[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 24, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4520-H4523]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1973, PROTECTING YOUNG VICTIMS FROM
SEXUAL ABUSE ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1761,
PROTECTING AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION ACT OF 2017; AND PROVIDING FOR
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 26, 2017, THROUGH JUNE 5, 2017
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 352 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 352
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1973) to prevent the sexual abuse of minors
and amateur athletes by requiring the prompt reporting of
sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
115-20. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1761) to amend
title 18, United States Code, to criminalize the knowing
consent of the visual depiction, or live transmission, of a
minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
115-19 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary;
(2) the further amendment printed in part B of the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if
offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall
be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall
be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
a demand for a division of the question; and (3) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. On any legislative day during the period from May
26, 2017, through June 5, 2017--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time,
[[Page H4521]]
within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the
Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the
adjournment.
Sec. 4. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation. This rule provides a structured process for
debate. I want to highlight that this rule makes in order all
amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Chamber today support the goals of
this legislation. We can and we must do more to protect children from
the plague of sexual assault and the prevalence of child pornography
permeating society today.
I am particularly glad to see such bipartisan support for H.R. 1973.
The young athletes that represent the United States on the world's
stage at the Olympics must not be taken advantage of by predatory
coaches and doctors who should be mentoring them. In fact, no child
anywhere should be taken advantage of; but this bill makes some
commonsense changes that strengthen the reporting of abuse and puts in
place policies that prevent future violations, and I am hopeful it will
become law.
It staggers the mind to believe that this assault on those children
had gone on for 20 years, and some 400 children were victimized for it,
and not a single adult anywhere around ever brought attention to it. In
fact, we owe a great newspaper in Indiana for telling us about it, so
be sure to read a good newspaper every day.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of agreement about the goals of the bills
before us today, but that wasn't the case 20 days ago when the majority
rushed through its partisan, slapdash healthcare bill repeal to rip
away healthcare from millions of people. They passed the bill without
holding a single hearing, listening to any experts, or, most
importantly, waiting for a score from the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office.
The Congressional Budget Office tells us what the bill will cost, how
many people it will help, how many people it would hurt, something
that, with healthcare, would have been vitally important.
But while the lack of a score didn't prohibit them from holding a
vote, it did, apparently, prevent the majority from sending the bill
over to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, this process is completely backwards
and a major breakdown of the integrity of the legislative process.
Most schoolchildren know that, when a bill passes the House, you send
it to the Senate. You don't hide it in a drawer for weeks until you
finally get the information from the Congressional Budget Office that
you should have had before you brought the bill to the floor for a
vote.
This is no way to develop a plan that will impact one-sixth of the
Nation's gross domestic product, and the process has finally laid bare
one of the biggest political hoaxes in recent memory: that notion of
repeal and replace. How often did we hear that over the last 7 years?
For the last 7 years, the majority voted more than 60 times to
undermine the Affordable Care Act without having a thing in the world
to replace it with, and now they are pushing the false notion that the
Affordable Care Act is collapsing. The reality is that some States
dealing with limited insurers never implemented the full benefits of
the law or enacted the exchange under the Affordable Care Act, which
would have cut their costs.
Mr. Speaker, one of my proudest moments as a Member of Congress was
chairing the House Rules Committee and bringing the Affordable Care Act
to the House floor. Almost every President since Theodore Roosevelt had
attempted to give healthcare to the American people. Millions of people
are now waking up to the benefits of this healthcare, and our Nation's
uninsured rate is at its lowest level in more than 50 years. Why would
you rip that away?
For the first time in a generation, we are actually slowing the
yearly growth of healthcare costs. A poll released just this last month
found that 61 percent of the public supports keeping and improving the
Affordable Care Act. That is in stark contrast to the 17 percent
approval rating for the repeal bill that was voted on here several
weeks ago.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the majority would stop turning a deaf ear to the
people it represents. The American people have been marching and
calling and writing against this bill in numbers none of us have ever
seen before. A bad process led to a bad product.
Mr. Speaker, none of us believe that the ACA was perfect. I urge the
majority to take the bill out of the drawer and shred it. Let's get
together, strengthen our healthcare system and the Affordable Care Act.
It is exactly what our constituents deserve.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I am grateful to
be here with the gentleman. I want to speak to both of these bills
rather than speaking to a different bill that was considered in this
body.
With regard to H.R. 1761, this bill became necessary because of the
court-imposed misinterpretation of a congressional statute with regard
to the visual depiction, or live transmission, of a victim of
child abuse, or sexually explicit conduct. This is important because it
closes a loophole that otherwise would allow a perpetrator to walk free
because of a lack of specific intent when recording images of the
victim that they are victimizing.
This bill is important because it closes the loophole and gets back
to what the intent of Congress was when they passed legislation
intended to protect children and criminalized the production of images
of child sexual abuse. This bill does all we can at this point to
protect our children from sexual predators.
It is a moral necessity that we close this shameful loophole, created
by a judicial opinion, to provide the appropriate punishment to those
who look to harm minors. It won't protect all of our children, but it
will provide a significant deterrent to protect more of our children,
and that makes this bill important, crucial, and necessary.
With regard to H.R. 1973, Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse
Act of 2017, this broadens the coverage of current laws that require
reporting of child abuse, specifically with regard to those children
who are participating in organizations that are organized for the
purpose of helping--ostensibly helping--young athletes train for
international competition.
When you are a parent of an athlete, just like your child, you trust
these coaches who are mentoring and working and interacting with your
children not just for training these children and preparing them to be
the best athlete they possibly can be, but you also entrust, many
times, your children's keeping to them.
Gone are the days where kids were playing in Little League and saw
their coaches for brief periods of time. In many instances, the
children that will be protected by this bill are those elite young
athletes who spend quite a bit of time actually away from their parents
and in the care and custody of coaches, trainers, and other people
associated with the program.
As a father of athletes, it is important that I be able to trust
that, if someone has been convicted or has had to report that, that
information is available. And due to this particular
[[Page H4522]]
legislation, the government will now be able to pursue cases that it
would not otherwise be able to prosecute.
This legislation specifies that national governing bodies are
authorized to develop training oversight practices, policies, and
procedures to prevent sexual abuse of amateur athletes. And then what
is critical, it requires that it is necessary to assure child abuse is
being reported by those who work with amateur athletes. Those reporting
requirements are essential protective deterrences and provide
assurances to all surrounding that young child and that athlete that
they have the opportunity for safekeeping.
Organizations must be taking action against coaches or other members
when allegations are made against them to assure young athletes are
kept safe. The safety of these young athletes must trump, in many
cases, perhaps, their ability to develop their unique gifts and
talents.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that these bills are brought forward, and
I support them.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Nearly 30 years ago, I held my son, Cody, for the first time. A
couple of years later, I held my daughter, Kaitlin. I knew right then
that these two children were the most important and cherished things in
my life. They deserve the happiest childhood and the brightest future
and the safest world.
I imagine anyone who holds their child for the first time has the
same thought. Until you become a parent, it is hard to describe the
love you have for your children.
{time} 1245
Mr. Speaker, that someone would hurt a child simply perplexes me.
Children are the most vulnerable, the most innocent in our society.
They, most of all, don't deserve the trauma and pain that accompany
abuse. They don't deserve to have their trust in adults or their trust
in the world shattered at such a young age. They don't deserve the
ghosts of suffering that accompany abuse victims for the rest of their
lives.
Mr. Speaker, to commit a crime against children is to engage in the
greatest of evils. It is to violate our moral order in the most
egregious of ways. Our job in Congress is to debate and maintain that
moral order. Thankfully, everyone in this Chamber can agree on the
moral imperative to protect children.
Our job today is to uphold our values through well-crafted
legislation. We are here today to pass laws that uphold our belief in
the sanctity of innocence. We are here today for our children.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1973, the first bill in this rule resolution,
strengthens the laws protecting child athletes. The bill requires
coaches and adults involved with amateur sports organizations overseen
by the U.S. Olympic Committee to report suspected child abuse to local
and Federal authorities.
Unfortunately, reporting isn't always the standard under current law.
Over the past 20 years, around 368 individuals affiliated with USA
Gymnastics faced sexual abuse by adults affiliated with the
organization, according to The Indianapolis Star. Sadly, some of the
victims never saw justice. Their allegations remained unresolved,
sometimes because coaches moved from State to State to avoid
investigation.
H.R. 1973 pulls additional adults into the mandatory reporting
category, ensuring that those adults working with minors under the U.S.
Olympic Committee's jurisdiction must report instances of child abuse
to local and Federal authorities.
It further clarifies the sexual abuse reporting duties of national
governing bodies, or NGBs. These organizations, supervised by the U.S.
Olympic Committee, manage amateur athletic competitions.
We need to promote a culture of reporting sexual assault among youth
athletes. That culture needs to overflow into all parts of our society.
We are not suggesting we toss out due process for the accused. The
legislation at hand only requires the reporting and investigation of
sexual abuse of children. Additionally, H.R. 1973 makes stronger the
civil remedies that victims of sexual abuse may pursue.
Mr. Speaker, the other legislation under this rule, H.R. 1761, goes
after those who create child pornography. Just to utter those words is
unbearable, but our job in Congress is to stop the unbearable.
Under current law and due to the impact of the court ruling in United
States v. Palomino-Coronado, perpetrators of child pornography can
sometimes evade prosecution for child pornography under a loophole.
Under the precedent set in the case, even if perpetrators memorialize
the sexual abuse of a child through images and video, they do not
necessarily possess the intent or purpose to sexually abuse children in
order to take a picture. In other words, they didn't intend to violate
title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 2251, which prohibits child
pornography.
We need to close this loophole. If evildoers are sexually abusing our
children and photographing or filming it, they should be going to
prison for a long time. This loophole was carved out by the judicial
branch. It is time for the legislative branch to step in and tighten
the statutory language to prevent the exploitation of this loophole and
to prevent the exploitation of our children.
The bills under consideration today serve two purposes. First and
foremost, they provide a deterrent to criminals who would consider
harming a child.
We can't preemptively stop everyone who plans to commit a crime
against a child, which is why we must deter them with the threat of
discovery, conviction, and jail time.
These bills very practically make the exploitation of a child harder
to get away with. They commission more well-meaning adults to be on
guard against the occurrence of sexual abuse. They allow victims to
pursue even stronger civil penalties that will, hopefully, deter future
criminals, and they strengthen the law itself to ensure that child
pornographers face prosecution and appropriate punishment for their
heinous crimes.
The second purpose achieved today is to send a message. These bills
signal to all of America that our society is serious about protecting
children and that we are serious about catching child predators.
H.R. 1973 specifically directs coaches and others to report sexual
abuse. But these bills send a broader message: everyone in this Nation
should join the fight against child exploitation.
We have too many examples of well-meaning adults remaining silent in
the face of child abuse. This legislation is meant to push Americans to
do what is right, even if it is not easy.
We are all the guardians of our Nation's youth. We all are
responsible for their childhood. We are all proponents of their future.
These are our children, our pride and joy. We must offer them the same
vigilance and protection we offer our own children. The rule before us
gives this House a chance to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important rule and
the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans want us to work together to
improve upon the successes of the Affordable Care Act. We should be
expanding access to care and implementing the kind of reforms that will
keep American families healthy, not kicking millions of Americans off
their insurance to fulfill a deceptive campaign promise, as the
Republican healthcare repeal bill will do. Expanding paid sick leave to
the 45 percent of American workers who don't have access to it would be
a great start.
Each week, up to 3 million employees go to work sick, infecting their
coworkers and customers and delaying their own recovery. The benefits
of allowing working Americans to earn paid sick leave are undeniable.
It slows the spread of disease, lowers healthcare costs, and increases
productivity.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule that would allow us to also bring up Representative DeLauro's
bill, H.R. 1516, which would allow Americans to have paid sick time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
[[Page H4523]]
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, it is clear after The Indianapolis Star
uncovered the widespread abuse scandal that Congress must act to
implement consistent, stricter laws governing the reporting of abuses
to our Nation's athletes and to all our children. Once again, The
Indianapolis Star has shown us the importance of investigative
journalism and a free press.
Many of these athletes are too young and are not empowered to speak
out against authority figures when they are hurt or abused by them. But
each of us as Members of Congress is in a position to do something
about it, and we must.
Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to listen to the voices of
the American people before hurling our Nation further toward disaster
with this dangerous healthcare bill.
The majority hasn't held any hearings or gotten input from experts,
advocates, or patients. They are ignoring the opposition from groups
like AARP, American Medical Association, March of Dimes, and American
Hospital Association.
The score later today from the Congressional Budget Office won't
change the underlying facts of this bill. It will gut protections for
people with preexisting conditions. It will gut essential health
benefits, kick millions of people off of health insurance, and place a
crushing age tax on those aged 50 to 64 whose premiums will go up. It
will also cut billions from Medicaid to pay for a major tax cut for the
wealthy. That is $880 billion that they want to take away from Medicaid
to give to the rich and corporations. This is so unAmerican, I stumbled
over saying it.
Mr. Speaker, a bad process has led to a bad bill. We should be doing
what the American people want and improving the Affordable Care Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today for the children.
In voting for the bill and the underlying bills, we are sending a
message to the abuser of children: If you harm one of these little
ones, you will be met with the full fury of the American justice
system. You will be discovered and reported by your peers. You will
face the threat of appropriately harsh demands. You will face the full
force of the law if you visually depict child exploitation.
We are sending a message to the bystanders: You have a solemn duty to
protect these children. You have a duty to be their hope and happiness
and their future when you step in and stop abuse. You have a duty to
report the heinous acts committed by monsters.
Lately, we don't have many moments in Washington where both political
parties can come together and reach a consensus, but the legislation we
are considering today provides the perfect opportunity.
These bills should not be controversial. They should draw the support
of both sides, because protecting our children is a moral necessity for
every American. That is, after all, the message these bills send.
I thank Representative Brooks and Representative Johnson for the hard
work they have done on these bills, and I thank Chairman Goodlatte for
shepherding these bills through the Judiciary Committee and spending so
much time in committee working on legislation to protect our children.
Mr. Speaker, I urge members to vote ``yes'' on the resolution, vote
``yes'' on the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 352 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1516) to allow Americans to earn paid sick time so that they
can address their own health needs and the health needs of
their families. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1516.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________