[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 135 (Tuesday, October 15, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7910-H7917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1515
                         OUR LADY OF PEACE ACT

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4757) to improve the national instant criminal 
background check system, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4757

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Our Lady of Peace Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Since 1994, more than 689,000 individuals have been 
     denied a gun for failing a background check.
       (2) States that fail to computerize their criminal and 
     mental illness records are the primary cause of delays for 
     background checks. Helping States automate their records will 
     reduce delays for law-abiding gun owners.
       (3) 25 States have automated less than 60 percent of their 
     felony criminal conviction records.
       (4) 33 States do not automate or share disqualifying mental 
     health records.
       (5) In 13 States, domestic violence restraining orders are 
     not automated or accessible by the national instant criminal 
     background check system.
       (6) In 15 States, no domestic violence misdemeanor records 
     are automated or accessible by the national instant criminal 
     background check system.

                    TITLE I--TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS

     SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS 
                   AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO 
                   THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Section 103(e)(1) of the Brady Handgun 
     Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``electronically'' before ``furnish''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``The head of each 
     department or agency shall ascertain whether the department 
     or agency has any records relating to any person described in 
     subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United 
     States Code and on being made aware that the department or 
     agency has such a record, shall make the record available to 
     the Attorney General for inclusion in the system to the 
     extent the Attorney General deems appropriate. The head of 
     each department or agency, on being made aware that the basis 
     under which a record was made available under this section 
     does not apply or no longer applies, shall transmit a 
     certification identifying the record (and any name or other 
     relevant identifying information) to the Attorney General for 
     removal from the system. The Attorney General shall notify 
     the Congress on an annual basis as to whether the Attorney 
     General has obtained from each such department or agency the 
     information requested by the Attorney General under this 
     subsection.''.

[[Page H7911]]

       (b) Immigration Records.--The Commissioner of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service shall cooperate in 
     providing information regarding all relevant records of 
     persons disqualified from acquiring a firearm under Federal 
     law, including but not limited to, illegal aliens, visitors 
     to the United States on student visas, and visitors to the 
     United States on tourist visas, to the Attorney General for 
     inclusion in the national instant criminal background check 
     system.

     SEC. 102. REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN WAIVER.

       (a) In General.--Beginning 5 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, a State shall be eligible to receive a 
     waiver of the 10 percent matching requirement for National 
     Criminal History Improvement Grants under the Crime 
     Identification Technology Act of 1988 if the State provides 
     at least 95 percent of the information described in 
     subsection (b). The length of such a waiver shall not exceed 
     5 years.
       (b) Eligibility of State Records for Submission to the 
     National Instant Criminal Background Check System.--
       (1) Requirements for eligibility.--The State shall make 
     available the following information established either 
     through its own database or provide information to the 
     Attorney General:
       (A) The name of and other relevant identifying information 
     relating to each person disqualified from acquiring a firearm 
     under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, 
     United States Code, and each person disqualified from 
     acquiring a firearm under applicable State law.
       (B) The State, on being made aware that the basis under 
     which a record was made available under subparagraph (A) does 
     not apply or no longer applies, shall transmit a 
     certification identifying the record (and any name or other 
     relevant identifying information) to the Attorney General for 
     removal from the system.
       (C) Any information provided to the Attorney General under 
     subparagraph (A) may be accessed only for background check 
     purposes under section 922(t) of title 18, United States 
     Code.
       (D) The State shall certify to the Attorney General that at 
     least 95 percent of all information descibed in subparagraph 
     (A) has been provided to the Attorney General in accordance 
     with subparagraph (A).
       (2) Application to persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes 
     of domestic violence.--(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a 
     person disqualified from acquiring a firearm as referred to 
     in that paragraph includes a person who has been convicted in 
     any court of any Federal, State, or local offense that--
       (i) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law or, in a 
     State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an 
     offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or 
     less (or punishable by only a fine);
       (ii) has, as an element of the offense, the use or 
     attempted use of physical force (for example, assault and 
     battery), or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and
       (iii) was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, 
     or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim 
     shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating 
     with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, parent, 
     or guardian, (for example, the equivalent of ``common-law 
     marriage'' even if such relationship is not recognized under 
     the law), or a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, 
     or guardian of the victim (for example, two persons who are 
     residing at the same location in an intimate relationship 
     with the intent to make that place their home would be 
     similarly situated to a spouse).
       (B) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted 
     of such an offense for purposes of subparagraph (A) unless--
       (i) the person is considered to have been convicted by the 
     jurisdiction in which the proceeding was held;
       (ii) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or 
     knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in 
     the case; and
       (iii) in the case of a prosecution for which a person was 
     entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the 
     case was tried--
       (I) the case was tried by a jury; or
       (II) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the 
     right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea, or 
     otherwise.
       (C) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted 
     of such an offense for purposes of subparagraph (A) if the 
     conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense 
     for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil 
     rights restored (if the law of the jurisdiction in which the 
     proceedings were held provides for the loss of civil rights 
     upon conviction of such an offense) unless the pardon, 
     expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly 
     provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or 
     receive firearms, and the person is not otherwise prohibited 
     by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were 
     held from receiving or possessing any firearms.
       (3) Application to persons who have been adjudicated as a 
     mental defective or committed to a mental institution.--
       (A) For purposes of paragraph (1), an adjudication as a 
     mental defective occurs when a court, board, commission, or 
     other government entity determines that a person, as a result 
     of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, 
     incompetency, condition, or disease--
       (i) is a danger to himself or to others; or
       (ii) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his 
     own affairs.
       (B) The term ``adjudicated as a mental defective'' 
     includes--
       (i) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; 
     and
       (ii) a finding that a person is incompetent to stand trial 
     or is not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility 
     pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of 
     Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b).
       (C) Exceptions.--This paragraph does not apply to--
       (i) a person--

       (I) in a mental institution for observation; or
       (II) voluntarily committed to a mental institution; or

       (ii) information protected by doctor-patient privilege.
       (4) Privacy protections.--For any information provided 
     under the national instant criminal background check system, 
     the Attorney General shall work with States and local law 
     enforcement and the mental health community to establish 
     regulations and protocols for protecting the privacy of 
     information provided to the system. In the event of a 
     conflict between a provision of this Act and a provision of 
     State law relating to privacy protection, the provision of 
     State law shall control.
       (5) State authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this subsection, a State may designate that records 
     transmitted under this subsection shall be used only to 
     determine eligibility to purchase or possess a firearm.
       (c) Attorney General Report.--Not later than January 31 of 
     each year, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     progress of States in automating the databases containing the 
     information described in subsection (b) and in providing that 
     information pursuant to the requirements of such subsection.

     SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--From amounts made available to carry out 
     this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to each 
     State, in a manner consistent with the national criminal 
     history improvement program, which shall be used by the 
     State, in conjunction with units of local government and 
     State and local courts, to establish or upgrade information 
     and identification technologies for firearms eligibility 
     determinations.
       (b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Grants under this section may 
     only be awarded for the following purposes:
       (1) Building databases that are directly related to checks 
     under the national instant criminal background check system 
     (NICS), including court disposition and corrections records.
       (2) Assisting States in establishing or enhancing their own 
     capacities to perform NICS background checks.
       (3) Improving final dispositions of criminal records.
       (4) Supplying mental health records to NICS.
       (5) Supplying court-ordered domestic restraining orders and 
     records of domestic violence misdemeanors (as defined in 
     section 102 of this Act) for inclusion in NICS.
       (c) Condition.--As a condition of receiving a grant under 
     this section, a State shall specify the projects for which 
     grant amounts will be used, and shall use such amounts only 
     as specified. A State that violates this section shall be 
     liable to the Attorney General for the full amount granted.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006.
       (e) The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall not charge a 
     user fee for background checks pursuant to section 922(t) of 
     title 18, United States Code.

 TITLE II--FOCUSING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF RELEVANT 
                                RECORDS

     SEC. 201. CONTINUING EVALUATIONS.

       (a) Evaluation Required.--The Director of the Bureau of 
     Justice Statistics shall study and evaluate the operations of 
     the national instant criminal background check system. Such 
     study and evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, 
     compilations and analyses of the operations and record 
     systems of the agencies and organizations participating in 
     such system.
       (b) Report on Grants.--Not later than January 31 of each 
     year, the Director shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     implementation of section 102(b).
       (c) Report on Best Practices.--Not later than January 31 of 
     each year, the Director shall submit to Congress, and to each 
     State participating in the National Criminal History 
     Improvement Program, a report of the practices of the States 
     regarding the collection, maintenance, automation, and 
     transmittal of identifying information relating to 
     individuals described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 
     of title 18, United States Code, by the State or any other 
     agency, or any other records relevant to the national instant 
     criminal background check system, that the Director considers 
     to be best practices.

TITLE III--GRANTS TO STATE COURTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT IN AUTOMATION AND 
                   TRANSMITTAL OF DISPOSITION RECORDS

     SEC. 301. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

       (a) In General.--From amounts made available to carry out 
     this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to each 
     State for use by the chief judicial officer of the State to 
     improve the handling of proceedings related to criminal 
     history dispositions and restraining orders.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Amounts granted under this section shall 
     be used by the chief judicial officer only as follows:
       (1) For fiscal year 2004, such amounts shall be used to 
     carry out assessments of the capabilities of the courts of 
     the State for the automation and transmission to State and 
     Federal record repositories the arrest and conviction records 
     of such courts.

[[Page H7912]]

       (2) For fiscal years after 2004, such amounts shall be used 
     to implement policies, systems, and procedures for the 
     automation and transmission to State and Federal record 
     repositories the arrest and conviction records of such 
     courts.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this 
     section $125,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 
     2006.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pence). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4757, the bill 
currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was the principal Republican author of the Brady Act, 
which was signed into law in 1994. While much of the debate on the 
Brady Act was on the 5-day waiting period that was contained in there, 
the lasting good of the Brady Act was the establishment of the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System, wherein people who are 
statutorily ineligible from possessing any type of firearm, such as a 
convicted felon or an adjudicated mental incompetent, could be 
identified instantly and a proposed firearm sale could be denied to 
that individual.
  This part of the Brady Act is intended to keep firearms out of the 
hands of individuals who are prohibited by Federal or State law from 
possessing them. The NICS system was established by the Attorney 
General to enforce the provisions of the Brady Act. The mission of NICS 
is to ensure the timely sale of firearms to individuals who can legally 
possess them and to deny their sale to individuals who are prohibited 
from possessing or receiving a firearm.
  But background checks can only be as effective as the records that 
are available to be checked, and most crimes of violence are prosecuted 
under State and local law rather than Federal law. So the NICS system 
cannot keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous 
individuals without receiving the most current records from the States.
  NICS has not been operating in the most efficient way possible 
because of the failure of certain State and local governments to 
provide NICS with the current information regarding individuals who may 
be disqualified from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Despite the 
fact that the Federal Government has contributed more than $350 million 
since 1995 through the National Criminal History Improvement Program, 
called NCHIP, to help the States update their records and to improve 
reporting, some States still have not completely computerized their 
criminal records and do not maintain complete criminal history records.
  Some States still do not have computerized records on mental health 
adjudications. And in some States domestic violence crimes and 
protective orders are not computerized or properly labeled as domestic 
violence related. Often, even States that do keep records fail to note 
the final disposition of arrest charges. This bill is designed to 
provide more money to the States to make these records as close to 100 
percent perfect as possible, and I support it.
  Although NICS will attempt to obtain information for any missing 
record, Federal law provides that if a delayed background check is 
still pending after 3 business days, the firearms dealer may proceed 
with the sale. So if the records are not in NICS and cannot be found in 
3 days, the sale goes through even though the buyer might be an 
adjudicated mental incompetent or a convicted felon.
  The NCHIP program has helped increase the records available for 
search by NICS by as much as 60 percent. But some States and local 
governments have failed to automate their records or otherwise make 
them available to next, and I am particularly troubled by States that 
have refused to join the Federal Government as partners to keep guns 
out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them.
  Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the State of Maryland's 
refusal to assist the FBI with these NICS checks, and I will enter four 
letters into the Record to highlight this problem.
  In a March 12, 2002, letter to the FBI, the Maryland State Archives 
informed the FBI, ``We can no longer provide the research and 
assistance your program requires without reimbursement for the work.'' 
The letter indicated that the annual cost of providing this research to 
support NICS would cost about $45,000 annually. It was not until August 
27, 2002, that the Maryland Department of Public Safety reaffirmed its 
commitment to NICS. Then, on October 3, 2002, the Maryland Archives 
informed the FBI that it will provide NICS research assistance so long 
as NCHIP funding is available, thereby leaving the door open to once 
again discontinue cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that the State of Maryland would let 
almost 7 months go by without assisting the FBI with these criminal 
NICS checks. And I do not know if this was the fault of the executive 
branch or the failure of the Maryland legislature to provide enough 
money to do the job, but 7 months went by and nothing was being done.
  The Federal Government spends about $60 million annually on NICS, and 
as I have already said, about $350 million in the last 7 years on 
NCHIP. Maryland has received over $6,700,000 from NCHIP to improve its 
criminal history records. Are we to believe that Maryland could not 
find another $45,000 to assist with NICS checks? Maryland's 
shortsighted policy has made it the weak link in the NICS system.

  Maryland's policy has endangered lives and threatened public safety. 
Maryland's failure affects every State because a Maryland felon might, 
for example, try to illegally buy a gun in Virginia. If the Maryland 
State Archives refuses to search its criminal history records, Maryland 
felons can purchase guns that they are otherwise prohibited from 
purchasing.
  It is my understanding that the State of Maryland was the only State 
in the country to refuse to assist the FBI with NICS checks. 
Practically every State in the Union has a financial problem, but they 
have continued working with the FBI because they felt it was important. 
Only Maryland said no. Maryland is now, apparently, providing that 
assistance, but only if Federal funding is available, and this is not 
tolerable because of the amount of NCHIP and other Federal criminal 
justice assistance provided Maryland and the importance of keeping guns 
out of the hands of convicted felons and adjudicated mental 
incompetents.
  The Washington Post, in an October 12, 2002, story, reported that 
Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend ``Is considering 
a plan to require ballistic fingerprints of high-powered rifles sold in 
Maryland.'' I would suggest that the folks in Annapolis start by 
assisting the FBI with a program that we know will keep guns out of the 
hands of criminals.
  Mr. Speaker, the Lieutenant Governor's biography, which is posted on 
the official State of Maryland Web site, claims she is ``Maryland's 
point person on criminal justice,'' and her biography lists a number of 
anticrime efforts for which she takes credit. As the point person for 
criminal justice matters, I would expect the Lieutenant Governor of 
Maryland to fully cooperate with the General Accounting Office 
investigation that I am requesting today for a complete audit of 
Maryland's use of NCHIP funding.
  Mr. Speaker, more money to upgrade State criminal history records is 
all well and good, but Federal money and assistance is not always the 
answer. Sometimes public officials need to exercise a modicum of common 
sense, and that common sense dictates that we need to keep guns out of 
the hands of criminals and other dangerous individuals. NICS can only 
do that if it is provided the records on those individuals. 
Accordingly, funds provided to the States must be used to improve their 
recordkeeping and automate system to reduce delays for law-abiding gun 
purchasers and to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.


[[Page H7913]]


  In 1998, the Brady Act required Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) to 
initiate a background check on all persons who attempt to purchase a 
firearm. The Brady Act is intended to keep firearms out of the hands of 
individuals who are prohibited by Federal or state law from possessing 
them. The Attorney General established the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System (NICS) operation center to enforce the 
provisions of the Brady Act.
  The NICS mission is to ensure the timely sale of firearms to 
individuals who are not prohibited under Federal law and deny a sale to 
those individuals who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a 
firearm. However, background checks can only be as effective as the 
records available to be checked. The NICS system cannot keep guns out 
of the hands of criminals and other dangerous individuals without 
receiving the most current records from the states.
  The current NICS system has not been operating in the most efficient 
way possible because of the failure of certain states and local 
governments to provide NICS with current information regarding 
individuals who may be disqualified from purchasing a firearm. Despite 
the fact the Federal government has contributed more than $350 million 
since 1995 through the National Criminal History Improvement Program 
(NCHIP) to help states update their records and improve reporting, some 
states still have not completely computerized their criminal records 
and do not maintain complete criminal-history records. Some states 
still do not keep computerized records on mental health adjudications. 
In some states, domestic violence crimes and protective orders are not 
computerized or properly labeled as domestic violence related. Often, 
even states that do keep records fail to note the final disposition of 
arrest charges.
  Although NICS will attempt to obtain information for any missing 
record, Federal law provides that if a delayed background check is 
still pending after three business days, the firearms dealer may 
proceed with the sale. The NCHIP program has helped increase the 
records available for a search by NICS by as much as 60%; however, some 
states and local governments have failed to automate their records or 
otherwise make them available to NICS. I am particularly troubled by 
states that fail to join the federal government as partners to keep 
guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them.
  Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about Maryland's refusal to assist 
the FBI with these NICS checks, and I will enter four letters in the 
record which highlight this problem. In a March 12, 2002 letter to the 
FBI, the Maryland State Archives informed the FBI that ``we can no 
longer provide the research and assistance your program requires 
without reimbursement for the work.''
  The letter indicated that the annual cost of providing this research 
to support NICS would cost about $45,000 annually. It was not until 
Aug. 27, 2002, that the Maryland Dept. of Public Safety affirmed its 
commitment to NICS. Then, on October 3, 2002, the Maryland Archives 
informed the FBI that it will provide NICS research assistance so long 
as NCHIP funding is available, thereby leaving the door open to again 
discontinue cooperation. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that Maryland 
would let almost 7 months go by without assisting the FBI with these 
critical NICS checks.
  The Federal government spends about $60 million annually on NICS and 
as I have already indicated, over $350 million since 1995 on NCHIP. 
Maryland has received over $6.7 million from NCHIP to improve its 
criminal history records. Are we are to believe Maryland could not find 
$45,000 to assist with NICS checks? Maryland's short sighted policy 
made it the weak link in the NICS system. Maryland's policy endangered 
lives and threatened public safety. Maryland's failure affects every 
state because a Maryland felon might, for example, try to illegally buy 
a gun in Virginia. If the Maryland State Archives refuses to search its 
criminal history records, Maryland felons can purchase guns that they 
are otherwise prohibited from purchasing. It is my understanding that 
the state of Maryland was the only state to refuse to assist the FBI 
with its NICS checks. Maryland is apparently now providing that 
assistance but only if federal funding is available. This is not 
tolerable given the amount of NCHIP and other federal criminal justice 
assistance provided to Maryland. And the importance of keeping guns out 
of the hands of convicted felons and adjudicated mental incompetents.
  The Washington Post, in an October 12, 2002, story reported that 
Maryland Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend ``is considering a 
plant to require ballistic fingerprints of high-powered riles sold in 
Maryland . . . .'' I would suggest that the politicians in Maryland 
start by assisting the FBI with a program that we know will keep guns 
out of the hands of criminals. Mr. Speaker, Maryland Lt. Governor 
Townsend's biography, which is posted on the official Maryland state 
website, claims that she is ``Maryland's point person or criminal 
justice . . .'' and her biography lists a number of anti-crime efforts 
for which she takes credit. As the point person for criminal justice 
matters, I expect the Lt. Governor of Maryland to fully cooperate with 
the General Accounting Office investigation that I am requesting today 
in which the GAO will completely audit Maryland's use of NCHIP funding.
  Mr. Speaker, more money to upgrade state criminal history records is 
all well and good, but federal money and assistance is not always the 
answer. Sometimes pubic officials need to exercise a modicum of common 
sense. Common sense dictates that we need to keep guns out the hands of 
criminals and dangerous individuals. NICS can only do that if it is 
provided the records on these individuals. Accordingly, funds provided 
to the states must be used to improve their record keeping and automate 
systems to reduce delays for law-abiding gun purchasers and prevent 
guns from failing into the wrong hands.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill, and at this point would 
include for the Record the letters I referred to above:

                                      Maryland State Archives,

                                                   March 12, 2002.
     Ms. Linda L. Miller,
     Federal Bureau of Investigation,
     National Instant Criminal Background Check System,
     Clarksburg, WV.
       Dear Ms. Miller. We regret that we can no longer provide 
     the research and assistance your program requires without 
     reimbursement for the work. Orders received before March 18 
     will be the last we are able to process, unless the enclosed 
     memorandum of understanding is signed before then.
       Since July 1, 2001, the Maryland State Archives has 
     responded to 1,800 requests for dispositions of criminal 
     cases related to the National Instant Criminal Background 
     Check System. Our staff researched the case numbers through 
     an on-line system, or from docket book indices, or by 
     contacting the courts. We then located, reproduced, and faxed 
     the dockets that reflect the charge and disposition. Archives 
     staff averaged next day response for requests received on 
     weekdays, and always responded within three working days 
     (unless we were dependent on the courts for case numbers 
     which are reported after that time). The annual cost of 
     providing this efficient service will approach $45,000.00 
     this year alone.
       We have previously requested federal funding directly 
     through NICS and through federal grants to this state, but no 
     support has been forthcoming to date. Direct financial 
     support for the staff and facilities to make this information 
     accessible is required. Given the state imposed hiring freeze 
     we are operating under and the loss of reference staff in the 
     last four months, it is not possible for the Archives to 
     continue providing this service to your agency unless funds 
     are found to pay us a per unit cost of $25.00 for each 
     request.
       We estimate that the Archives has processed better than 
     half of all the applications that your office receives from 
     Maryland which require further information before the 
     background check can be completed. If you are unable to 
     secure funding to assist us in the research necessary to 
     fulfill your requests, we foresee that you will have to 
     assign an agent to research here on a full-time to continue 
     to perform this work. We know from our own experience that 
     each cased requires approximately one hour of research. We 
     will assist any agent in our public Search Room at the Hall 
     of Records in Annapolis to locate the necessary documents on 
     days that we are open. The Archives provides this level of 
     service to anyone who visits our facility, although I should 
     point out that budget cuts may force us to close the Search 
     Room for one or more days during the week.
           Sincerely yours.
                                              Christopher N. Alan,
     Deputy State Archivist.
                                  ____

                                          Maryland State Archives,
     Federal Bureau of Investigation,
     National Instant Criminal Background Check System, 
         Clarksburg, WV

       Please note that the Maryland State Archives that as of 
     March 18 the Archives is no longer providing remote criminal 
     research for the National Instant Criminal Background Check 
     System. You are invited to conduct this and any future 
     criminal background research in the Archives' public Search 
     Room. Please note that many criminal files or necessary 
     indices may still be in the custody of the courts.
       The public search room is open Tuesday through Friday, 8:00 
     a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Saturday, 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 
     1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The Archives is Closed on Mondays. On 
     weekdays the search room remains open at lunchtime (12:00 
     p.m. to 1:00 p.m.) with reduced services. The Archives is 
     closed on state holidays. The state holiday closings for 2002 
     are: Tuesday, January 1; Thursday, July 4; Tuesday, November 
     5; Thursday, Friday and Saturday, November 28, 29 & 30; 
     Wednesday, December 25. The Maryland State Archives is 
     located at 350 Rowe Boulevard, Annapolis, MD 21401.
           Sincerely,
                                            R.J. Rockefeller, PhD,
                                     Director, Reference Services.

[[Page H7914]]

     
                                  ____
         State of Maryland, Department of Public Safety and 
           Correctional Services, Information Technology and 
           Communications Division,
                            Pikesville, Maryland, August 27, 2002.
     Re National Instant Check System (NICS)--FBI Letter (May 9, 
         2002) to Maryland State Archives and Response (May 31, 
         2002) from Maryland State Archives.

     Kimberly Del Greco,
     Acting Section Chief, NICS Program Office, Clarksburg, WV
       Dear Ms. Del Greco: I am writing on behalf of the Criminal 
     Justice Information System (CJIS) Central Repository in 
     response to the letter dated May 9, 2002, from Mr. Timothy 
     Munson, NICS Program Office, to Mr. Christopher Allan, Deputy 
     State Archivist of the Maryland State Archives. Mr. Munson's 
     letter detailed some of the frustrations he was experiencing 
     in obtaining Maryland criminal history record information on 
     subjects under the purview of the NICS operations. I am also 
     in receipt of the response from Mr. Allan.
       The Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services 
     and the Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals jointly 
     oversee Maryland's Criminal Justice Information System 
     (CJIS). It is established under the authority of the Criminal 
     Procedure Article, Sec. Sec. 10-201-10-234, Annotated Code of 
     Maryland. The enabling statute is implemented by executive 
     Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR 12.15.01) and by judicial 
     rules (Maryland Rules Sec. Sec. 16-308 and 16-508). The CJIS 
     Central Repository is housed for administrative purposes in 
     the Information Technology and Communications Division of the 
     Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.
       The policy issues raised in both letters referenced above 
     are of genuine concern to Maryland, and in particular to this 
     Department. I apologize for the long delay in responding to 
     the original letter. I felt it was important to first 
     identify what created the issues identified by Mr. Munson and 
     then, in consultation with NICS staff, to take immediate 
     steps to reach a mutually agreed-upon resolution.
       I think resolution has been reached, the result of several 
     conference calls between our respective staffs. Consensus on 
     procedural issues included, among others, the following:
       Installation of a dedicated fax machine by the FBI,
       Faxing completed response to the FBI within 24 hours of 
     receipt of inquiry,
       Use of standardized verbiage re: sources of dispositions,
       Development of holiday/weekend work schedules, and
       Identification of points-of-contact at the respective 
     agencies.
       I should also point out that, because Maryland was a ``day-
     forward'' participant when it joined the Interstate 
     Identification Index (III) in March 1998, this State has not 
     been able to electronically supply criminal history record 
     information prior to March 1998. However, this Department is 
     supporting the efforts of CJIS Central Repository to make 
     these the pre-March 1998 records available for NICS 
     investigations as soon as may be possible.
       I am committed not merely to maintaining Maryland's 
     criminal history record information in the CJIS Central 
     Repository in a timely, complete, and accurate fashion, but 
     also to utilizing procedures that will provide this 
     information to authorized users in an efficient and effective 
     manner. Please let me know if the attempt to improve our 
     response with respect to NICS operations develops further 
     problems or does not in any way satisfy the needs of NICS.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Judith A. Wood
     Chief Information Officer.
                                  ____



                                      Maryland State Archives,

                                                  October 3, 2002.
     Gary Wick,
     Asst. Operation Manager, U.S. Department of Justice, 
         Clarksburg, WV.
       Dear Mr. Wick: Thank you for your letter of September 19 
     regarding the Maryland State Archives and NICS research. Dr. 
     Papenfuse asked me to respond on his behalf.
       Your suggestions are welcome. We will immediately cease 
     mailing copies after the fax transmissions. Some consider fax 
     an unsatisfactory record, so we followed with copies. If you 
     find the fax adequate, we will rely on that alone. Your staff 
     may continue to contact us by telephone when the fax presents 
     a legibility issue. We wish that the NICS staff had access to 
     adequate email so that we might transmit the very fine image 
     files we use to reproduce the documents.
       You might occasionally receive contradictory reports when a 
     first search yields nothing, but when further information 
     provided by your agents or our own quality assurance steps 
     locate a record at first not found. This happens rarely, but 
     is not due to multiple staff member seeking the same record 
     and passing by one another. I am pleased when we can follow 
     up and report comprehensively, even if after the initial 72 
     business hours.
       We are pleased to report that federal funds are available 
     to pay for this service through the NCHIP FY 2002 Program and 
     the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional 
     Services. So long as such funds are available, the Archives 
     will endeavor to contribute to national and personal security 
     in support of the NICS operation.
           Sincerely,
                                          R.J. Rockefeller, Ph.D.,
                                     Director, Reference Services.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me first thank the proponents of this legislation, particularly 
the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) who has 
been waging a definitive and balanced and open effort to protect 
Americans all over this Nation as relates to gun safety.
  The gentlewoman from New York is joined, of course, by the dean of 
the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who has shown the 
kind of diplomacy and openness to sharing in this legislation to get to 
the final point, and that is to save lives. So I rise with enthusiastic 
support and in appreciation of their leadership in support of the Our 
Lady of Peace Act, H.R. 4757.
  Mr. Speaker, I might also commend the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who offers his enthusiastic support, and 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland 
Security, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who offers his 
enthusiastic support for this legislation.
  The chairman of the committee makes a very vital point, particularly 
as we look at the enormous tragedy that the people of this particular 
region, the Washington, DC, area, are facing right now. All of us offer 
our deepest sympathy as we face a challenge, where lives are being 
lost, by a perpetrator which no one has been able to determine the 
basis of the actions or to determine the identity of that perpetrator 
at this time.
  This is an important legislative initiative, and I would expand the 
request of the distinguished chairman and ask for an investigation or a 
requirement of a report from all the States, in addition to Maryland, 
to be able to determine the assessment that is so important. So that 
that could be a part of this legislation, we should join in asking for 
reports from all the 50 States.

                              {time}  1530

  Let me simply say because Federal law requires that a gun sale 
proceed after 3 business days, even a background check is inconclusive. 
A number of felons, fugitives, and stalkers received guns that we later 
have to retrieve. And while 95 percent of all background checks are 
completed within 24 hours, because of incomplete records the remaining 
5 percent take more time. Those 5 percent are 20 times more like to be 
a felon, fugitive, or stalker.
  In fact, we learned from a recent GAO study requested by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to look into the problem of 
domestic violence, it was determined that nearly 3,000 convicted 
domestic batterers and child abusers were able to purchase firearms 
between 1998 and 2001. Despite Federal laws designed to prevent this, 
nearly 10 percent of the annual homicides involving the killing of a 
spouse or partner, almost all the victims were women, and most were 
done by using a firearm. We must do better.
  One part of the solution is to allow more time for background checks, 
and this would allow us to more fully investigate purchasers whose 
records raise a red flag. It would also allow a cooling-off period 
which has proven to be effective to deter heat-of-passion crimes.
  Another part of the solution is this bill, and I am delighted to rise 
in support of this bill which will provide incentive for States to 
provide more complete records to the Federal Government. This will 
result in faster and smarter background checks.
  So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the proponents of this 
bill. And as well, I would hope that we would support this bill 
enthusiastically.
  I strongly support this legislation. A major problem with the instant 
check system has been the incomplete records of state and local 
governments. Because federal law requires that a gun sale proceed after 
three business days even if a background check is inconclusive, a 
number of felons, fugitives and stalkers receive guns that we later 
have to retrieve.
  Ninety-five percent of all background checks are completed within 24 
hours. Because of incomplete records, the remaining five percent

[[Page H7915]]

take more time. Those five percent are twenty times more likely to be a 
felon, fugitive or stalker. This also will help keep guns out of the 
hands of those that would harm others such as the mentally disabled.
  In fact, in a recent GAO study I requested looked at this problem in 
the area of domestic violence. I was extremely disturbed to learn that 
nearly 3,000 convicted batterers and child abusers were able to 
purchase firearms between 1998-2001, despite federal laws designed to 
prevent this. Nearly 10 percent of the annual homicides involving the 
killing of a spouse or partner, almost all the victims were women and 
most were killed using a firearm. We must do better!
  One part of the solution is to allow more time for background checks. 
This would allow us to more fully investigate purchasers whose records 
raise a red flag. It would also allow a ``cooling off'' period, which 
has been proven effective to deter heat of passion crimes.
  Another part of the solution is this bill. It will provide incentives 
for states to provide more complete records to the federal government. 
This will result in faster and smarter background checks.
  Finally, I want to thank and congratulate my colleagues, 
Congresswoman McCarthy and the Dean of the House, John Dingell, for 
their work on this bill and their willingness to take constructive 
suggestions along the way, to make this an even better bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time 
to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for the purposes of 
control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4757, a bill that would close a loophole in the national instant 
background check system for gun purchases. As an original cosponsor of 
this bill, I am pleased to join my good friends, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), 
in supporting this important legislation. I want to take this 
opportunity also to thank the House leadership, the Speaker and the 
majority whip, and also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for bringing this bill to the floor at this time. I am 
very appreciative.
  Also, I want to point out the fact that Americans for Gun Safety, the 
Brady Campaign, and many other organizations have worked for its 
passage and applaud this time on the House floor.
  This bill is long overdue. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Act, 
which I strongly supported. The Brady Act gives the FBI 4 years to 
create a national instant background check system for purchasing a 
firearm. But unfortunately, 8 years after the passage of the Brady Act, 
the national background check system is still not instant or up to 
date, as on average, only 58 percent of the felony background check 
records have been computerized. This means felons, domestic abusers, 
and mentally infirm have been able to walk into a gun store and buy a 
firearm because of incomplete government records. In fact, nationwide 
because of poor record keeping by the government, 10,000 convicted 
felons and other prohibited buyers have been able to purchase guns.
  In my home State of Maryland, 283 illegal buyers were able to buy 
guns because of incomplete background check records over a 30-month 
period. Overall, Maryland has the 15th worst record in the Nation of 
illegal buyers obtaining guns due to faulty records. Moreover, Maryland 
does not check the records of individuals with a history of severe 
mental illness when doing a background check.
  This is incredible; but it is not unusual, as 33 States do not bother 
to do a mental illness background check. And it gets even worse. In 15 
States, those convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor can slip 
through a background check, because those States do not supply any of 
those records to the FBI. This bill will fix those gaping holes.
  In my district, there is a sniper on the loose. He is killing people 
indiscriminately and shows no regard for human life. Nine innocent 
victims have died, and two people are critically injured. We do not 
know how he got the gun, if it was stolen, purchased at a gun show or a 
gun dealer. We do not know if a background check system with fully 
automated records would have stopped him, but we do know that 10,000 
illegal buyers got a gun because of faulty records. This utterly 
depraved perpetrator may be number 10,001.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill closes a loophole of a bill already on the 
books, the Brady Act, and increases public safety at a time when it is 
desperately need. I urge its passage by the House.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4757, Our Lady of Peace 
Act, and the assistance it offers States for automating their criminal 
history records. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) for working with me from the beginning and giving 
suggestions on how to make this a better bill.
  I also thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the 
distinguished ranking member, for working with me in helping pass this 
bipartisan bill through the Committee on the Judiciary.
  I also thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for all his 
hard work throughout this process. He and I actually started talking 
about this kind of legislation quite a long time ago, and I am glad to 
see that it is on the floor today.
  It is not every day that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
and I are on the same side of a gun debate, but we believe that this 
legislation helps close a loophole in our law that allows disqualified 
individuals to obtain a firearm.
  In March of this year, a priest and a parishioner in my district at 
the Lady of Peace Church were fatally shot during mass by a disturbed 
gunman with a history of mental health problems and a restraining order 
issued by his mother. However, he was able to purchase a firearm 2 days 
before the attack because most States do not provide mental health and 
other disqualifying records to the FBI NICS database. The 1968 Gun 
Control Act bars nine categories of individuals, including those who 
are deemed mentally ill, from having a firearm. However, when a Federal 
background check is performed, only Federal databases are addressed. 
That means that the Federal background check is only as good as the 
records in it; and since many of these records are kept by the States 
and rarely provided to the FBI, the Federal background check may never 
spot the disqualifying factor, therefore allowing the purchase to 
proceed.
  Right now, 35 million records of people who are prohibited by law 
from owning a firearm are missing from the various databases that make 
up the NICS system. That means it is nearly impossible to stop those 
under a restraining order, the severely mentally ill, and illegal 
aliens from passing a background check and obtaining a firearm.
  The Our Lady of Peace Act seeks to enforce the 1968 Gun Control Act 
by providing States an incentive to automatic and shared disqualifying 
records with the FBI. In addition, it authorize grants to help States 
automate and improve criminal history records, mental health records, 
restraining orders and records of domestic violence misdemeanors.
  It also requires Federal agencies, like the INS, to provide the FBI 
with records of individuals disqualified from purchasing a firearm. 
This legislation helps make the instant background check system truly 
the instant system we are looking for.
  Whether a gun owner or not, this legislation will appeal to everyone 
who believes we should enforce our current gun laws and keep firearms 
out of the wrong hands. What I will say is what we have been seeing, 
especially in the last week or so in the vicinity of our area, we 
should be doing more to enforce the laws on the books. That is 
something I have been trying to do since elected to Congress. It has 
been my privilege and my honor to work with all Members bipartisanly to 
get this done. I think it is important, and I hope that we can all work 
together in the future to do more because there is more to be done. The 
bottom line is as long as we keep guns out of the hands of those that 
should not have them, we will be saving lives; and that is what we are 
all here about. That is what we all care about. I urge support of this 
bill.

[[Page H7916]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I add my congratulations to the author of 
this bill for the gentlewoman's efforts here and in the national media 
to make a case for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.
  I would also add my congratulations to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his excellent work on this bill and to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for seeing to it that we, at 
such a time as this, deal with this critical legislation. And lastly, I 
add my congratulations to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for 
his efforts in advancing sensible laws having to do with gunownership 
while preserving the second amendment rights of every law-abiding 
American to keep and bear arms.
  Mr. Speaker, I have said before on this floor, I believe the House of 
Representatives is the heart of the American government and in many 
ways should resonate with the hearts of the American people. The truth 
is we rise today not in a vacuum, as others have said before. The truth 
is that the hearts of the American people today are troubled, shots 
fired as recently as last night here in the vicinity of our Nation's 
Capitol, felling innocent women, men, and even children, in barbaric 
acts of terror. Whatever the motivation from wherever comes the source, 
these are acts of terror here in suburban Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, my own family endured a brush with this violence when we 
learned last night of the attack on the Home Depot in Falls Church, 
Virginia. My wife informed me that it was there she had taken our 9-
year-old daughter on Sunday night to purchase their fall mums and bring 
them home, happily reporting to me that she had parked safely in a 
covered garage at that Home Depot; and I can only stand with an unusual 
amount of identification and grieve with the family of she who was lost 
last night, and think there, but for the grace of God, goes my family.
  The perpetrators seem to act with impunity. They defy civilized 
behavior and so far have defied the finest local, State, and Federal 
law enforcement in the world. They seem to say tauntingly, there is 
nothing you can do. How wrong they are. How wrong they are.
  Today, because of the leadership of the gentlewoman from Maryland 
(Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), we 
rise in this institution to do something. We rise today to bring forth 
in Our Lady of Peace Act legislation which will provide States with the 
tools to comply with the 1968 Gun Control Act by providing additional 
funds to automate and share criminal mental health and domestic 
violence restraining order records with the FBI's NICS database.
  This legislation, since its conception, was always designed to 
provide that instant background check, just like we are used to at the 
gasoline station pump, to know immediately who has a background that is 
consistent with the ownership of firearms and who does not. Under this 
legislation, all Federal agencies would transmit relevant records 
relating to persons disqualified from acquiring a firearm to the 
Attorney General for inclusion in the NICS database. To comply with the 
grants under this legislation, States also would provide more thorough 
and updated information, and there is a grant program to assist State 
courts to assess and improve the handling of proceedings related to 
criminal history.
  Mr. Speaker, there is something we can do. As Americans and as family 
people, we can pray for justice in this case; and we can support our 
law enforcement as they seek to leave no stone unturned. Lastly, we can 
pass this critical and important legislation that will speed resources 
to the NICS database and make sure that those who possess firearms in 
America are only law-abiding Americans.

                              {time}  1545

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4757. I 
thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this 
time, and I commend her for her leadership and effort in this matter. 
It has been a privilege and a pleasure for me to work with her as a 
cosponsor of this legislation.
  I want to note that this legislation is supported in a bipartisan 
fashion. On both sides, Members support this. The leadership on both 
sides of the aisle supports this legislation. And the leadership on 
both ends of the Capitol supports this legislation. It is supported by 
the NRA and by gun control groups. I want to commend my good friend, 
the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and also the ranking minority member, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their leadership and their support of this 
legislation.
  I would note that the legislation is really very simple. It first of 
all protects the second amendment rights of the people of this country, 
and that was one of the criteria and tests that my good friends at the 
NRA, of which I am a very happy and proud member, provided our support 
for the undertaking. It is legislation, then, which protects the basic 
rights of the American people to own and use firearms for legitimate 
and responsible hunting, fishing, conservation and defense purposes.
  I would note that it is legislation which requires the Federal 
Government and provides incentives to the States to make the record-
keeping system, upon which the instant check is entirely dependent, 
work and to see so that it does speedily.
  The practical result of this legislation will be two things: one, to 
keep guns out of the hands of criminals; and, two, to see to it that 
law-abiding citizens are better able to purchase firearms in a 
legitimate and proper fashion without delays occasioned by the failure 
of the States and the Federal Government to keep proper records.
  As mentioned by my distinguished friend, the chairman of the 
committee, there is a long and complete list of disabilities by Federal 
and State statutes which preclude ownership of persons of firearms. 
Those include mental disabilities, they include also criminal 
misbehavior, of family abuse and things of that kind, as well as being 
a fugitive from justice, a convicted felon or an illegal immigrant. 
Those are matters which our policy of the United States and the 
Congress says that people may not then own firearms. This is a way that 
we use to strain so that firearms may not get through the net into the 
hands of illegal owners and persons who are precluded by law from 
owning them.
  This will be a significant benefit to law enforcement. It also will 
be a protection to innocent citizens. It will, in like fashion, be a 
protection of the basic rights of the American people. More needs to be 
done, but it has to be done in a fashion which is consistent with 
protection of the basic second amendment rights of the American people.
  I am proud that the distinguished gentlewoman from New York and I 
were able to work together to achieve something which could achieve the 
kind of broad support that H.R. 4757 has. It provides other 
protections, also, and I would note that it precludes the possibility 
of taxes being imposed upon law-abiding gun owners for the purposes of 
owning firearms and achieving that ownership through the instant check.
  It is a good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support 
it. I note that it has no opposition of which I am aware, and it is 
legislation which will enable Americans to feel better about their 
safety and about, at the same time, the protection of their firearms 
ownership rights.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
for bringing this forward and also the gentlewoman from Maryland for 
her hard

[[Page H7917]]

work on this subject; also the gentlewoman from New York and the 
gentleman from Michigan for their hard work on fashioning legislation 
here that protects the second amendment rights of all Americans, but 
also ensures that criminals cannot more easily get their hands on guns. 
And also, as the gentleman from Michigan mentioned, that law-abiding 
citizens are not denied or delayed their right simply because State 
officials have not the resources or the inclination to move ahead on 
this.
  I am proud to support this legislation. I urge support of it.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  As you can hear from the debate and a lot of people that might even 
be watching this debate, back and forth, even though we all support 
this legislation, it is strange to hear that the NRA and certainly all 
of our gun groups have worked together. I think that is the important 
key that we are talking about. We worked very hard to make sure that 
the privacy of citizens would also be protected.
  Again, people have to understand that we are not picking on one 
particular group. Anyone that is denied access to getting permission 
for a gun only comes up as denied, so we do not go pinpointing, 
especially on mental illness or other things. They are just plainly 
denied. I think that is an important part because I think people out 
there are misunderstanding, and they actually thought we were targeting 
people with mental illness. We are not. We just want to make sure that 
people that should not own guns do not get their guns and people that 
should be able to have guns have the right to own guns. We will 
continue to work together on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my thanks to the gentlewoman 
from New York and the gentlewoman from Maryland for putting together 
this bill. I have been in the Congress for 24 years. This is the first 
bill on the subject of firearms that I can remember that is supported 
by both the NRA and most of the major gun control groups. That means we 
ought to seize this moment and pass this bill right away before this 
coalition unravels. I urge the Members to do that.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of H.R. 4757, 
considered today by the House of Representatives on the Suspension 
Calendar.
  H.R. 4757, the Our Lady of Peace Act, would amend the Brady Handgun 
Violence Prevention Act to require the Attorney General to secure 
directly from any U.S. department or agency information on persons who 
are prohibited by federal or state law from having a firearm, such as a 
convicted felon criminal or mental incompetent. In effect, to make the 
record collection system work more efficiently than it currently does. 
The measure provides more money to the States to make their information 
available to the federal government, making the partnership of the two 
governmental systems a better working arrangement.
  Specifically, H.R. 4757 requires the Attorney General to make grants 
to each State: (1) to establish or upgrade information and 
identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations; 
and (2) for use by the State's chief judicial officer to improve the 
handling of proceedings related to criminal history dispositions and 
temporary restraining orders as they relate to disqualification from 
firearms ownership under State and Federal laws. And the measure 
requires the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics to study and 
evaluate the operations of the System and to report on grants and on 
best practices of States.
  As a member of the House Judiciary Committee in 1993 (and currently), 
I was the chief proponent of the National Instant Check System. And so 
I view passage of this measure as a positive step towards both 
preventing prohibited persons from acquiring firearms and protecting 
the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
  A key provision added to this legislation is the prohibition of the 
federal government imposing a ``gun tax,'' by charging fees for gun 
purchases through NICS. This is an important provision the National 
Rifle Association worked to secure. The NRA has been working for nearly 
a decade to improve NICS so that it works the way Congress intended 
it--instantly, without any delay or waiting period for gun purchases by 
law-abiding buyers.
  The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, ``the right of 
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'' I firmly 
believe that the plain language of the Amendment guarantees the right 
of citizens to keep and bear arms and pledges to protect this right 
from being infringed upon. Instead of more gun control laws we must 
forcefully execute the laws that are already in place, while leaving 
law-abiding citizens alone.
  As the chief proponent of the National Instant Check System as a 
substitute for ``waiting periods,'' I know that the mandate of the NICS 
was to provide an instant screening of criminal history records in 
concert with the purchase of a firearm form federally licensed dealers. 
In this day of instant communications and nearly instant everything, it 
may not seem like such a feat. But ten years ago, even with the massive 
use of instant credit card transactions, the concept of using an 
instant check system for a firearm purchase was novel and somewhat 
groundbreaking. But in the decade since the mandate of the NICS, the 
system has needed many improvements. I have gladly welcomed each 
improvement, such as this measure, as another step toward the instant 
check system that will both protect and defend citizens and legal gun 
owners alike.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 4757, bipartisan legislation which promises to greatly improve the 
Instant Check by encouraging states to automate and share disqualifying 
records with the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background System, 
NICS, database.
  H.R. 4757 is a model of sensible, common-sense public safety 
legislation. It represents what we can achieve when we leave the 
rhetoric behind and concentrate on how to best keep guns out of the 
hands of criminals.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4757 manages to be both pro-gun owner and pro-law 
enforcement--stopping criminals in their tracks while permitting law-
abiding citizens to be approved for purchases in minutes, not days or 
weeks. And it does so by focusing on enforcement of existing laws, on 
strengthening them.
  Mr. Speaker, instant background checks serve little purpose if they 
are based on incomplete or inaccurate criminal history records. Today, 
we strive for accuracy, for completeness. H.R. 4757 goes a long way 
toward making the NICS system work the way we intended it to work, and 
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pence). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4757, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________