F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I will make the gentlewoman an offer she cannot refuse. I am happy to accept the amendment if the gentlewoman will yield back the balance of her time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment bans possession and transfer of firearms by a convicted misdemeanor sex offender against a minor, and I am happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is also a good amendment. I would just point out that it has been carefully drafted to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court decisions approving of such laws in Kansas v. Hendrick 1997, and Kansas v. Crane in 2002. I am happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the allocation made under section 302(a) of the Committee on the Judiciary and thus is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to accept this amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes technical changes to section 503 of the bill relating to access to Federal crime information databases by child welfare agencies. The amendment requires fingerprint-based checks when conducting background checks for a limited purpose, to verify that a prospective adoptive or foster parent does not have a criminal record. Before we allow foster or adoptive parents to take children into their homes, we must ensure that these applicants do not have prior convictions, let alone prior sex offense convictions. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the bill which makes a number of technical changes and substantive improvements to title I of the bill dealing with the sex offender registration and notification requirements and related issues. Let me briefly summarize some of the most important provisions. First, the amendment includes a requirement that the Bureau of Prisons provide adequate treatment programs for sex offenders in all six of the regions and that they have adequate access to treatment in both residential and nonresidential programs. Second, the amendment authorizes grants to States for prosecution of cases solved by DNA evidence. With the overwhelming passage of the Justice for All Act last Congress, this body recognized that DNA is a valuable tool for solving crimes. The amendment incorporates the proposal by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) which will further assist States in hiring more prosecutors and investigators for cases solved by DNA evidence. Third, the amendment includes proposals contained in H.R. 3687, offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), and specifically authorizes technical assistance grants to improve the quality of criminal investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases. Fourth, the amendment expands on the pilot program for electronic monitoring programs for sex offenders. As technology develops, we need to use tracking technologies to monitor sex offenders' locations and movements so that the public can be protected and law enforcement can intervene before another tragic attack against a child occurs. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this sounds like a good amendment, and I would be happy to accept it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. I believe the Chair has not called for further amendments to title V, and the proposed amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is to title VI. I do not think title V has been closed out yet.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add my words of support for the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). I think it makes a very important addition to this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept this amendment. I would point out that this is nearly identical to H.R. 3088, which passed the House 380 to 19 in October of 2000.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the bill says that if the driver of the car is operating as a volunteer without compensation and acting in good faith, the provisions of the bill apply.