[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8348-8352]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 8349]]

     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, 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.

[[Page 8350]]

  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 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.

[[Page 8351]]

  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?
  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

[[Page 8352]]

     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.

                          ____________________