[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15672-15681]
[From the U.S. 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,

[[Page 15673]]



     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 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

[[Page 15674]]

     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 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

[[Page 15675]]

     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

[[Page 15676]]

     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 
     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.

[[Page 15677]]

  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 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. 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.

[[Page 15678]]

  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 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. 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

[[Page 15679]]

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 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. 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. 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.

[[Page 15680]]

  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 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

[[Page 15681]]

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 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. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support of H.R. 
2640, the McCarthy-Dingell National Instant Criminal Background Check 
Improvement Act. It is high time Congress acted to strengthen the gun 
laws in this country and implement common sense policies to ensure that 
guns are not ending up in the wrong hands.
  H.R. 2640 will strengthen the National Instant Background Check 
System (NICS) by creating incentives for states to submit legal records 
about individuals who are not eligible to purchase guns.
  This bill also permits Federal law enforcement grants to be cut for 
states that do not submit such records to the electronic database and 
requires greater information- sharing among Federal agencies.
  This legislation will make it easier for law enforcement authorities 
to coordinate and work together to make sure guns do not end up in the 
hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and non-citizens.
  This bill will also create a more uniform system of background checks 
to help prevent the type of tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech, 
where a documented mentally disturbed young man was able to buy guns 
and create devastation and destruction on a college campus.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill is an important first step in 
strengthening our Nation's gun laws and I support this legislation 
enthusiastically and without reservation.
  I am also offering my own legislation, H.R. 2666, Blair's Bill, which 
will create a national gun registry and licensing procedure so we can 
finally begin to get a grip on the deadly issue of gun violence that 
has devastated so many of our communities across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this and other 
sensible gun control laws.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate for the 
House to approve this bill in the form that it comes before us today.
  As I said at the time, I do not think additional federal legislation 
dealing with firearms can prevent tragedies such as the killings at 
Virginia Tech. However, the changes this bill would make would improve 
the current federal law and are worth making.
  The bill will create incentives for states to submit to the National 
Instant Background Check System (NICS) legal records about individuals 
who are ineligible to obtain firearms. This closes a loophole in the 
current background check system. In addition, and importantly, it will 
require states and federal agencies to allow individuals to appeal 
their status if they are currently considered ineligible to acquire 
firearms. And it will bar agencies from sharing mental health records 
that are irrelevant to the background check system.
  The bill has been significantly revised since its introduction. As it 
comes before the House, it would prevent use of federal 
``adjudications'' based on medical diagnoses without a finding of 
dangerousness or mental incapacity. To understand what this means, 
consider the fact that the NICS currently accepts Veterans' 
Administration decisions that a veteran or other patient is an 
``adjudicated mentally defective'' where there was no ``adjudication'' 
at all--only a medical diagnosis agreed to as a condition of receiving 
disability benefits. Veterans have a financial incentive to agree to 
this determination, and may have done so without expecting to lose 
their legal rights to acquire firearms.
  The bill as revised would eliminate purely medical records from NICS 
and allow a person to be prohibited on medical grounds from acquiring a 
firearm only as a result of a specific finding that he or she is a 
danger to himself or herself or to other people, or lacks the capacity 
to manage his or her own affairs. In addition, the revised bill would 
require all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or 
commitments (such as the VA) to provide a process for ``relief from 
disabilities.'' That would be a de novo judicial review when an agency 
denies relief--that is, the court would look at the application on its 
merits, rather than deferring to the agency's earlier decision.
  Also, under the revised bill a person who is inappropriately 
committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency would have an 
opportunity to correct the error--either through the agency, or in 
court. And the bill would prevent reporting of mental adjudications or 
commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments 
have been removed.
  The substitute would also make clear that if a federal adjudication 
or commitment has expired or been removed, it would no longer bar a 
person from possessing or receiving firearms under the Gun Control Act. 
This actually restores the person's rights, as well as deleting the 
record from NICS. And States that receive federal funding would also be 
required to have a program to provide similar relief from erroneous 
mental adjudications and commitments. And the relief granted by such a 
state program would remove the federal prohibition on the person 
possessing or receiving a firearm under the Gun Control Act.
  I think these changes are appropriate and an improvement over current 
law.
  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.

                          ____________________