[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.
____________________