are semiautomatics and criminals who use them would pay a heavier price.

Second, section 402 would expand the reach of 924(c) so it would cover one who uses, carries, or otherwise possesses, a firearm during, and in relation to, a Federal crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.

This would reverse the result in a second circuit decision holding that the present statute does not cover a situation in which a loaded firearm was found in a dresser drawer of an apartment the defendant utilized for drug dealing.

A final amendment in section 924(c)—that is contained in section 417-would also apply the statute to one who uses, carries, or possesses a firearm during, and in relation to, a counterfeiting or forgery offense.

Some serious felonies do not meet the definition of a crime of violence, but are frequently committed by persons with firearms. Counterfeiting of currency and securities is such a crime. It usually requires a sophisticated printing operation which typically is guarded by armed criminals.

Moreover, the passing of large quantities of counterfeit money in exchange for a smaller amount of genuine bills is, like a major drug deal, often carried out with all participants heavily armed.

In addition to amendments aimed at the use of firearms in crimes, we also propose raising the penalties for criminals and other dangerous persons who possess firearms.

One important section-418-amends the penalty provisions of 18 U.S.C. 924(a). It would impose a mandatory prison term of at least 5 years for possession of a firearm by a person who has previously been convicted of a violent felony or a serious drug offense. Under current law, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is only punishable by imprisonment of up to 10 years.

A mandatory sentence is somewhat comparable to the armed career criminal provisions already in 18 U.S.C. 924(e) under which possession of a gun by a person with at least three violent felony or serious drug offense convictions is punishable by a mandatory 15year term.

It also complements the mandatory 5-year term now in section. 924(c) for using or carrying a gun during, and in relation to, a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.

Sections 409, 416, and 407 also would make it more costly for felons to acquire or possess guns.

Section 409 raises the penalty for a violation of section 922(a)(6), making a false statement to a licensed firearm dealer, from a maximum of 5 years imprisonment to a maximum of 10. This increase is justified by the need to assure that ineligible persons do not acquire firearms by deceiving legitimate gun dealers.

Not many felons buy their weapons from licensed dealers but a lot of criminals steal them or buy stolen weapons on the black market. Accordingly, section 416 amends 922(j) to make it an of fense to possess a stolen firearm. And section 407 makes it an offense, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment with a mandatory term of at least 2 years, to steal a firearm that has moved in interstate commerce.

I am sure that those who read the Washington Post today and the front page article are familiar with the rash of gun burglaries in this area and this provision to which I have just alluded would give us substantial assistance in addressing that problem.

Turning to section 404, it is also aimed at the problem of felons who have firearms. It deals with the question of who is a felon?

Section 922(g) makes it an offense for a person who has been "convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year" to receive or possess a firearm. Other firearms provisions also use this phrase.

A definitional section, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20), presently states that if the conviction was in a State court, State law applies in determining whether a person has been convicted of such a crime.

Then it adds that any conviction which has been expunged or set aside, or for which a person has been pardoned, or has had civil rights restored, shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

The problem here is that State procedures are far from uniform for pardons, expungements, and, especially, restoration of rights. In some States a convicted felon's civil rights are automatically restored at the end of his service of sentence or at some definite time in the future, and the person can then legally possess a firearm. Section 404 would provide that if the conviction were for a violent felony involving the use of a firearm or explosive, or was for a serious drug offense, the person is considered convicted for purposes of the firearms chapter regardless of any pardon, expungement, setting aside, or restoration of civil rights.

While many of the firearms provisions focus on mandatory or enhanced penalties for gun crimes, the procedural provisions are intended to enhance the chances that anyone who commits such a crime is convicted so that he can serve an appropriate sentence.

For example, it does little good to arrest a person for an offense if he is then released from custody, cannot be brought to trial, and instead, goes on committing more crimes.

Section 405 of the bill would amend chapter 207 in title 18, which deals with pretrial release and detention, to allow the Government to seek pretrial detention of a defendant charged with several serious firearms offenses which present a degree of danger to the community comparable to crimes of violence and drug trafficking.

As with the present pretrial detention provisions, the Government would have to show at a detention hearing, by clear and convincing evidence, that no conditions of release will assure the person's appearance for trial and assure the safety of the community or of an individual.

So far I've described several of the key provisions in subtitle (A) of title 4 of H.R. 1400.

Now very briefly I would like to turn to subtitle (B) that deals with firearms that are popularly called "assault weapons." Some of these weapons are actually machineguns because they can fire more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger. And, as you well know, machineguns are already thoroughly regulated.

But a number of other assault weapons can, with the proper equipment, fire a large number of bullets without reloading, although a separate pull of the trigger is required to expel each round.

These weapons are often made to look particularly menacing and, in fact, they're sometimes used by drug gangs and other criminals.

The provisions in this subtitle (B) are identical to those in title III of H.R. 2709, introduced in the last Congress, and about which my predecessor, Assistant Attorney General Ed Dennis, testified before the Subcommittee on Crime on March 6, 1990.

Many members of this subcommittee are familiar with his testimony but I would like to review some of the key points.

The greatest danger posed by assault weapons is that they can put out a large number of bullets. But they can only do this if they are equipped with a special ammunition feeding device like a clip or a magazine. Consequently, our proposal would regulate the ammunition feeding device rather than the firearm itself.

Initially, a new provision would be added to the definition section, section 921 of title 18, defining an ammunition feeding device as a detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, which has a capacity of, or which can be readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition.

These devices would also be defined as firearms, which would require manufacturers, dealers, and importers to keep records of their receipt and disposition, and allow for government inspection of these records to make sure they are not being illegally sold.

A series of restrictions would be placed on these devices similar to those already in effect for machineguns.

A new subsection, 922(t) of title 18, would make it illegal to import, manufacture, transport, ship, transfer, receive, or possess such an ammunition feeding device, with some exceptions. The most important exception is that it would not be an offense to possess, transport, or ship an ammunition feeding device which was possessed on the date the new provision takes effect.

It would be lawful to continue to possess ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the effective date and such devices could be shipped or transported in interstate commerce, for example, if the owner moved to a different State.

However, it would be lawful to transfer an ammunition feeding device only if the conditions set out in proposed new subsections 922(u) and (v) are complied with.

If a person violated the provisions of new 922(t) he would be subject to imprisonment for up to 10 years, the same penalty as for illegal possession of a machinegun. Typical violations of this section would be possessing an ammunition feeding device that was made after the effective date of this section, or transferring an ammunition feeding device to another person without going through the registration procedure.

Instead of trying to ban any particular type of assault weapon, the administration's bill focuses on the device, the ammunition feeding device, that makes a firearm more dangerous than others.

Granted, some weapons are made to look particularly lethal by the addition of such things as a metal stock. But the fact is they are no more dangerous than many other semiautomatic weapons such as hunting and target rifles that could, with the right ammunition feeding device, spray out large numbers of bullets and be every bit as deadly as a weapon marketed as an "assault rifle."

So we have taken an approach that will actually work to reduce the criminal use of weapons instead of a proposal that might appear popular but that would be ineffective.

That brings me to my final point. We need the new firearms provisions of H.R. 1400 to fight gun crime more effectively. But we are already making considerable strides with existing laws.

On March 26, the Attorney General announced Project Triggerlock, a comprehensive effort to use Federal firearms laws to target the most dangerous violent criminals in each community and put them away for hard time in Federal prisons.

Project Triggerlock is an outgrowth of several other programs developed during the past several years to combat firearms violence. For example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has a program called Project Achilles, which it has pursued for almost 5 years in selected districts.

In addition, the U.S. attorneys in Philadelphia and Detroit have programs which have successfully targeted repeat offenders who possess or use firearms in their commission of violent crimes or drug trafficking offenses.

These programs are coordinated with local law enforcement officials to identify recidivists who qualify for prosecution under Federal statutes which provide for significant mandatory minimum periods of incarceration.

Under Project Triggerlock, each U.S. attorney's office has established a task force of prosecutions who will develop a strategy to identify and apprehend the most violent offenders in their area.

The program recognizes that violent crime is essentially street crime, which is usually investigated and prosecuted at the State or local level.

Project Triggerlock is intended to assist State and local authorities by providing for complementary prosecutions under Federal firearms statutes of the most dangerous violent offenders.

The creation of Triggerlock task forces has been closely coordinated with State and local enforcement officials and they are full partners in the operation of the task forces.

Utilizing selected strategies individually tailored for local needs, each task force will affirmatively identify offenders who qualify for