In This Section...

	Rep. Conyers [D-MI14]: 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...
	Rep. Smith [R-TX21]: 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...
	Rep. McCarthy [D-NY4]: 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,...
	Rep. Castle [R-DE]: 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...
	Rep. Dingell [D-MI15]: 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. ...
	Rep. Lungren [R-CA3]: 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...
	Rep. Boucher [D-VA9]: 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...
	Rep. Paul [R-TX14]: 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...
	Rep. Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]: 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...
	Rep. McCaul [R-TX10]: 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,...
	Rep. Moran [D-VA8]: 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...
	Rep. Lungren [R-CA3]: 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...
	Rep. Emanuel [D-IL5]: 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...

Record Text

Rep. John Conyers [D-MI14]: 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.

Chair: Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 20 minutes.

Rep. John Conyers [D-MI14]: 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.

Chair: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

Rep. John Conyers [D-MI14]: 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.

Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]: 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.

Rep. John Conyers [D-MI14]: 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.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY4]: 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 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.

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.

Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]: 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.

Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]: 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.

Rep. John Conyers [D-MI14]: 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.)

Rep. John Dingell [D-MI15]: 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 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.

Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]: 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.)

Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]: 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.

Rep. John Conyers [D-MI14]: 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.

Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA9]: 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 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.

Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]: 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).

Chair: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX14]: 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.

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.

Rep. John Conyers [D-MI14]: 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.)

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]: 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.

Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Austin, Texas, the left-hander (Mr. McCaul).

Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX10]: 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 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.

Rep. John Conyers [D-MI14]: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) to close on our side.

Chair: The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 2 minutes.

Rep. James Moran [D-VA8]: 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.

Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]: 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.

Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX14]: 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.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D-IL5]: 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 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.

Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chair: 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.