[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1277-H1280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1865, ALLOW STATES AND VICTIMS TO
FIGHT ONLINE SEX TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2017
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 748 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 748
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. 1865) to amend the Communications Act of 1934
to clarify that section 230 of such Act does not prohibit the
enforcement against providers and users of interactive
computer services of Federal and State criminal and civil law
relating to sexual exploitation of children or sex
trafficking, 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 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. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in 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 committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), my friend, 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 748,
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward
this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1865, the Allow States
and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017. The rule
provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also
provides for a motion to recommit.
In addition to an amendment offered by the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, the rule makes in order amendments offered by Mrs. Mimi
Walters of California and Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from numerous
Members, including Mr. Marino, Ms. Jackson Lee, and the legislation's
sponsor, Mrs. Wagner.
In addition to consideration at the Rules Committee, the legislation
was marked up at the House Judiciary Committee last year.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of any crime more debased than when one
person forces a fellow human being into sexual slavery.
Through many pieces of legislation that the House considered this
year, we have been fighting to rid our communities of sex traffickers
and the anguish they leave in their wake. Today, we have the
opportunity to pass an important piece of legislation that will further
this fight by ensuring that we hold websites that turn a profit by
aiding sex traffickers accountable.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the committee for its hard work on
this legislation, but also, more, importantly, I would like to thank
the legislation's author, Mrs. Wagner, for her tireless efforts in
championing this bill, which extends both compassion and justice to
trafficking victims. As a result of her efforts, the legislation we
consider today will empower law enforcement, State attorneys general,
and, most importantly, victims to fight against the sex trade and its
predators.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation would give Federal, State, and local
prosecutors the tools they need to hold websites and their operators
accountable for supporting the sale of sex trafficking victims.
Specifically, it would create a new Federal statute with increased
penalties for promoting sex trafficking online and would amend section
230 of the Communications Decency Act to permit State authorities to
prosecute operators of trafficking websites for criminal acts.
In consideration of this legislation, we must also reflect on why
this legislation is necessary.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was created to ensure
that websites would not be considered the publishers of, and thereby
held responsible for, the content that actually originated with a third
party. The statute was never intended to shield websites that profit by
creating a marketplace for sexual slavery, like Backpage.com, from
facing the legal consequences of their criminal enterprises.
Nevertheless, some websites have successfully invoked the section 230
immunity provision despite engaging in actions that venture far outside
the scope of those envisioned by the statute. The authors of the
Communications Decency Act did not imagine that wicked men and women
would turn vulnerable young people into sexual commodities and then
say, ``Let's protect those predators.''
Mr. Speaker, no law condones such sexual exploitation, and no law
should be manipulated to condone such abuse. With the addition of Mrs.
Walters' amendment, this legislation strikes the important balance of
preserving section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for law-
abiding websites, while ensuring that bad actors can no longer hide
behind a misused statute.
This legislation will ensure that our society continues to protect
the innocent and punish those who seek to profit from their sexual
enslavement.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1278]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, too often, our laws passed with the best of intentions
fail to keep pace with technology, and that is what we are seeing today
with the Communications Decency Act.
The bill was passed in 1996 as Congress' first attempt to regulate
inappropriate material online. This law prevented hosts and visitors of
a website from being treated as a publisher for legal purposes. It is
what allowed classified websites like eBay to flourish while being
legally protected from third-party content posted on their sites.
But 20 years is an eternity in the digital age, and bad actor
websites have created platforms designed to facilitate illegalities
like child prostitution and sex trafficking, and they use provisions in
this law to shield them from any liability.
One of the most notorious examples is online advertiser Backpage.com.
Since 2011, more than 20 civil action lawsuits have been brought
against this site for willingly facilitating sex trafficking and the
prostitution of minors. However, each time a legal action was brought
against Backpage, Federal law shielded them from liability.
Last year, The Washington Post reported that a contractor for this
site was soliciting and creating sex-related ads, despite Backpage's
repeated insistence that they had no role in the content of their ads.
Backpage used longstanding Federal protections under the Communications
Decency Act to shield itself from all liability.
In the Doe v. Backpage ruling by the first circuit, the judges held
that, even if Backpage had facilitated the crime of sex trafficking,
this law shielded the company from the claims that were filed by the
child victims. The first circuit recently reiterated that when it threw
out yet another lawsuit against Backpage. The courts weren't able to
help these victims, instead, encouraging them to pursue legislative
changes, and that brings us here today.
H.R. 1865 finally creates a legislative solution to hold these bad
actors accountable and allow the victims to seek the damages that they
deserve. It creates a new offense in the Federal code for websites that
facilitate this criminal activity and gives, to prosecutors, the tools
they need to hold the wrongdoers accountable.
The bill is a product of a lot of great work, and I want to thank
Congresswoman Wagner for introducing it. The Rules Committee, last
night, made in order an amendment from Congresswoman Walters that
substantially strengthens the legislation and has Congresswoman
Wagner's full support. Its inclusion attached the text of bipartisan
Senate language to drastically improve its implementation. This is
language that has the support of both the tech industry and the victims
advocacy groups.
Mr. Speaker, it is so nice to see Members of both parties from both
sides of the Capitol come together on this. Through collaboration, we
have crafted a bill that does more than just update a 20-year-old law.
It fulfills our moral responsibility to protect the children that we
represent.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the sponsor of
this legislation and a tireless advocate for this issue.
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I love this opportunity to testify on the rule for H.R.
1865, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act,
or FOSTA. This legislation has been born, sadly, out of necessity, but
has been truly a labor of love for me since I was first elected to
Congress over 5 years ago. The bill is the result of meetings with
trafficking survivors across the country who have been victimized by
the online sex trade and unable to access either justice or relief in
our court systems.
Today's consideration of the bill is an historic achievement, a long-
awaited clarification from this Congress that the businesses that sell
our children online can no longer do so with impunity. It is a clear
statement that there are serious legal consequences for websites that
actively profit from the exploitation of our most vulnerable. It is a
wake-up call to America's judicial system, making clear that section
230 of the Communications Decency Act does not provide immunity to
websites that are actively engaged in modern-day slavery.
{time} 1130
FOSTA is a recommitment to Americans that Congress never intended to
create a system that allows businesses to commit crimes online that
they could not commit offline. It is in many ways just a simple
statement of the obvious: Congress does not believe--and did not ever
believe--that rape was a perquisite of a free and open internet.
This bill is a promise to our State and local law enforcement and
prosecutors. Congress is making it clear that we believe in and support
their missions to protect our communities. Combined with the Walters
amendment, which reinstates victim-centered provisions from my original
bill last April, this legislation is now a guarantee of the fundamental
rights of the most vulnerable members of our society. It is a message
to the children and victims who have been robbed of their basic
dignities that Congress hears them and is responding to the injustices
that they all have faced.
It has not been an easy journey to get to this point, to find middle
ground with the tech industry and the victims' advocates to incorporate
the concerns of prosecutors and the law enforcement community to move
this bill through committee and to get both FOSTA and the SESTA Walters
amendment to the floor today. So I am very grateful for the many, many
people who joined my crusade to restore justice to the brave children,
women, and men across our country who have been sold online.
I am grateful to Chairman Goodlatte and his team for going the extra
mile in helping us include a strong, new crime that will enable
prosecutors to better target online trafficking and prostitution. I am
grateful for the Energy and Commerce Committee and House leadership and
their willingness to prioritize this issue.
I must give a big thank-you to Majority Leader McCarthy, our Whip
Scalise, and Speaker Ryan for leading the way in doing the right thing
for America's children.
I am grateful for Senators Portman and Blumenthal and Senators Cornyn
and McCaskill for carrying SESTA on their shoulders and advocating for
a solution that allows victims to access the civil remedies that they
deserve. I am grateful to each and every one of our 176 bipartisan
cosponsors, many of whom personally stopped on the House floor to hear
and express their concerns about victims of online sex trafficking. I
especially want to mention Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and
Congresswoman Joyce Beatty who fought the good fight on the other side
of the aisle for what is truly a landmark, for a bipartisan piece of
legislation that is going to save lives.
I am also so thankful for my dedicated staff who have poured their
hearts, their minds, and their lives into this fight in more ways than
the public will ever know.
FOSTA, combined with the Walters amendment, which is SESTA, will
provide better civil justice for victims, more prosecutions of bad
actor websites, more convictions, and more predators behind bars.
Because of this package, fewer businesses will ever dare to enter the
sex trade and fewer victims will be sold into modern-day sex slavery.
Last, but most importantly, I am in awe of and grateful for the
contributions of the survivors in this fight to turn FOSTA and SESTA
into law. It is heartbreaking to watch survivors struggle to piece
their lives back together alone while our justice system shields the
websites that sold them. That is why I introduced this bill, and that
is why it must become law.
I expect this piece of legislation to sail through the Senate and
make its way to the President's desk so that we can put those bad actor
websites behind bars, deter others from entering this ecosystem, and
make sure that there are rights and justice for our victims.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair and our colleagues because, when we
vote today for FOSTA and the Walters amendment, our survivors will know
[[Page H1279]]
that they are not alone and justice will indeed no longer be out of
reach.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump tweeted over the weekend: ``Dems are no
longer talking DACA.''
Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. Democrats are still urging our
colleagues yet again to act by helping us bring up the Dream Act for a
vote on the House floor.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral
legislation would help hundreds of thousands of young people who are
American in every way except on paper. President Trump set the official
deadline for DACA to expire on March 5, so we can't afford to waste any
more time, and Dreamers should not be forced to live in fear any
longer.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Espaillat), to discuss our proposal.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, ending DACA would be a nightmare for
Dreamers. In fact, it would be a nightmare for businesses and a
nightmare for America's economy.
You would think that that statement may have been said by the
advocates for immigration rights or maybe by some of the faith-based
groups that support immigration. But it wasn't. It was said by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Speaker, and that is so because DACA-eligible
workers contribute $1.4 billion in Federal taxes, $2 billion in Social
Security taxes, and $470 million in Medicare every single year.
So this statement on its face we would think was made by folks who
have traditionally supported immigration rights was made by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the one entity that is really concerned about
economic growth, job creation, and the well-being of our economy.
Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez's report on the impact of DACA on
small businesses found that deporting Dreamers will cost $60 billion
and reduce economic growth by $280 billion, including $460 billion in
economic output over a decade. So this is the dramatic impact that not
resolving DACA and not bringing help to the Dreamers will have on our
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, when we look into the eyes of these Dreamers, we just
can't say no to them. You can't say no to a young person full of
aspirations, full of dreams, and still full of so much hope for our
Nation. Even under these very critical and challenging times for our
Nation and the world, these Dreamers are full of aspirations.
So the question will be: Are we a nation of aspirations or a nation
of deportation?
Nearly 8 in 10 voters support allowing Dreamers to remain permanently
in our country. In red States and blue States, in Republican majority
districts and Democratic districts, over 80 percent of Americans feel
that these young people should stay in our Nation. Even three-quarters
of Trump voters and only 14 percent believe that they should be forced
out. Only 14 percent of our Nation feels that these young people should
be kicked out, thrown out in the cold--only 14 percent. A very small
minority of Americans believe that that should be what we do.
Ninety-one percent of DACA recipients younger than 25 are employed.
They are no burden on our economy. Those who are over 25 years old have
been employed at a rate of 93 percent. Ninety-three percent of DACA
recipients over 25 years old are working residents of our Nation with
an average earning of $36,000.
Dreamers are students, teachers, healthcare workers, devoted members
of our communities, members of our Armed Forces, and first responders.
That is who Dreamers are. They are not a load on our country. As we saw
in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, it was a Dreamer who made food
and volunteered to set up beds for thousands of Americans who were
displaced. Jesus Contreras, a Dreamer and a paramedic, worked as a
first responder for 6 days straight after the hurricane.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous
question so that we can immediately bring the Dream Act to the floor
and stand with our Nation's Dreamers.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 1865, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking
Act, and the rule that brings this bill to the floor. I thank the
gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. I want to also
commend the gentlewoman from Missouri for introducing this very
important legislation.
According to the Department of Justice, more than half of sex
trafficking victims are 17 years old or younger. According to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, there was an
astounding 846 percent increase from 2010 to 2015 in reports of
suspected child sex trafficking. They found this to be ``directly
correlated to the increased use of the internet to sell children for
sex.''
This is something I have been concerned about for a long time. Before
I came to Congress, I was a criminal court judge for 7\1/2\ years
trying felony criminal cases. Far too many of those cases involved
sexual abuse of minors. I was told my first day as a judge that well
over 90 percent of defendants in felony cases came from father-absent
households. Certainly family breakdown has been a major factor--maybe
the major factor--in almost all serious crimes we have had through the
years.
But certainly another problem is that we have addicted our children
to the computers. Now, almost everyone is addicted to computers, iPads,
iPods, and screens of all types. While some technology has been good,
it has also in some ways been very harmful to many in our society.
In an article entitled ``Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?,''
psychologist Jean M. Twenge wrote in the Atlantic magazine: ``If you
were going to give advice for a happy adolescence based on this survey,
it would be straightforward: Put down the phone, turn off the laptop,
and do something--anything--that does not involve a screen.''
She wrote that too much time on the internet has caused teenagers to
be more subject to mental problems of all types, even depression and
suicide. While this advice pertains to teens, I think it really applies
to everyone. Even most adults today would be healthier, both mentally
and physically, if they spent less time staring at screens.
Today, technology has made many things easier, but, unfortunately,
this includes the crime of child sex trafficking. This is very
important legislation, very necessary at this time, and I strongly
encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has
further speakers?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and
I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, many of my colleagues today, as well as I,
discussed the need to protect America's children. This bill is a great
piece of that, and I am very grateful to have it on the floor today.
But there is more that we can do. It must include acting to curb the
Nation's gun violence epidemic.
Every day in America, 91 people are killed by a gun. Since Sandy
Hook, there have been close to 1,000 mass shootings. A mass shooting is
one where three or more people have lost their lives. Imagine that,
thousands of them. Our Nation is still mourning the loss of 17 lives
just last week when a gunman using an AR-15-style rifle opened fire at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. That gun is
a weapon of war and should only be in the hands of the military and
never on the streets of the United States.
[[Page H1280]]
Assault weapons were the weapon of choice not just in the Florida
shooting but also in the mass shootings at the concert in Las Vegas;
the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; and the elementary school in
Sandy Hook, Connecticut.
They were prohibited under the assault weapons ban that Congress let
expire in 2004. I was here when we established that ban, and we saw a
great decrease in gun deaths from that. So they should be prohibited
today and not in the hands of people who simply want to kill the most
people they can in the shortest time.
Why would we allow an insanity like that?
So I was pleased to cosponsor legislation this week to re-implement
the assault weapons ban.
{time} 1145
The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School are inspiring
the entire Nation to push Congress to do our job and to act on gun
violence.
I will tell you that I understand the pain that everybody feels from
all of this, but we can't maintain it. We go from one to the other, as
though nothing had ever happened before.
But we have to also do what the NRA has forbidden us from doing,
which is to have gun research at the Communicable Disease Center. That
certainly should be lifted, as well.
We certainly should expand and strengthen the background check
system. Keeping people on the terrorist watch list and the no-fly list
from being able to purchase firearms and explosives seems to me to be a
no-brainer, but we won't even do that. And, yes, reinstating that
weapons ban again, I think, is critically important.
Perhaps the voices of those injured and grieving children can break
the gun lobby's stranglehold on Congress. I hope so. The majority
should heed their call because we, as Members of Congress, are in a
unique position. Unlike the clergy or grief counselors or elected
officials, we can actually do something to combat this violence. It
certainly is, Mr. Speaker, past time that we do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I am proud to
support H.R. 1865, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex
Trafficking Act of 2017.
This legislation will prevent websites like Backpage from hiding
behind section 230 of the Communications Decency Act while
simultaneously empowering law enforcement, State attorneys general, and
victims to fight against the sex trade and its predators. I look
forward to supporting this rule and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 748 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. 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.
3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment
of status of certain individuals who are long-term United
States residents and who entered the United States as
children 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 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. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3440.
____
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. COLLINS of Georgia. 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.
____________________