[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 23]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 31993-31994]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              FILING OF FY 2004 OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 25, 2003

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I wish the record to reflect my deep 
disappointment with the Justice Department and Attorney General John 
Ashcroft for supporting language in the FY 2004 omnibus appropriations 
bill reducing the amount of time background record checks for gun sales 
are maintained. As the son of a police officer, I believe this change 
could be detrimental to public safety and ultimately result in people 
dying.
  When the FY 2004 Commerce-Justice-State (CJS) appropriations bill was 
debated in full committee this summer, several amendments dealing with 
firearms and firearms purchases were offered ``en bloc'' and adopted. 
One of the amendments in the package called for the immediate 
destruction of gun sale background check records. I did not support 
this package of amendments since neither the Justice Department nor 
Attorney General Ashcroft, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, 
would--or could--tell me if these provisions would impact the ability 
of law enforcement to stop criminals, or worse, terrorists. As chairman 
of the CJS subcommittee, I repeatedly asked for a formal position from 
the Justice Department about how the proposed amendments would affect 
law enforcement efforts but never got an answer.
  As House and Senate negotiators met to discuss the final version of 
the FY 2004 CJS bill--now folded into the omnibus spending bill--the 
provision calling for the ``immediate'' destruction of the background 
records was dropped. Now, at the eleventh hour of wrapping up the FY 
2004 appropriations process, the Justice Department is actively 
supporting a ``compromise'' that would reduce the time background 
records are held from the current law standard of up to 90 days to 24 
hours. This extreme change comes despite the fact that there is still 
no explanation or detail about

[[Page 31994]]

what impact such a change would have on protecting mothers and fathers, 
daughters and sons, from criminals and terrorists.
  It is irresponsible to tack such a provision into a year-end spending 
bill without knowing and understanding the full impacts. According to 
the FBI, in 2002 more than 3,500 guns were sold and then later had to 
be retrieved because information came in after the sale was allowed to 
proceed which would have prohibited the sale. I repeat: 3,500 guns on 
the street which shouldn't have been there. It is chilling to think 
what would happen if a 24-hour system were in place.
  Moreover, any proposal for such a drastic change should be fully 
aired before the Congress and interested parties. It should be noted 
that the International Association of Chiefs of Police continues to 
stand by its September 2001 letter to the FBI stating that the 90-day 
records retention period should not be shortened.
  Under current law, licensed dealers generally are not to transfer 
firearms to an individual until the search determines that the transfer 
will not violate applicable federal or state law. Persons prohibited by 
federal law from receiving a firearm include convicted felons, 
fugitives, unlawful drug users, and aliens illegally or unlawfully in 
the United States. If the background check is not completed within 
three business days, the dealer is not prohibited from transferring the 
firearm. Current law regarding retention of gun purchase checks says 
that information on sales that have been allowed to proceed can be kept 
for up to 90 days in the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background 
Check System (NICS) audit log, after which the records must be 
destroyed.
  The audit log contains information related to each background check 
requested by a licensed firearms dealer, including the NICS response 
(e.g., proceed or denied) and the history of all activity related to 
the transaction. According to the NICS regulations, information on 
allowed firearms sales is used only for purposes related to ensuring 
the proper operation of the system or conducting audits of the use of 
the system.
  I submit for the Record a Washington Post article from November 18 
with the headline, ``FBI Curbed in Tracking Gun Buyers,'' which reports 
on a ``new FBI background-check system that notifies counterterrorism 
agents when suspects on its terrorist watch list attempt to buy guns, 
but regulations prohibit those officials from obtaining details if the 
transaction occurs.'' The article states that 13 alleged terrorists 
have been allowed to buy guns.
  A follow-up Post article from November 22 reports that the Justice 
Department has ordered the FBI to increase scrutiny of suspected 
terrorists who attempt to buy guns, but gives the FBI only three days 
to run additional checks on prospective gun buyers listed on the 
Violent Gang and Terrorist Organizations File.''
  We are fighting a war on terrorism--and as chairman of the CJS 
subcommittee I have offered unwavering support to the Justice 
Department and the nation's federal law enforcement 4 activities--yet 
terrorist manuals recovered by law enforcement contain guidance on how 
easy it is to buy guns in the United States. Even the Justice 
Department's website contains the al Qaeda training manual which 
includes the following: ``The confrontation that we are calling for 
with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates . . ., 
Platonic ideals . . ., nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the 
dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and 
destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-guns.''
  It continues with ``Second Issue: The importance of establishing a 
tactical plan for the assassination operation that consists of the 
operational factors themselves (members, weapons, hiding places . . .) 
and factors of the operation (time, place). In this example, we shall 
explain in detail the part related to the security plan. The part 
related to operational tactics will be explained in the lesson on 
special operational tactics.''
  That's how the terrorists train and that scenario is one about which 
I have long been concerned. In September 1998 I saw the need to address 
the growing threat of terrorism in the world and authored legislation 
which created the National Commission on Terrorism chaired by 
Ambassador Paul Bremer, That was less than a month after two U.S. 
embassies in East Africa were bombed by terrorists linked to Osama bin 
Laden. I had raised with our colleagues then the concern that Sudan was 
harboring bin Laden. Quite frankly I have been frustrated in my 
attempts to get Congress and administrations past and present to be 
proactive in combating the terrorist threat.
  Now comes this firearms regulation change which I believe could play 
into terrorists' hands. Obtaining weapons is a critical part of their 
plan. It is abundantly clear that we need to change some of our laws, 
but not in ways that make it easier for terrorists to buy weapons in 
the United States.
  We all remember the terror of 9/11. Our nation and the world changed 
forever on that day when 3,000 died, including 30 from my congressional 
district. We all remember the terror that gripped the Washington area a 
year later when snipers killed 14 and wounded six others, including a 
young child. Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to assist law 
enforcement officers in rooting out terrorists, rather than tying their 
hands?

                          ____________________