[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 13, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6339-H6347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NICS IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2007
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2640) to improve the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2640
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
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.
Sec. 102. Requirements to obtain waiver.
Sec. 103. Implementation assistance to States.
Sec. 104. Penalties for noncompliance.
Sec. 105. Relief from disabilities program required as condition for
participation in grant programs.
TITLE J--FOCUSING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF RELEVANT
RECORDS
Sec. 201. Continuing evaluations.
TITLE K--GRANTS TO STATE COURT SYSTEMS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT IN
AUTOMATION AND TRANSMITTAL OF DISPOSITION RECORDS
Sec. 301. Disposition records automation and transmittal improvement
grants.
TITLE L--GAO AUDIT
Sec. 401. GAO audit.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Approximately 916,000 individuals were prohibited from
purchasing a firearm for failing a background check between
November 30, 1998, (the date the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS) began operating) and December
31, 2004.
(2) From November 30, 1998, through December 31, 2004,
nearly 49,000,000 Brady background checks were processed
through NICS.
(3) Although most Brady background checks are processed
through NICS in seconds, many background checks are delayed
if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does not have
automated access to complete information from the States
concerning persons prohibited from possessing or receiving a
firearm under Federal or State law.
(4) Nearly 21,000,000 criminal records are not accessible
by NICS and millions of criminal records are missing critical
data, such as arrest dispositions, due to data backlogs.
(5) The primary cause of delay in NICS background checks is
the lack of--
(A) updates and available State criminal disposition
records; and
(B) automated access to information concerning persons
prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm because of
mental illness, restraining orders, or misdemeanor
convictions for domestic violence.
(6) Automated access to this information can be improved
by--
(A) computerizing information relating to criminal history,
criminal dispositions, mental illness, restraining orders,
and misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence; or
(B) making such information available to NICS in a usable
format.
(7) Helping States to automate these records will reduce
delays for law-abiding gun purchasers.
(8) On March 12, 2002, the senseless shooting, which took
the lives of a priest and a parishioner at the Our Lady of
Peace Church in Lynbrook, New York, brought attention to the
need to improve information-sharing that would enable Federal
and State law enforcement agencies to conduct a complete
background check on a potential firearm purchaser. The man
who committed this double murder had a prior disqualifying
mental health commitment and a restraining order against him,
but passed a Brady background check because NICS did not have
the necessary information to determine that he was ineligible
to purchase a firearm under Federal or State law.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Court order.--The term ``court order'' includes a court
order (as described in section 922(g)(8) of title 18, United
States Code).
(2) Mental health terms.--The terms ``adjudicated as a
mental defective'', ``committed to a mental institution'',
and related terms have the meanings given those terms in
regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18,
United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(3) Misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.--The term
``misdemeanor crime of domestic violence'' has the meaning
given the term in section 921(a)(33) of title 18, United
States Code.
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 striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding'';
(2) by striking ``On request'' and inserting the following:
``(B) Request of attorney general.--On request'';
(3) by striking ``furnish such information'' and inserting
``furnish electronic versions of the information described
under subparagraph (A)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Quarterly submission to attorney general.--If a
department or agency under subparagraph (A) has any record of
any person demonstrating that the person falls within one of
the categories described in subsection (g) or (n) of section
922 of title 18, United States Code, the head of such
department or agency shall, not less frequently than
quarterly, provide the pertinent information contained in
such record to the Attorney General.
``(D) Information updates.--The agency, 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--
``(i) update, correct, modify, or remove the record from
any database that the agency maintains and makes available to
the Attorney General, in accordance with the rules pertaining
to that database; or
``(ii) notify the Attorney General that such basis no
longer applies so that the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System is kept up to date.
``(E) Annual report.--The Attorney General shall submit an
annual report to Congress that describes the compliance of
each department or agency with the provisions of this
paragraph.''.
(b) Provision and Maintenance of NICS Records.--
(1) Department of homeland security.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall make available to the Attorney
General--
(A) records, updated not less than quarterly, which are
relevant to a determination of whether a person is
disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under
subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United
States Code, for use in background checks performed by the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System; and
(B) information regarding all the persons described in
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph who have changed their
status to a category not identified under section 922(g)(5)
of title 18, United States Code, for removal, when
applicable, from the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System.
(2) Department of justice.--The Attorney General shall--
(A) ensure that any information submitted to, or maintained
by, the Attorney General under this section is kept accurate
and confidential, as required by the laws, regulations,
policies, or procedures governing the applicable record
system;
(B) provide for the timely removal and destruction of
obsolete and erroneous names and information from the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System; and
(C) work with States to encourage the development of
computer systems, which would permit electronic notification
to the Attorney General when--
(i) a court order has been issued, lifted, or otherwise
removed by order of the court; or
(ii) a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or
committed to a mental institution.
(c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and
Determinations Related to Mental Health.--
(1) In general.--No department or agency of the Federal
Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of
an adjudication or determination related to the mental health
of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental
institution if--
(A) the adjudication, determination, or commitment,
respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person
has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all
mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;
(B) the person has been found by a court, board,
commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer
from the mental health condition that was the basis of the
adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or
has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any
procedure available under law; or
(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment,
respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of
disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to
himself
[[Page H6340]]
or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to
manage his own affairs.
(2) Treatment of certain adjudications, determinations, and
commitments.--
(A) Program for relief from disabilities.--Each department
or agency of the United States that makes any adjudication or
determination related to the mental health of a person or
imposes any commitment to a mental institution, as described
in subsection (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18,
United States Code, shall establish a program that permits
such a person to apply for relief from the disabilities
imposed by such subsections. Relief and judicial review shall
be available according to the standards prescribed in section
925(c) of title 18, United States Code.
(B) Relief from disabilities.--In the case of an
adjudication or determination related to the mental health of
a person or a commitment of a person to a mental institution,
a record of which may not be provided to the Attorney General
under paragraph (1), including because of the absence of a
finding described in subparagraph (C) of such paragraph, or
from which a person has been granted relief under a program
established under subparagraph (A), the adjudication,
determination, or commitment, respectively, shall be deemed
not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and
(g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.
(d) Information Excluded From NICS Records.--
(1) In general.--No department or agency of the Federal
Government may make available to the Attorney General, for
use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(nor may the Attorney General make available to such system),
the name or any other relevant identifying information of any
person adjudicated or determined to be mentally defective or
any person committed to a mental institution for purposes of
assisting the Attorney General in enforcing subsections
(d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States
Code, unless such adjudication, determination, or commitment,
respectively, included a finding that the person is a danger
to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental
capacity to manage his own affairs.
(2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to names and
other information provided before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of this Act. Any name or information provided
in violation of paragraph (1) before such date shall be
removed from the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System.
SEC. 102. REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN WAIVER.
(a) In General.--Beginning 3 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 (42 U.S.C. 14601) if
the State provides at least 90 percent of the information
described in subsection (c). The length of such a waiver
shall not exceed 2 years.
(b) State Estimates.--
(1) Initial state estimate.--
(A) In general.--To assist the Attorney General in making a
determination under subsection (a) of this section, and under
section 104, concerning the compliance of the States in
providing information to the Attorney General for the purpose
of receiving a waiver under subsection (a) of this section,
or facing a loss of funds under section 104, by a date not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, each State shall provide the Attorney General with a
reasonable estimate, as calculated by a method determined by
the Attorney General, of the number of the records described
in subparagraph (C) applicable to such State that concern
persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a
firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title
18, United States Code.
(B) Failure to provide initial estimate.--A State that
fails to provide an estimate described in subparagraph (A) by
the date required under such subparagraph shall be ineligible
to receive any funds under section 103, until such date as it
provides such estimate to the Attorney General.
(C) Record defined.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a
record is the following:
(i) A record that identifies a person arrested for a crime
that is punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year, and for which a record of final disposition is
available electronically or otherwise.
(ii) A record that identifies a person for whose arrest a
warrant or process has been issued that is valid under the
laws of the State involved, as of the date of the estimate.
(iii) A record that identifies a person who is an unlawful
user of or addicted to a controlled substance (as such terms
``unlawful user'' and ``addicted'' are respectively defined
in regulations implementing section 922(g)(3) of title 18,
United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act) and whose record is not protected from
disclosure to the Attorney General under any provision of
State or Federal law.
(iv) A record that identifies a person who has been
adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental
institution (as determined in regulations implementing
section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act) and whose
record is not protected from disclosure to the Attorney
General under any provision of State or Federal law.
(v) A record that is electronically available and that
identifies a person who, as of the date of such estimate, is
subject to a court order described in section 922(g)(8) of
title 18, United States Code.
(vi) A record that is electronically available and that
identifies a person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence, as defined in section 921(a)(33)
of title 18, United States Code.
(2) Scope.--The Attorney General, in determining the
compliance of a State under this section or section 104 of
this Act for the purpose of granting a waiver or imposing a
loss of Federal funds, shall assess the total percentage of
records provided by the State concerning any event occurring
within the prior 30 years, which would disqualify a person
from possessing a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of
section 922 of title 18, United States Code.
(3) Clarification.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), States
shall endeavor to provide the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System with all records concerning persons
who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm
under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18,
United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the
disqualifying event.
(c) Eligibility of State Records for Submission to the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System.--
(1) Requirements for eligibility.--
(A) In general.--From information collected by a State, the
State shall make electronically available to the Attorney
General records relevant to a determination of whether a
person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm
under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18,
United States Code, or applicable State law.
(B) NICS updates.--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,
as soon as practicable--
(i) update, correct, modify, or remove the record from any
database that the Federal or State government maintains and
makes available to the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System, consistent with the rules pertaining to that
database; or
(ii) notify the Attorney General that such basis no longer
applies so that the record system in which the record is
maintained is kept up to date.
(C) Certification.--To remain eligible for a waiver under
subsection (a), a State shall certify to the Attorney
General, not less than once during each 2-year period, that
at least 90 percent of all information described in
subparagraph (A) has been made electronically available to
the Attorney General in accordance with subparagraph (A).
(D) Inclusion of all records.--For purposes of this
paragraph, a State shall identify and include all of the
records described under subparagraph (A) without regard to
the age of the record.
(2) Application to persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes
of domestic violence.--The State shall make available to the
Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, records relevant to a determination
of whether a person has been convicted in any court of a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. With respect to
records relating to such crimes, the State shall provide
information specifically describing the offense and the
specific section or subsection of the offense for which the
defendant has been convicted and the relationship of the
defendant to the victim in each case.
(3) Application to persons who have been adjudicated as a
mental defective or committed to a mental institution.--The
State shall make available to the Attorney General, for use
by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the
name and other relevant identifying information of persons
adjudicated as mentally defective or those committed to
mental institutions to assist the Attorney General in
enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code.
(d) Privacy Protections.--For any information provided to
the Attorney General for use by the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, relating to persons prohibited from
possessing or receiving a firearm under section 922(g)(4) of
title 18, United States Code, 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.
The Attorney General shall make every effort to meet with any
mental health group seeking to express its views concerning
these regulations and protocols and shall seek to develop
regulations as expeditiously as practicable.
(e) 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 making that
information electronically available to the Attorney General
pursuant to the requirements of subsection (c).
SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE TO STATES.
(a) Authorization.--
(1) In general.--From amounts made available to carry out
this section and subject to section 102(b)(1)(B), the
Attorney
[[Page H6341]]
General shall make grants to States and Indian tribal
governments, in a manner consistent with the National
Criminal History Improvement Program, which shall be used by
the States and Indian tribal governments, in conjunction with
units of local government and State and local courts, to
establish or upgrade information and identification
technologies for firearms eligibility determinations.
(2) Grants to indian tribes.--Up to 5 percent of the grant
funding available under this section may be reserved for
Indian tribal governments, including tribal judicial systems.
(b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Grants awarded to States or
Indian tribes under this section may only be used to--
(1) create electronic systems, which provide accurate and
up-to-date information which is directly related to checks
under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(referred to in this section as ``NICS''), including court
disposition and corrections records;
(2) assist States in establishing or enhancing their own
capacities to perform NICS background checks;
(3) supply accurate and timely information to the Attorney
General concerning final dispositions of criminal records to
databases accessed by NICS;
(4) supply accurate and timely information to the Attorney
General concerning the identity of persons who are prohibited
from obtaining a firearm under section 922(g)(4) of title 18,
United States Code, to be used by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation solely to conduct NICS background checks;
(5) supply accurate and timely court orders and records of
misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence for inclusion in
Federal and State law enforcement databases used to conduct
NICS background checks; and
(6) collect and analyze data needed to demonstrate levels
of State compliance with this Act.
(c) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this
section, a State shall certify, to the satisfaction of the
Attorney General, that the State has implemented a relief
from disabilities program in accordance with section 105.
(d) 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 subsection shall be
liable to the Attorney General for the full amount of the
grant received under this section.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
(f) User Fee.--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.
SEC. 104. PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.
(a) Attorney General Report.--
(1) In general.--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 the
States in automating the databases containing information
described under sections 102 and 103, and in providing that
information pursuant to the requirements of sections 102 and
103.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, such funds
as may be necessary to carry out paragraph (1).
(b) Penalties.--
(1) Discretionary reduction.--During the 2-year period
beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Attorney General may withhold not more than 3 percent of
the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under
section 506 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3756) if the State provides less than 60
percent of the information required to be provided under
sections 102 and 103.
(2) Mandatory reduction.--After the expiration of the
period referred to in paragraph (1), the Attorney General
shall withhold 5 percent of the amount that would otherwise
be allocated to a State under section 506 of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3756),
if the State provides less than 90 percent of the information
required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.
(3) Waiver by attorney general.--The Attorney General may
waive the applicability of paragraph (2) to a State if the
State provides substantial evidence, as determined by the
Attorney General, that the State is making a reasonable
effort to comply with the requirements of sections 102 and
103.
(c) Reallocation.--Any funds that are not allocated to a
State because of the failure of the State to comply with the
requirements of this title shall be reallocated to States
that meet such requirements.
SEC. 105. RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES PROGRAM REQUIRED AS
CONDITION FOR PARTICIPATION IN GRANT PROGRAMS.
(a) Program Described.--A relief from disabilities program
is implemented by a State in accordance with this section if
the program--
(1) permits a person who, pursuant to State law, has been
adjudicated as described in subsection (g)(4) of section 922
of title 18, United States Code, or has been committed to a
mental institution, to apply to the State for relief from the
disabilities imposed by subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of such
section by reason of the adjudication or commitment;
(2) provides that a State court, board, commission, or
other lawful authority shall grant the relief, pursuant to
State law and in accordance with the principles of due
process, if the circumstances regarding the disabilities
referred to in paragraph (1), and the person's record and
reputation, are such that the person will not be likely to
act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the
granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public
interest; and
(3) permits a person whose application for the relief is
denied to file a petition with the State court of appropriate
jurisdiction for a de novo judicial review of the denial.
(b) Authority To Provide Relief From Certain Disabilities
With Respect to Firearms.--If, under a State relief from
disabilities program implemented in accordance with this
section, an application for relief referred to in subsection
(a)(1) of this section is granted with respect to an
adjudication or a commitment to a mental institution, the
adjudication or commitment, as the case may be, is deemed not
to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and
(g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.
TITLE J--FOCUSING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF RELEVANT
RECORDS
SEC. 201. CONTINUING EVALUATIONS.
(a) Evaluation Required.--The Director of the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (referred to in this section as the
``Director'') shall study and evaluate the operations of the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Such study
and evaluation shall include compilations and analyses of the
operations and record systems of the agencies and
organizations necessary to support such System.
(b) Report on Grants.--Not later than January 31 of each
year, the Director shall submit to Congress a report
containing the estimates submitted by the States under
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 information relevant to determining whether a
person is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm
by Federal or State law, 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.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of
the fiscal years 2008 through 2010 to complete the studies,
evaluations, and reports required under this section.
TITLE K--GRANTS TO STATE COURT SYSTEMS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT IN
AUTOMATION AND TRANSMITTAL OF DISPOSITION RECORDS
SEC. 301. DISPOSITION RECORDS AUTOMATION AND TRANSMITTAL
IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.
(a) Grants Authorized.--From amounts made available to
carry out this section, the Attorney General shall make
grants to each State, consistent with State plans for the
integration, automation, and accessibility of criminal
history records, for use by the State court system to improve
the automation and transmittal of criminal history
dispositions, records relevant to determining whether a
person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence, court orders, and mental health adjudications or
commitments, to Federal and State record repositories in
accordance with sections 102 and 103 and the National
Criminal History Improvement Program.
(b) Grants to Indian Tribes.--Up to 5 percent of the grant
funding available under this section may be reserved for
Indian tribal governments for use by Indian tribal judicial
systems.
(c) Use of Funds.--Amounts granted under this section shall
be used by the State court system only--
(1) to carry out, as necessary, assessments of the
capabilities of the courts of the State for the automation
and transmission of arrest and conviction records, court
orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments to
Federal and State record repositories; and
(2) to implement policies, systems, and procedures for the
automation and transmission of arrest and conviction records,
court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments
to Federal and State record repositories.
(d) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall certify, to the satisfaction of
the Attorney General, that the State has implemented a relief
from disabilities program in accordance with section 105.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this
section $125,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008
through 2010.
TITLE L--GAO AUDIT
SEC. 401. GAO AUDIT.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct an audit of the expenditure of all funds
appropriated for criminal records improvement pursuant to
section 106(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
(Public Law 103-159) to
[[Page H6342]]
determine if the funds were expended for the purposes
authorized by the Act and how those funds were expended for
those purposes or were otherwise expended.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a
report to Congress describing the findings of the audit
conducted pursuant to subsection (a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The legislation before us today makes important changes to the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System designed to help
States identify and prevent convicted felons and other dangerous
individuals from owning firearms.
As it currently stands, millions of criminal records are not
accessible by the instant check system. Millions of additional records
fall through the cracks as a result of backlogs and other problems.
The measure before us now will help cure these problems by providing
the resources and incentives needed to modernize the system and ensure
that the records are up to date.
Instant check improvements legislation has passed through the
Judiciary Committee and this House each of the last two Congresses,
only to die in the other body, and was on our agenda for the 110th
Congress as well.
The need to move legislation was recently highlighted by the tragic
Virginia Tech shootings. At the end of that fateful day in April, the
alleged gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, had taken a total of 32 lives, wounded
an additional 26 individuals. In addition, countless numbers of family
members and loved ones of these students and teachers lives were
forever changed.
By improving and enhancing the instant check system, the idea is that
we will be able to prevent future tragedies where we know the
individual should not own a gun.
In order to move the legislation to the floor, it was necessary to
make some accommodations to incorporate the concerns of gun owners. The
dean of the Congress, among other things, led this effort. Among the
things that were changed is section 105 of the bill, which requires all
States to adopt a procedure allowing those individuals who have been
determined to suffer from a mental illness with an opportunity to
purchase or possess a firearm at some point later in life. That's a
pretty serious matter.
Section 101 of the bill automatically restores the gun rights of
military personnel who have been previously diagnosed with a mental
illness, provided they are no longer undergoing any treatment or
monitoring.
I have a concern, as you may be able to tell, that these changes to
current law may inadvertently permit certain individuals who should not
own guns the opportunity to purchase them. As a result, I will be
closely monitoring these sections to ascertain if they do, indeed,
create an unnecessary loophole.
If they do, I will be the first one back on this floor asking the
Congress to remedy the situation.
I thank Carolyn McCarthy of New York; the dean of the Congress, John
Dingell of Michigan, for their extraordinary work in this matter. I
know that they are busy on their own committees, and I appreciate them
helping the Committee on the Judiciary figure out how to do this.
The time to provide their input on this matter, which falls squarely
within the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction, is appreciated.
It is truly tragic that violent felons, and even madmen, are able to
evade the legal system and acquire guns which do us harm.
Anything which helps update the instant check system is a step
forward in our fight against needless and senseless gun violence. I
hope that that's what this measure does, and I urge my colleagues'
support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Act
of 2007. Just 2 months ago, Cho Seung-Hui, a 23-year-old student,
killed 32 people and injured 20 others in a horrendous shooting at the
Virginia Tech campus. Our Nation was shocked by the senselessness and
brutality of this attack.
In addition to our sadness over the identity of the innocent lives
lost, we were angry to learn that Cho Seung-Hui should not have
obtained the two guns he obtained to commit this act because he had a
history of mental illness.
Unfortunately, Virginia State law did not provide for transmittal of
records of mental illness to the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System database, which would have disqualified him from
purchasing firearms. Ambiguities in current Federal law also
contributed to the system's failure to stop him from obtaining weapons.
Today we take the first step in making sure that this tragedy is not
repeated.
I commend Congresswoman McCarthy and Congressman Dingell and the
other cosponsors for their commitment to addressing this issue in a way
that protects every American's constitutional right to bear arms.
The NICS Improvement Act will ensure that the NICS background check
system really is instantaneous and accurate. The act will require
Federal agencies to provide relevant criminal mental health and
military records for using NICS, create financial incentives for States
to provide relevant records for using NICS, improve the accuracy of
NICS by requiring Federal agencies and participating States to provide
relevant records, require removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise
irrelevant records, prohibit Federal fees from NICS checks and to
require an audit by the Government Accountability Office of funds
already spent for criminal history improvements, since hundreds of
millions of dollars intended for NICS were spent on non-NICS programs.
To strike a fair balance on the issue of mental adjudications, the
bill clarifies existing law to include involuntary commitments to a
mental institution, prevents use of Federal adjudications based on
medical diagnoses without a finding of dangerousness or mental
incapacity, requires all Federal agencies imposing mental health
adjudications or commitments to provide a process for ``relief from
disabilities'' and requires States receiving funding to have a relief
from disabilities program for mental adjudications and commitments.
The tragedy of April 16 can never be erased, but this bill is a step
forward in protecting our country from violence by persons who have no
right to possess a firearm.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of it as well.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to recognize the
gentlelady from New York, who has probably worked harder on gun
regulations and sanity and the licensing of guns than anyone in the
House, Mrs. McCarthy. I yield her as much time as she may consume.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank you, Mr. Conyers, for yielding. I
want to thank you for your leadership on these issues, and I appreciate
the time.
I would like to thank my good friend, Congressman Dingell, for all
the hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. Without his help, we
would not be debating this bill today.
I also would like to thank Mr. Boucher, the original cosponsor and I
would also like to say think you to Mr. Lamar Smith for working with
us.
Mr. Speaker, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System,
or NICS, is deeply flawed. Millions of criminals' records are not
accessible by NICS, and millions of others are missing critical data,
such as arrest dispositions, due to data backlogs.
The primary cause of delay in NICS background checks is the lack of
updates due to funding and technology
[[Page H6343]]
issues in the States. Many States have not automated the records
concerning mental illness, restraining orders or misdemeanor
convictions for domestic violence. Simply put, the NICS system must be
updated on both the State and the Federal level.
On March 12, 2002, a senseless shooting took the lives of a priest
and a parishioner, Mrs. Tosner, at the Our Lady of Peace Church in
Lynbrook, New York. That is part of my district.
This shooting brought attention to the need to improve information
sharing, and it would allow and enable Federal and State enforcement
agencies to conduct a complete background check on a potential firearm
purchaser. The man who committed this double murder had a prior
disqualifying mental health commitment and a restraining order against
him, but passed a Brady background check because NICS did not have the
necessary information to determine that he was ineligible to purchase a
firearm under Federal or State law.
This same scenario happens every day. The shooter in the Virginia
Tech massacre was prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
Unfortunately, flaws in the NICS system allowed his records to slip
through the cracks. He was able to purchase two handguns and use them
to brutally murder 32 individuals.
Today, Congress will stand up for the victims and pass commonsense
legislation. According to a Third Way report, over 91 percent of those
adjudicated for mental illness cannot be stopped by a background check
due to flaws in the system. But this issue allows other barred
individuals to purchase firearms. Twenty-five percent of felony
convictions do not make it into the NICS system. That is why I
introduced the NICS Improvement Act with Mr. Dingell.
My bill will require all States to provide the NICS system with the
relevant records needed to conduct effective background checks. It's
the State's responsibility to ensure that this information is current
and accurate. They must update the records to ensure that violent
criminals do not have the right to own firearms.
However, I recognize many State budgets are already overburdened.
This legislation would provide grants to States to update their records
into the NICS system. States would get the funds they need to make sure
records relevant to the NICS are up to date.
While the NICS system does have major flaws, it is responsible for
preventing thousands of barred individuals from purchasing firearms.
Approximately 916,000 individuals have been prohibited from purchasing
a firearm for failing a background check between November 30, 1998,
when the NICS system began operating on December 31 of 2004.
During this same period, nearly 49 million Brady background checks
were processed through the NICS system. By improving upon the system,
we can stop criminals from falling between the cracks. Today we are one
step closer to bringing the records of millions of barred individuals
into the NICS system. No system will be perfect, but that does not mean
we should not make improvements to make it better. This is good policy
that will save lives and should be passed by the House.
My legislation imposes no new restrictions on gun owners and does not
infringe on the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
I also would like to thank Bob Dobek of my staff and Josh Tzuker of
Mr. Dingell's staff for the tireless hours they put in to have this
bill brought to the floor. This policy crosses party lines, and I urge
my colleagues to support H.R. 2640.
{time} 1045
I think the most important thing that we must all remember, we have
an opportunity to save lives. That is why I came to Congress. This has
been a long, long journey for me, but it's working with people that,
even though I disagree with at times on bringing this together, to make
sure that more citizens are safer today than they were yesterday.
This is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support that.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I just want to observe that the Dean
of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has arrived on
the House floor. And I just want to say, again, how much I enjoyed our
working relationship in the development of this bill and again,
appreciate all his contributions to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 3
minutes.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding. I also thank those who've worked so hard on this, the
gentleman from Michigan, the head of the Judiciary Committee, for his
great work. Obviously, the extraordinary work of Carolyn McCarthy. We
know her personal story and how touching it is; and Mr. Dingell for his
work on this legislation.
I do rise in strong support of H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007. As I've indicated, many people have worked hard
on this legislation, and for that we owe them a great deal of thanks.
H.R. 2640 would enforce existing laws to help States automate and
share disqualifying records like felony criminal convictions, mental
disability and domestic violence incidents with the FBI's National
Instant Criminal Background Check System database. By increasing the
quantity and quality of data available for the background checks of
potential gun buyers, we will strengthen a system that has proven
vulnerable.
Funding has been provided through the National Criminal History
Improvement Program to help States update, automate and improve their
records. However, we were reminded of the gaps in the current Federal
background check system in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy. A
lack of reporting of those who are mentally adjudicated allowed the
shooter, who should have been barred under Federal regulations from
purchasing a firearm because of his history of mental illness, to
purchase two handguns. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 is
critical to strengthen public safety and prevent gun violence.
Consideration of this legislation is long overdue. As an advocate of
strengthening the NICS database for many years, I am pleased to lend my
support to H.R. 2640. A background check is only as good as the records
included in the database, and all relevant records relating to persons
disqualified from acquiring a firearm under Federal law must be
included in the NICS. It is my hope that the funding provided in bill
will help States to act quickly and to improve their reporting.
This legislation represents a true compromise, a public safety
measure that will prevent gun violence and protect the second amendment
rights of law abiding citizens.
I think it's very important to note that we have two diverse groups
coming together, the NRA and the Brady Group, coming together to help
work out this legislation, and both had some benefits from it.
Hopefully, perhaps a lesson we can all learn here on the floor.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital measure, and
I hope that we can support it and prevent future tragedies in our
country.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, nobody in the House knows more about guns
than the Dean of the Congress, the 110th Congress, the gentleman from
Michigan, chairman of a major committee, John Dingell. I yield him as
much time as he may consume, not to exceed 2 minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. I want to thank, Mr. Speaker, my dear friend, the
chairman of the committee, for yielding this time to me, and express my
great affection and respect for Mr. Conyers.
I also want to thank my dear friend, Mr. Smith, for the kind words
that he made about me, and I want to express my affection and respect
for him.
I want to say that this is a good piece of legislation. It has taken
a while, but I'm happy to have worked with many of our colleagues,
including the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, who has been a
fine leader on this matter.
Improving the National Instant Check System is a matter of important
national business, and I would urge my colleagues to take a look at the
rather curious alliance which brings this matter forward. Not only is
the NRA, but the gun control folks are in support of
[[Page H6344]]
it. Members on both sides of the aisle, both here and in the Senate,
are strongly supporting it.
The bill will require the National Instant Check System to work. It
will provide incentives to the States and penalties for those who do
not cooperate in terms of making the system work.
This system has the capability of seeing to it that criminals are
denied firearms while, at the same time, assuring that we protect the
rights of law abiding citizens.
The bill makes the system better for everyone, and assures that there
will be better law enforcement and better protection of the rights of
all citizens, both under the second amendment and personal security.
The bill also addresses the problems of mishandling of this matter by
the Veterans Administration, by making corrections which will make it
possible for veterans who have not a disability of mental character or
otherwise, to own firearms within the ordinary structure of the law.
It is a good piece of legislation. I want to commend my distinguished
friend, Congresswoman McCarthy from New York for her leadership and the
outstanding work which she has done.
I will tell my colleagues that this is an important matter. I'm
delighted to see that we're able to come together, Democrats and
Republicans, friends of firearms and hunters and sportsmen, and also
those who are concerned about public safety, and who desire to see to
it that we have proper protection of persons against criminal misuse of
firearms.
We have given this body a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. Speaker, we've heard many concerns from gun owners, especially my
fellow veterans, who are concerned that a person who seeks treatment
for a mental problem might be reported to NICS as a ``mental
defective.'' I want to lay those concerns to rest right now.
First of all, federal law, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits gun
ownership by people who are ``adjudicated'' as mentally defective.
``Adjudication'' implies a decision by a court or similar body--not
just a doctor's notes on a patient's charts.
Even the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives make that clear. They define an ``adjudication'' as a
decision by a ``court, board, commission or other lawful authority.''
They have never treated doctors as a ``lawful authority'' for this
purpose; clearly what they had in mind were legally empowered bodies
such as judges, or the county mental health boards that are in place in
some states to make decisions at hearings with respect to mental
illness.
Second, we in no way intend that this bill should override federal or
state medical privacy laws or the basic role of a doctor. The
confidentiality between a doctor and patient is sacred and we do not
intend to breach it here. We make that clear in section 102 of this
bill, where we require the Attorney General to work with the medical
and mental health community to develop privacy regulations.
Finally, this is a particular concern for the Veterans'
Administration, which examines thousands of veterans every year. Even
if we wanted them to, it would be an unreasonable demand on that hard-
working agency to expect them to comb every patient's file for any
possible finding that the person might be dangerous. I want to be clear
that that is not our intent.
It is important that we understand these points because no person
should ever be deterred from seeking mental health treatment out of a
concern that he might lose his Second Amendment rights due to some
record of voluntary treatment being provided for the instant check
system.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lungren), a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee.
(Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we've heard from
the perspective of those who have, unfortunately, suffered tremendous
loss in gun violence. We've heard from those who are champions of the
second amendment. We've heard from the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
I would like to bring the perspective of someone who was required to
enforce the laws concerning guns in the State of California as Attorney
General. Background checks in the State of California go through the
California Department of Justice. We have, probably before the Federal
law was passed, certain requirements or restrictions from those who
ought not to have weapons that I think there is absolutely general
agreement on.
Under current law, you cannot do that if you have illegally entered
the country, renounced your citizenship, been committed to a mental
institution, or been legally declared mentally defective and a danger
to others, if you have received a dishonorable discharge from the
military, or illegally used drugs or are addicted to illegal drugs.
I think virtually every American can agree that that makes sense. We
agreed that that makes sense in California a long time ago.
But the background check is only as good as the information in the
system. And while States such as mine can do a very good job with
respect to their own records, a huge loophole exists if someone who has
been declared mentally deficient in another State moves into your State
and you don't have those records. If someone who has a disqualifying
felony from another State comes into your State, you don't have those
records. And so this allows more accurate information to assist all the
States in doing the job that their people have agreed ought to be done.
There's very little dispute on this.
For many years, the National Rifle Association has said they
supported accurate background checks, so long as there was an ability
for people to challenge them if, in fact, they're improperly in those
records. And that is in current legislation, strengthened in this
legislation.
Some of the States have had difficulty with respect to their funding.
This assists in that regard.
It seems to me, this is a responsible way of responding to a serious
problem. It is one which is not driven by the extremes. It is not
driven by emotion. It is driven by conscious effort to try and find a
reasonable response to a continuing problem.
I support this wholeheartedly. I congratulate those on both sides who
have done such a good job of working to make sure that this bill came
to the floor, and that it was not in some way sidetracked by extraneous
arguments.
And so I congratulate the authors. I congratulate the members of the
committee leadership, and I urge unanimous support of this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Rick Boucher, a principal actor on this legislation, and
yield him as much time as he may consume.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend the gentleman
from Michigan for yielding this time to me.
I rise in support of the legislation, which I'm pleased to be
cosponsoring with the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the
gentleman from Michigan Mr. Dingell. And I want to thank both of my
colleagues for their careful and constructive work that has brought
this measure to the floor today.
The bill before the House is a well tailored response to the tragedy
that occurred earlier this year in the Congressional District which I
represent, in which is located Virginia Tech University.
It also meets a nationwide need for better reporting of mental health
records to the National Instant Criminal background check system,
against which prospective gun purchasers are checked to determine their
eligibility to purchase firearms.
Under existing Federal law, which was also in effect at the time of
the Virginia Tech tragedy, persons who have been adjudicated to be a
risk to others or to themselves because of a mental condition are
prohibited from purchasing firearms. The perpetrator of the Virginia
Tech tragedy had been adjudicated by a State court in Montgomery
County, Virginia, to be a risk to himself and committed for outpatient
mental evaluation.
Accordingly, under Federal law that was in effect at the time, he
should have been barred from purchasing the firearms that he used.
However, at the time the purchases were made, Virginia did not submit
to the national background check system mental health records of
persons who were committed for outpatient as opposed to inpatient
mental health evaluation. Therefore, the disqualifying adjudication
that the perpetrator was a risk to
[[Page H6345]]
himself was not submitted to the background check system, and he was
able to purchase firearms.
Ironically, at the time, our State of Virginia had the best record
among all the States in submitting mental health records to the
national background check system. And so clearly, there is a large
nationwide need for improvement in the submission of these records,
both in Virginia, but elsewhere across the country.
Since the tragedy, Virginia's mental health submissions have been
made much more thorough by an executive order that was signed by
Virginia's governor, Tim Kaine. The bill that we will pass today will
improve the submission of mental health records in other States by
providing grants to the States which undertake projects to make more
thorough record submissions.
The bill also imposes financial penalties on States that elect not to
do so. This is a measured response to a truly terrible situation. It
will improve the accuracy of the national background check system, and
I want to commend Mrs. McCarthy, in particular, for her longstanding
advocacy of these improvements, my colleague on the House Energy and
Committee, John Dingell, for his outstanding work on the legislation,
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who so ably chairs the
House Judiciary Committee, for moving this measure rapidly to the House
floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague
from Texas (Mr. Paul).
Further, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of
my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2640, the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements
Amendments Act, and I urge caution.
In my opinion, H.R. 2640 is a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion
of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected
under the second amendment.
H.R. 2640 also seriously undermines the privacy rights of all
Americans, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, by creating and
expanding massive Federal Government databases, including medical and
other private records of every American.
H.R. 2640 illustrates how placing restrictions on the exercise of one
right, in this case, the right to bear arms, inevitably leads to
expanded restriction on other rights as well. In an effort to make the
Brady background check on gun purchases more efficient, H.R. 2640
pressures States and mandates Federal agencies to dump massive amounts
of information about the private lives of all Americans into a central
Federal Government database.
{time} 1100
Among the information that must be submitted to the database are
medical, psychological, and drug treatment records that have
traditionally been considered protected from disclosure under the
physician/patient relationship, as well as records related to
misdemeanor domestic violence. While supporters of H.R. 2640 say that
there are restrictions on the use of this personal information, such
restrictions did not stop the well-publicized IRS and FBI files privacy
abuses by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Neither have
such restrictions prevented children from being barred from flights
because their names appeared on the massive terrorist watch list. We
should not trick ourselves into believing that we can pick and choose
which part of the Bill of Rights we support.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, who is one of the most active members
on the House Judiciary Committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important as we
come to the floor this morning to remind our colleagues of the horrible
death that this legislation has had over the last two Congresses. Just
think how many lives could have been saved had the wisdom of
Congresswoman McCarthy and certainly her cosponsor Congressman Dingell
and this body prevailed. Maybe the tragedy of Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui
Cho, who was already judged someone who was troubled, could have saved
the lives of 32 who died and 26 who were wounded.
This bill died Congress after Congress. I rise today to support this
legislation because it is an answer partly to the crisis of the massive
numbers of murders and death by guns in this country.
I am reminded of the phrase of those who want to see no regulation,
and that is that ``people kill, guns don't.'' But it is interesting
that they use guns to kill, just like the individual who recently
walked into his pregnant wife's office and shot her dead, a pregnant
woman.
So I support this legislation for making it easier to secure the
instant background checks to get rid of the backlogs and to be able to
stand in the way of a Seung-Hui Cho.
Let me thank Congressman Conyers for his continuing advocacy and the
great work of Congresswoman McCarthy over the years of expressing her
advocacy based upon her experience, and it has been a tribute to her
service in America. Let me thank Mr. Dingell and the ranking member,
Mr. Smith, for their collaboration on moving this legislation forward.
Might I, however, note that I am concerned that there is an allowance
for those who have been denied earlier to be able to purchase a gun
later in life. I raise a concern about that, whether that person is
fully healed and ready to own a gun. And then it also indicates that it
automatically restores the gun rights of a military American who may
have been diagnosed with military illness, suggesting that he or she
may no longer be under a monitoring system or no longer needs care. I
raise these loopholes because those are the kinds of cases that will
pop up on the Nation's headlines. Why did it happen? Because we had a
loophole.
So we have taken some steps, but, frankly, as I look at the numbers
of dead in Chicago, young people who have died, now some 31, 32, at the
hands of guns, yes, gun violence and gangs, but it still is speaking to
the proliferation of guns in America.
I don't have any problem with the second amendment. You can carry a
legal gun for legal purposes all you want. Go through the hoops and go
through the circles so that we can protect America against the illegal
selling of guns that results in 32 dead teenagers as young as 14 years
old in Chicago, Illinois.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a good step
forward. And I thank the leaders for this bill.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure
now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Austin, Texas, the left-
hander (Mr. McCaul).
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill. I also rise as a
former Federal prosecutor who prosecuted, under the Federal firearms
statute, gun cases.
I want to commend Chairman Dingell, Congresswoman McCarthy, and the
National Rifle Association for reaching what I consider to be a good
result on a bill that, in my view, is necessary.
It has been illegal for various individuals to purchase firearms for
many years, illegal aliens, mentally defective individuals, those using
illegal drugs, and people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. But
for too long, in my experience and many of my colleagues whom I worked
with in the Justice Department, the system, the background check system
was not accurate. The information was not fully put into the system. In
my view, if we are going to have a background check system, we ought to
do it right. So let's get the system right.
I think that is what this bill does. It gets the system right. It
provides the Federal funding necessary to get the
[[Page H6346]]
system right. And at the same time, it protects law-abiding citizens,
those who are law abiding who want to purchase firearms. It protects
their second amendment rights, and it keeps guns out of the hands of
the bad guys.
I prosecuted cases under the Exile Program, which was a program
sponsored by the National Rifle Association, and what we found was that
it was bad guys that possessed firearms that caused the crime in this
country. And we found when we locked up the bad guys who possessed
these firearms that the crime rate actually went down.
So with that, I, again, give my support to this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) to close on our side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee for yielding.
I will vote for this. I was a cosponsor of this. And certainly Mrs.
McCarthy deserves credit for bringing it to the floor.
But I do have concerns, as the chairman does, that this needs to be
very tightly regulated because it is quite liable to allow thousands of
people who should not have access to guns to be able to do so by
dropping their mental health treatment. There are 190,000 veterans who,
because of their experience in combat, have had serious mental illness
problems, but it appears that if they drop the treatment that they have
been in, they can become eligible to purchase guns. Again, much of this
is going to be in the regulation and the good judgment of States to
make it work properly.
It is not a gun control measure, as Mrs. McCarthy, stated. It does
nothing about the fact that we have hundreds of millions of guns in
circulation and tens of thousands of people die from those guns, the
vast majority are innocent victims, every year, more so than any
civilized nation. It doesn't address issues with regard to the second
amendment where the Supreme Court has made it clear there is really not
a right for individuals to own guns but rather for States to have well-
regulated militias. These are issues that need to be addressed at some
point by our country.
But this bill, hopefully, will address a very egregious situation
where the person that the court had determined to be mentally deranged
was allowed access to firearms that he never should have gotten. There
are other problems in other States that could have allowed such a thing
to happen. Hopefully, this bill will clean up this record-keeping
system that sufficient resources will be made available.
But, again, Mr. Speaker, this country ought not be allowing people to
be buying assault weapons, 50 caliber sniper rifles and weapons that
clearly are used for military purposes, not for purposes of
recreational hunting.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will pass unanimously and at this point, it
should.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. This is a bipartisan bill. This
goes across ideological lines. It goes across lines of organizations
that in the past may not have worked together.
There were some comments on the floor with which I disagree. This is
not open season on all the medical records of every American citizen.
If you are adjudicated, you will find yourself in this system. And I
think most Americans believe that if someone has been adjudicated with
a mental defect which is a danger to society, they ought not to have a
weapon.
There has been an effort to try to reach a reasonable compromise on
how we deal with a very difficult situation dealing with veterans,
where overreach in the past by the Veterans Administration has caused
trouble with respect to those who ought not to be included in the
system. But it doesn't automatically allow all these folks to come in.
It is not an open door. They have to go through the system. They have
to show that they ought not to be disabled from receiving a gun.
Whenever you talk about the second amendment, it seems to me it ought
to be done with proper deference and proper respect for the
Constitution. At the same time, this is not an unconstitutional
deprivation of any right. The courts have been very clear that people
can be denied the right to guns in these categories. We are not
expanding the categories. As a matter of fact, we are creating in this
legislation mechanisms to make it work better.
I can recall being on the floor in the 1980s when we were dealing
with very tough debates on gun laws, and at that time the National
Rifle Association's position was that they would support an instant
background check system. The technology really wasn't there at that
time. It really wasn't there. We are not totally there yet, but we are
almost there in terms of instantaneous.
This is the kind of background check that we had hoped we could
discuss on the floor back in the 1980s. It was sort of a dream, and
some people thought it was a ruse at that time to stop legislation. Now
it is a reality. It is something that can work, and this legislation
makes it work better.
May I just reiterate: when I was the chief law enforcement officer of
the State of California, we relied on the accuracy of the information
contained in our records at the California Department of Justice.
Similarly, the only way we could make sure that our laws work
effectively and the Federal laws work effectively within our State is
that we have proper information on adjudications from other States. And
it is unfair to the citizens of my State to have people disabled from
using firearms because they have been adjudicated legally with respect
to a mental deficiency and yet others come in from other States, take
up residence in our State, and because we don't have the records, they
are allowed to have such weapons, which we believe to be a danger to
society. So that is what this legislation does.
The other thing is, remember, there is an ability to challenge being
placed on these lists, and that is enhanced in this legislation. There
is, yes, funding that encourages the States to participate. But isn't
that the way we would like it? We want the States to participate. We
want the information to be accurate. We want to have a system that
actually is accurate, informative, and instantaneously accessible by
proper authorities.
So please remember we have not done something which puts Americans'
medical records at risk unless you have committed a disqualifying crime
or unless you have been adjudicated by a court for having a mental
defect which would prove to be a danger to society.
I would ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in addition the NICS Improvement Amendments
Act illustrates how laws creating new infringements on liberty often
also impose large financial burdens on taxpayers. In just its first
three years of operation, the bill authorizes new yearly spending of
$375 million plus additional spending ``as may be necessary.'' This new
spending is not offset by any decrease in other government spending.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2640, the
National Instant Background Check System--NICS--Improvement Act. I am
proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital correction of
NICS.
Established by the Brady bill in 1994, NICS is the main point of
contact for firearms dealers to determine if an individual is
ineligible to purchase a gun. Current law prohibits criminals, drug
addicts, those adjudicated as mentally ill, domestic abusers and others
from being able to purchase fire arms. The NICS Improvement Act will
improve this system by requiring States to update the system with their
own lists of individuals who are no longer qualified to buy guns under
the 1968 Gun Control Act.
The recent tragedy at Virginia Tech has shown that the data used to
conduct background checks clearly needs to be improved. Seung Hui Cho
had been adjudicated mentally ill and should not have been able to
purchase a weapon, but NICS did not have that information on file,
enabling him to pass an instant background check before purchasing his
weapons.
No one who is prohibited by law from buying a gun should be able to
skirt the law thanks to outdated data. The NICS Improvement Act will
require the transmittal of Federal and State records to NICS, as well
as create incentives for the States to keep the information accurate
and up to date.
During my time in the White House, I was proud to be a part of
passing the Brady bill
[[Page H6347]]
and I know my friends Jim and Sarah Brady are as proud as I am that we
are taking action to improve this system to keep guns out of the hands
of dangerous individuals.
Mr. Speaker, nothing can bring back the victims of the tragedy at
Virginia Tech, and my heart goes out to the families of those who were
lost this past April. We need to learn from this tragedy, and I ask my
colleagues to join me in doing just that by passing the NICS
Improvement Act today.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
{time} 1115
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2640.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________