On the whatever web site where this was published and they are all wailing and gnashing their teeth because the Feds aren't spending enough money, they never explain why the Rats would have been forced to vote the pornography clause out of the bill.
That makes two of us because I couldn’t understand the logic - or lack thereof - of the motions, amendments and voting.
Let’s just be happy that more money that we don’t have wasn’t authorized to be spent on programs we don’t need.
I’m no expert but I think this is the way it went and it suggests that our minority could use similar tactics for lots of legislation:
With a bill out of committee and introduced to the floor for a vote any member can propose an amendment, in this case, a motion to recommit to the committee with mandatory instructions to include the “no pay for porn” provision.
If the dims didn’t want for the bill to go back through the committee process they would have had to vote against the motion which of course included the pay for porn provision.
This would have allowed any opponent to point out the dim’s vote against an amendment designed to implement a “no pay for porn” law ... ;-)
Since the bill now goes back to committee it may be it simply dies because no one wants to try again or it may be subjected to significant changes to get out of committee again.
With some big bills there are votes on the rules that limit amendments and so this may not be a tactic that can be used regularly ... anyone else have some input?