Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleague Congresswoman Lois Capps, to introduce the Millennium Cancer Research Act. This important legislation authorizes a five-year demonstration project designed to increase the flexibility, effectiveness and creativity of our nation's cancer research program. It has been developed in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and my colleagues in the Senate, in an effort to encourage high impact, cutting-edge research that will lead to future progress in the fight against cancer. Mr. Speaker, each year millions of Americans are touched by cancer, as they or someone they know is struck by this terrible disease. We have made enormous strides in the war against this most formidable of opponents, but we must do more to accelerate success. As scientific breakthroughs occur and innovations happen, our nation's cancer laboratories must be able to build upon them and should not be hindered by red tape. This legislation will allow for a restructuring of the National Cancer Institute that will help to rid its scientific laboratories of redundancy and inefficiencies that slow progress in our ongoing battle against cancer. It will command accountability both to peers through mandatory reviews and to Congress through annual reporting requirements. This bill will provide the necessary flexibility to respond quickly to emerging research opportunities and to engage the brightest minds available while maintaining strict congressional oversight. It will allow NCI to streamline existing systems, maximize cost-effectiveness and more easily enter into strategic partnerships and collaborations in pursuit of a cure. In short, it puts in place an administrative structure that reflects the complex way in which research is conducted today. Specifically, this legislation: Directs the NCI Director to establish a program to encourage high- impact, high-risk rapid response research; Provides NCI with authority similar to that given to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to enter into multiparty agreements that recognize intellectual property rights as well as financial and in-kind contributions; Allows NCI to create one simple and cost-effective personnel system to better recruit and manage priority research programs and initiatives; Updates the dollar level for grants that must be reviewed by the National Cancer Advisory Board to $300,000, in order to reflect inflation and the pace of science over the last 15 years; and Requires the NCI Director to report annually to Congress on research initiatives advanced under this legislation and to the NIH Director on the potential benefits of expanding these activities to other Institutes. Mr. Speaker, we are at a critical juncture in the war on cancer. By the year 2010, we face losing one-fourth of our citizens to this disease every year. At a time of such rapid growth and discovery in the world of medicine, we need to be as thoughtful in forming the institute that leads our nation into the battle against cancer as we are in choosing the science that will help us to win. This legislation will propel our nation toward that goal and I encourage support for this bill.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues to will be interested in the following comments made by Mr. Ken Barun, President and CEO of Ronald McDonald House Charities on the ``Light the Night'' walk held on September 21, 2000, that raised funds for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. I submit Mr. Barun's remarks for the Record: You, the ``Light the Night'' walkers--teams and individuals--are the ones truly making a difference tonight. Through your participation in events such as this, the Leukemia & Lymphona Society continues to raise funds and combat cancers that have touched so many of us--our families, our friends--those whom we know or had the pleasure of once knowing. I think it's fate that the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and Ronald McDonald House Charities have come together for this wonderful fundraiser. Both organizations care deeply about children and their families; both provide comfort and care when needed; and both want to see an end to this terrible disease called cancer. To give you a brief background about Ronald McDonald House Charities, our mission is to improve the health and wellness of children around the world. It is a mission that began with the care and compassion of dedicated people who, like McDonald's Corporation founder, Ray Kroc, dared to dream. Ray once dreamed of having a thousand McDonald's restaurants in the U.S. We now have more than 25,000 restaurants in 119 countries. Similarly, the people who started Ronald McDonald House Charities, had the dream of having just one Ronald McDonald House--the one that opened in Philadelphia in 1974. We now have more than 200 Houses around the world in 18 countries. As the network of Ronald McDonald Houses grows, so does our role as a Charity. To date, through our global organization and more than 160 local Chapters in 32 countries, we've awarded more than 225 million dollars in grants. In addition, we receive the donation of time from an army of well over 25,000 volunteers worldwide. Volunteers like you. People who effect positive change. Which brings me back to why we are all here. Leukemia is the number one disease that kills our children. Think about that--the number one disease. However, there is hope: Because of efforts like yours tonight, and the efforts of others like you, there's been enough funding to sustain ongoing research, research that has tripled the leukemia survival rate in the last 39 years. That is an astonishing accomplishment. And you, members and volunteers of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, should be proud to be a part of that. I'd like to thank the McDonald's region in Washington and Baltimore and all its McDonald's franchisees for supporting and participating in tonight's ``Light the Night'' Walk with us. I'd also like to thank the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society for all your terrific work in organizing this event. And finally, to those of you who have come out here tonight, donned your walking shoes and have collected thousands and thousands of dollars, a very special, heartfelt thank you. I feel truly honored to be in your company.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the honorable and distinguished chairman for yielding me time and for his assistance in this measure. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure, the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act, or SANCA. There is nothing more tragic than the thought of a child who has been abused or neglected, and nothing happier than a child finding the warmth and love of a permanent adoptive family. Unfortunately, the period of time between these two points during which a child's case is pending before the courts can be a period of interminable delays, bureaucratic snags, and a less-than-thorough accurate review of the child's case, all of which can have a lasting negative effect on the child. Mr. Speaker, for those children who reach adulthood without permanent placement and transition out of the foster care system, they begin their adult lives with no sense of family, low self-esteem and little direction for the future. Children are being removed from abusive homes only to be abused once again by the system. Healing can only begin for these children when they are in a safe and permanent environment. But all too often these children languish in the foster care system in a state of emotional limbo. According to the National Center for Juvenile Justice, between 1991 and 1997, in my own home district of Franklin County, Ohio, 38 percent of the children who are waiting permanent adoption because parental rights have been severed have been in the system over 4 years. And nationally, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, children who are adopted from foster care leave the system between 3.5 and 5.5 years later. This is simply too long for these children to wait for the love and warmth of a permanent family. This is a good part of a childhood. Congress began to address this situation in 1997 with the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Without a doubt this is one of our crowning achievements of the last session. But while ASFA's accelerated timelines are essential to promoting stability and permanence for abused and neglected children, these timelines, along with grossly insufficient funding, have resulted in continued prolonged stays for abused and neglected children in the foster care system and increased pressure on our Nation's already overburdened abuse and neglect courts. SANCA addresses the shortfalls of the Adoption and Safe Families Act by making Federal funding available to State and local courts to reduce case backlogs and to develop and implement automated case tracking systems for abuse and neglect proceedings. SANCA also provides funding for start-up grants to appoint the Court Appointed Special Advocate for CASA, programs in underserved areas. The foster care system cannot help abused and neglected children without properly functioning State and local courts. The relatively small amount of funding provided by SANCA will have a dramatic impact on the lives of abused and neglected children. SANCA is backed by the American Bar Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, among others. Clearly, this legislation is of vital importance to abused and neglected children who need nothing more than the stability and love that comes with the safe and permanent home. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues' support.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a serious problem facing our society today--the misuse of beverage alcohol on our nation's college and university campuses. This problem negatively impacts students, universities and industry as well as our communities. Therefore, it is essential that these entities work together to solve this national problem. Mr. Speaker I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the creative solutions being pursued by community- based partnerships across America. On October 23rd to 25th in Washington, D.C., a number of colleges and universities, along with the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, will convene a national conference to discuss best practices, create new partnerships and share information on solutions to this complex problem. During this weekend, students, retailers, community leaders, manufacturers, university administrators, law enforcement officials and parents will come together in partnership to discuss solutions to this challenge. I commend these institutions of higher education and the distilled spirits industry for their leadership on this issue. As is the case with many societal problems, solutions are most effective when everyone works together. Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for many of my colleagues in saying we eagerly await the action-oriented plans this conference will produce. I wish all the participants, supporters and planning partners the best as they work together toward a common goal.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, on the evening of September 29, 1899, 13 men gathered in a tailor's shop at 286 East Main Street in Columbus, Ohio. They were all veterans of the U.S. 17th Infantry Regiment who had fought in Cuba during the Spanish-American War. They gathered to remember those killed in action, to assist their surviving brothers, and to care for the families of those who had died. This meeting formed the foundation of an order, which we know today as the Veterans of Foreign Wars. While the total significance of this first meeting was unknown to these 13 veterans, without a question, the VFW's actions have left an indelible mark on the last 100 years of our Nation's proud history. Madam Speaker, tomorrow I will have the distinct privilege and honor to unveil an historic marker at the very site where the VFW was born, exactly 101 years ago in Columbus. As a sponsor of this historic marker, I am proud that we will be commemorating the very spot where this organization first got its start. Undoubtedly, this marker represents the VFW's wonderful tradition of service to our community in central Ohio and to our great Nation.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 594 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 594 is a rule waiving all points of order against a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4365, the Children's Health Act of the year 2000. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4365, the Children's Health Act of 2000, was passed in the House earlier this year on May 9 by a vote of 419 to two. Last week, our colleagues in the other body considered and passed this important legislation with an amendment by unanimous consent. Adoption of this rule and passage of this legislation today is the last step in our work to sending this bill to the President for his signature and thus making this important package a reality. I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their renewed efforts and success on this important legislation and also to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman of the Committee on Commerce and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking member, for their hard work and leadership. H.R. 4365, along with the decisions made by the other body, is a comprehensive package of several important children's health bills. Together it addresses a wide variety of critical issues, including day care safety, maternal and infant health, pediatric public health promotion, pediatric research, along with efforts to fight youth drug abuse and provide mental health services. The legislation includes two important divisions. Division A addresses issues regarding children's health; while Division B focuses on youth drug abuse. Together this package will form the foundation for efforts to address the unique needs of one of our most important constituencies: Our children. The provisions contained in the second part of this legislation, Division D, include a number of provisions previously introduced and considered in the House of Representatives and will allow us to tackle the plague of drug abuse and addiction which are moving through many of our communities. The 1999 National Household Survey on drug abuse reported that some 10.9 percent of our youths, between the ages of 12 and 17, use some form of illicit drug. Just as tragic are the report's findings that alcohol use is also on the rise with our Nation's youth, with some 10.4 million drinkers under the legal age of 21. H.R. 4365 reauthorizes and improves the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMSHA, by giving it greater focus on our youth and increased flexibility and accountability for the States. It will provide the needed funds for community-based programs, helping individuals with substance abuse and mental health disorders. It includes the Drug Addiction Treatment Act, introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), to permit qualified physicians to treat their addicted patients and speed up the drug approval process of narcotic drugs needed for additional treatment. Finally, H.R. 4365 includes important provisions to reduce the proliferation of the drug methamphetamine, and tackle the devastating drug currently on the rise with our youth commonly known as Ecstasy. Mr. Speaker, we all hope that the wealth of our Nation and the amazing technological advances that have been made in medicine will give us the necessary resources to protect our children from harm. We have made tremendous progress, but the sad fact is that there are still so many diseases that affect our children for which there is no cure or even an effective treatment. Division A of the legislation before us will give child victims and their families hope by devoting more Federal resources to diseases such as autism, asthma, juvenile diabetes and arthritis. I am especially pleased that this new version of H.R. 4365 includes specific provisions on childhood cancer. By awarding grants, expanding data collection, encouraging uniform reporting standards and urging the national coordination of activities, this bill will go a long way in the battle against this disease that takes the lives of so many of our Nation's children. This legislation also focuses on a new pediatric research initiative at NIH, and reauthorizes money to train physicians at children's hospitals, in order to help us better understand the way in which diseases attack children and how to give them the most effective and appropriate care. There are critical differences between medical care for adults and medical care for children that must be reflected in the training of physicians and treatments designed for a child's system, which is still developing. The children's hospitals across the Nation need funding to adequately train their physicians, and I am so very pleased that H.R. 4365 extends the authorization of appropriations for graduate medical education programs in children's hospitals through fiscal year 2005. This is an issue of fairness, and full authorization is necessary to provide children's hospitals support that is on par with that received by teaching hospitals that care for adults. This legislation recognizes and focuses on these many important differences. Mr. Speaker, while we may never be able to make a child understand why he or she is sick or is made to suffer, we can invest in the research that will allow our best and brightest scientists to solve the mysteries of childhood disease so that more children can have the carefree youths to which they are entitled. What better way to invest our Nation's resources? Mr. Speaker, this measure is straightforward and noncontroversial and its adoption will allow us to complete the work and the business of the House and pass this comprehensive package. I urge all my colleagues to support both the rule and this very important child health initiative. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just respond. This very well could have been considered under the suspension calendar last night. We would all have been considering this bill at about 11 p.m. if that were the case. Instead, we chose to come back in the light of day and with everyone well rested and alert and consider this important piece of legislation and allow the American public to hear all the goods things that we are promoting and adopting. In closing, let me remind my colleagues that the House has already passed this with a strong bipartisan support vote of 419-2. Our work today will allow us to dedicate important resources and focus Members on the very unique needs in the health and well-being of our children. I urge adoption of this straightforward, noncontroversial rule and passage of the comprehensive legislation. I applaud my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis), and my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), on their hard work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of H. Res. 576, the Childhood Cancer Awareness, Research and Treatment Act, I rise today in strong support of efforts to increase awareness of this disease, one which is stealing the very life from our children. I would also like to thank the lead Democratic sponsor, my distinguished colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), for all the support he and his wife Janet have provided. Sadly, they also know all too well the importance of this fight to raise awareness. I also want to thank my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) for his early leadership on this initiative. A year ago, my daughter Caroline, just 9 years old, succumbed to an ailment we too often view as only an adult disease, that is, cancer. This is, however, a tragically flawed assumption, as the devastation of cancer knows no age limits. Cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in all children, killing more children than any other disease, more than diabetes, cystic fibrosis, asthma, congenital defects and AIDS combined. Cancer strikes 46 children like Caroline every school day, forcing them into a cycle of pain, test tubes, needles, multiple medications and debilitating limitations. The median age at diagnosis is 6, placing the child's entire lifetime at risk. Unfortunately, Caroline was not accurately diagnosed when she first complained of pain in her leg just more than 2 years ago. Her doctors, while well intentioned and caring, lacked the expertise to correctly identify her early symptoms. In fact, she was sent home twice from her pediatrician with a casual observation that she must be suffering from shin splints and ``growing pains.'' Compounding the nightmare, the initial diagnosis of the type of cancer she had was incorrect, causing further delays as specific treatments vary for different forms of cancer. As a result, our little girl did not receive the necessary attention early on in treating her cancer which most likely reduced her chances for survival. My husband and I still spend a part of every day wondering if Caroline's death could have been prevented if she had been able to get treatment sooner. Sadly, we are not alone in this melancholy world of ``what if.'' Caroline's story illustrates an issue we must confront as a Nation, how to ensure the best possible treatment of children and teenagers with cancer. One vitally important step is the recent merger of the four main childhood cancer research cooperatives into one, the Children's Oncology Group, or COG. It will address the dilemma faced by parents like us when one set of doctors recommends a certain type of treatment plan while another group aggressively pushes a different treatment plan. How are terrified parents supposed to sort that one out? This new merger will lead to a single recommended treatment plan for each type of childhood cancer, and it will ensure that 90 percent of children in North America have access to the best standardized care no matter where they live. But we must do more. Childhood cancer has a unique set of characteristics and problems, yet research into childhood cancer is at one of the bottom rungs of the funding ladder. Our goal should be to increase funding to a level commensurate with the public health issues and personal challenges that our children face. Clinical research remains the brightest hope for stemming the tide of childhood cancer. So cutting the bureaucratic red tape that slows funding to support some of the most successful cooperative research of our time, that of childhood cancer research, is a must. And we must ensure that children have early access to cutting-edge cancer-fighting drugs, and pediatricians should be trained to look for even the most subtle signs of cancer. In addition, we must do more to deal with the pain that our children endure as they go through their cancer treatments, especially those in the final days of a losing battle with the disease. As a parent watching my child suffer, I could not comprehend why more relief could not be provided in a hospital compared to what was available in hospice care. The average medical student receives only 4 hours of training in palliative care, or pain relief. Four hours. The cycle of myth and ignorance surrounding the treatment of pain, even in our own medical community, has to change. However, I do not believe that discussions about childhood cancer need to be confined to hospital corridors or public policy debates. During this month of September, people have demonstrated their support for childhood cancer research by wearing a gold ribbon to commemorate Childhood Cancer Month. This gold ribbon is a symbol for hope, for innovation through continued research, for the courage of children in need and for their families. Wearing the gold ribbon demonstrates our willingness to hold this issue, and our precious children, close to our hearts. During Childhood Cancer Month, many of these families, friends, doctors and supporters came to Washington to share their personal experience and to participate in a variety of events designed to raise awareness about the incidence of childhood cancer and the work we have to do to find a cure. This is just the beginning of an annual tradition that will serve to educate Congress and recruit people to our cause. Over 30 witnesses came from across the country to testify on this issue which has touched each of them in a profound and too often devastating way. I hope these firsthand accounts of courage and frustration will spur my colleagues into action. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 576, the Childhood Cancer Awareness, Research and Treatment Act, formalizes this fight to raise awareness and find a cure by stating that Congress should: Support public and private sector efforts to promote awareness about the incidence of cancer among children, the signs and symptoms of cancer in children, and treatment options. Support increased public and private investment in childhood cancer research to improve prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and long-term survival. Support policies that provide incentives to encourage medical trainees and investigators to enter the field of pediatric oncology. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to enter a field and be prepared to watch children suffer and die every day. But we must encourage these brave professionals. They are our hope. Support policies that provide incentives to encourage the development of drugs and biologics designed to treat pediatric cancers. Support policies that encourage participation in clinical trials; and finally, to support medical education curricula designed to improve pain management for cancer patients. In passing this resolution today during Childhood Cancer Month, my hope is to take an important step forward in our fight to help more 9- year-olds with cancer reach age 10 and for all children to celebrate even more birthdays in the years ahead. Once again, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for all his support. I am grateful to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the Committee on Commerce for clearing this resolution so that we may consider it today. Finally, I would like to thank the Members on both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored this resolution. I urge adoption of it.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 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. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 585 is a modified closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5109, the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Act. This legislation is the culmination of work done by the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs over the past year to determine what can be done to improve the VA health care system. We all recognize the great sacrifices made by those who have bravely served their country in the armed services. Providing quality health care to these great Americans and their families is one of the most important ways that we can extend our gratitude. After numerous hearings, meetings and oversight conducted by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, this legislation was developed to address a range of VA health issues. The House will have 1 hour to engage in general debate on the bill which will be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Under the rule, the amendment recommended by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted. All points of order against the bill, as amended, and against its consideration are waived. The rule makes in order one bipartisan amendment which is printed in the Committee on Rules report which shall be considered as read and not subject to amendment. All points of order against this amendment are waived. Finally, the rule provides for the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, we all have heard from our constituents about the problems that riddle the VA health system. I would venture to guess that all of us share a desire to improve this system to ensure that our Nation's veterans get the quality care that they so rightly deserve. Making sure our veterans are treated right starts with treating the personnel in the VA health system right. That is why much of H.R. 5109 focuses on the providers of health care in the VA system. Under this legislation, pay for VA nurses will become more equitable and a guaranteed national comparability pay increase on par with that received by other Federal workers will improve morale among nurses which in turn will enhance recruitment and retention of these valued employees. In addition, these nurses, who often spend more time with individual patients and who are more intimately familiar with their care, will be given a greater role in policy and decision-making at the VA. Dentists will also see their pay rise, as will VA pharmacists under the provisions of this legislation. In addition to ensuring that the personnel in the VA system receive adequate compensation, H.R. 5109 responds to the unique health care needs of veterans by requiring the VA to incorporate a military history into medical examinations. Treating the medical conditions that arise out of military service is at the foundation of the VA system. If such conditions are left undiagnosed and/or untreated, the long-term consequences can be very, very severe. This legislation requires that during a veteran's initial clinical examination, the VA inquire about and document a veteran's military service and any exposures during their service that may contribute to their health status. Along these same lines, H.R. 5109 seeks to build on the knowledge that has grown out of the survey that began in 1984 regarding post- traumatic stress disorder. This legislation calls for a follow-up study to determine, among other things, what the long range course of PTSD is, which veterans are least likely to recover from the disorder, and how it contributes to subsequent health conditions, such as cardiovascular disease. Another concern that many of us have heard about from our veterans back home is that VA health facilities are inconvenient because they are so often so far away. Too often we learn of a sick individual who has to endure the hardship of traveling hours to get to where he or she needs to be, that is, the VA center. More and more, doctors can treat patients on an outpatient basis, but if a veteran is traveling 2 or 3 hours to get to an outpatient clinic, he or she may have to spend the night, particularly if follow-up care is required the next day, as it so often is. The legislation we will vote on today improves the situation for veterans by providing clear authority to the VA to provide overnight accommodations at or near a VA facility. Another provision of this legislation offers greater convenience to veterans by establishing a pilot program that will allow veterans with Medicare or other health coverage to coordinate their benefits and seek care in a community hospital rather than a VA facility that may be hundreds of miles away. The VA would coordinate the care to ensure that the patient does not incur additional out-of-pocket costs, and VA approval would be required to ensure that the VA is still responsible for delivering the specialized care that so many veterans require. Mr. Speaker, these and other improvements to the VA health care system are worthy of bipartisan support. The rule before us was reported by the Committee on Rules by a voice vote. I urge its swift adoption by the House so that we may move forward with this legislation which is so very important to our veterans. I urge a yes vote on the rule and the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this fair rule, which will allow the House to debate a bipartisan bill that will improve the health care for our Nation's veterans. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) for his fine work on this effort. These individuals who have been willing to make great sacrifices to serve their country through their military service deserve not only our respect, but our deepest gratitude. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us would demonstrate to our veterans that we are sincere in our desire to repay them for the sacrifice, in part by ensuring their access to high quality health care through the VA system. The Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Act is a thoughtful bipartisan effort to make some of the changes necessary to improve VA care. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and this very fair rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 585 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my distinguished colleague and the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am wearing this gold ribbon today in support of Childhood Cancer Awareness Month and to honor young children like my own daughter, Caroline, who have lost their lives to this devastating disease and to show my support for those kids who have survived through their courageous, sometimes years long, submission to painful and isolating treatments. Leukemia, chemotherapy, lym- phoma, neuroblastoma, these are terms no small child should have to pronounce. And instead of the normal third- grade spelling words, my Caroline was proud that she could spell Diflucan and Ativan, just two of the many drugs she had to take every single day. As millions of kids return to school this September, we put the spotlight on this deadly disease. Two classrooms full of our children every weekday are diagnosed with cancer. Cancer strikes more children than asthma, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and AIDS combined. And while the incidence is steadily rising, childhood cancer still remains an underrecognized and underserved disease. This can change. This must change. This will change.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 4678, pursuant to House Resolution 566, the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill be modified by the amendment that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has placed at the desk in lieu of the amendment printed in part A of House Report 106-798; and that the amendment she has placed at the desk be considered as read.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to once again tell my colleagues that this is a fair rule that allows the House to debate important legislation to continue the success of welfare reform. The rule should not be controversial, as it accommodates many of our colleagues who had concerns about the legislation by incorporating their ideas into either the part A amendment adopted under this resolution or through consideration of the part B amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). In addition, I would remind my colleagues that the House has already worked its will in a large portion of this bill. H.R. 4678 includes the Fathers Count Act, which the House overwhelmingly passed in November by a bipartisan vote of 328 to 93. Mr. Speaker, this legislation strengthens family by giving more single parents and children the financial assistance they are owed and by encouraging fathers to be responsible parents and play a greater role in their children's lives. Through this legislation we are increasing the odds for families who are struggling every day to make ends meet and we are helping impoverished children have a better chance of success in school and society by encouraging both parents to become involved in their upbringing. I hope that my colleagues will support this attempt to provide more families with the pride of financial self-sufficiency, security, and dignity and vote for the children who need the strength of both parents to help them make better lives for themselves. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); 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. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 566 is a modified closed rule providing for consideration of the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000. The rule provides for one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule also provides that the Committee on Ways and Means substitute, as modified by the amendment printed in Part A of the Committee on Rules report, shall be an original bill for the purpose of further amendment. The amendment in Part A addresses the concerns expressed by several of our Members by giving States the option of paying child support that is currently retained by the State and Federal Government to mothers on welfare. This will give States the option of making payments on the obligations that accrued before 1997 to the families as opposed to the government keeping the money. The amendment also lists several specific activities that fatherhood projects may include to promote and sustain marriage. The rule also provides for consideration of the amendment printed in Part B of the Committee on Rules report if offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes. All points of order against the Scott amendment are waived. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides another chance to amend the bill through one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, since Congress enacted the historic welfare reform in 1996, 6 million families have moved off the welfare rolls and into jobs that provide the satisfaction of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. Today we have the lowest number of families on welfare since 1970. While we celebrate this success, we understand that that transition from welfare to work is not necessarily easy. Many of these families rely on a single parent to hold things together and provide for all of their needs. For those of us who have raised children with the help and support of a spouse, it is hard to fathom the energy, patience, and stamina required to take on such a task alone. Every bit of help makes a difference to these struggling families. The least the government can do is help these parents collect all of the child support that is rightfully theirs. The Child Support Distribution Act would ensure that, when a family is off welfare, all rights to child support, including payments on past due support, would be assigned to that family. This would require States to hold off on collecting any past due child support that it has a right to until the family is completely repaid. In addition, when a family is on welfare, States will have the option of sharing collections with the family. The goal is to facilitate a relationship between the mother who is often the recipient of this support and the father who is often paying it, before the mother leaves welfare and does not have the State intervening in her behalf. Of course the right to child support means little to a family if child support orders are not enforced. That is why this legislation seeks to improve enforcement by requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to provide guidelines for child support enforcement and issue a report on private companies involved in child support collection. Based on this information, Health and Human Services will set up 13 State demonstration programs designed to improve enforcement. In addition, this bill cracks down on deadbeat parents by denying passports to individuals responsible for past due support and expanding the tax refund intercept program so that it can be used to collect past due support. Mr. Speaker, while we seek to assist these families by making sure they get the money they are owed, we should also focus on the circumstances that have led to their dependency on government and the other social challenges that they face. There is no doubt that this is more difficult for single parent families to achieve financial security than for two- parent households. In addition, kids who have only one parent to rely on have a harder time in school, a lower rate of graduation, a greater propensity towards crime, an increased likelihood of becoming a single parent themselves, and a higher chance of ending up on welfare. That is why the Child Support Distribution Act includes a fatherhood grant program that seeks to build stronger families by promoting marriage, encouraging the payment of child support, and boosting fathers' income so that they can do a better job as providers for their children. The bill encourages local efforts to help fathers by requiring that 75 percent of the funding be given to nongovernmental community-based organizations including faith-based institutions. In addition, a national clearinghouse of information about fatherhood programs and a multi-city fatherhood demonstration project would be established. The fact is that we are not sure what the best way is to get fathers back into the picture and engaged in their children's upbringing. But we think some community-based organizations might have some good ideas that would meet the unique needs of the fathers in their own cities and towns. This fatherhood program is designed to try to tap into these communities, try some new things, and then scientifically evaluate the results so that good programs can be duplicated. Mr. Speaker, all said, this legislation takes a number of important steps forward in our Nation's efforts to redefine welfare and make it work for families. I want to thank and congratulate the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who authored this important legislation. I hope all of my colleagues will support the rule and our Nation's neediest families by voting for the Child Support Distribution Act. I urge a yes vote on the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 566 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 559 provides for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Reconciliation Act of 2000. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration, and it provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, we have certainly heard a lot of debate about the marriage penalty over the past week. Actually, the Republican majority has been working to address this inequity in our Tax Code for the past couple of years, and today's vote marks the fifth time that the House will vote to provide marriage penalty relief during the 106th Congress. Let us hope that this oft-repeated debate has resonated at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, because it is time once again to put the ball in the President's court. Today's vote will send a stand-alone marriage tax penalty elimination bill to the President's desk for his signature. We have heard some excuses as to why the President cannot sign this bill. Some argue that this tax relief favors only the rich, but that is just not true. The fact is that this bill helps anyone who is married, regardless of income, and the people who suffer most under the marriage penalty tax are the middle class. That is right, the adverse effects of the marriage penalty are concentrated on families with income between $20,000 and $75,000. I am sure these folks would be surprised to learn that they are considered as rich. So let us get past the tired old ``tax cuts for the rich'' rhetoric. Let us do something novel and focus on the policy of the marriage penalty and debate its merits. The marriage tax penalty is pretty simple to understand. It forces married individuals to pay more in taxes than they would have to pay if they stayed single. So we should ask ourselves, is there any merit to taxing marriage? Is there an acceptable rationale to increasing taxes on individuals based solely on their marital status? Do we want the government to send a message that ``You will pay a steep fee to get married, but you can avoid this financial burden if you just stay single and live with that significant other?'' If the answer to these questions is no, then why the resistance to elimination of this punitive tax? And if we can agree that the policy has no merit, then how can we give relief to only some married people and not to others? Is it possible to be too fair? In my mind, if it is wrong to increase taxes on one couple because they are married, then we should not apply a tax penalty to any couple based on their marital status. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that our only option in the face of this perverse discriminatory tax is to eliminate it entirely. There are other arguments against passing this legislation. Some of my colleagues claim that the Republicans do not have their priorities straight because we are putting tax cuts above all else. But again, these accusations ignore the facts. I am pleased to remind my colleagues, Congress has already, already passed legislation to wall off both the social security and Medicare trust funds, already provided affordable, voluntary prescription drug coverage to seniors through Medicare, and already has paid down the national debt. We have also passed appropriation bills that invest more in education, biomedical research, veterans' health care, among many other priority programs. In fact, while we would never know it from listening to some of the rhetoric, spending on discretionary programs will actually be increased this year. So it is just not true to say that tax cuts are gobbling up resources or stealing funds from needed programs. The problem is that most of my Democratic colleagues just cannot stand the thought of loosening their grip on Americans' money. I do not know how big the surplus has to be for all of us to feel that it is safe to give some of it back to the American people. Let me put what we are doing into context. The Clinton administration has been making great hay in the last week about ``the Republicans' reckless attempts to provide relief from the marriage penalty and death tax.'' Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office announced that next year's surplus will be $268 billion. Of this $268 billion, only 2 percent will be used to correct the marriage penalty and the death tax, only 2 percent, while 83 percent will be devoted to debt reduction under the Republican proposal. Is it really so reckless to give 2 percent of the surplus back to the people who earned it? Mr. Speaker, marriage is a sacred fundamental institution in our society that teaches our children about love, family, commitment, and honor. It should not be used as another cheap excuse to nickel and dime the American people. Today we have an opportunity to set a wrong right and eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, support this rule and the conference report so we can give 25 million American families a little bit of their financial freedom back. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we will miss Shad and Michelle. But, Mr. Speaker, this is a customary rule for the consideration of a conference report, and I hope my colleagues will support it. The conference report on the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act has been crafted in the true spirit of compromise, not just between the House and Senate negotiators, but also in an effort to accommodate the President's views. We have heard the White House's message. They want a smaller tax cut. So we have pared back this legislation. What Republicans hope is that the White House now hears our message and that of the American people who are clamoring for a fair, simpler Tax Code. The inequities and illogical provisions in our Tax Code are too numerous to count. But today we have a chance to provide some fairness by eliminating one of its most egregious provisions. We can do it in a fiscally responsible manner. There is no excuse why at this time of peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses that we cannot give a little bit back to the American people who are doing the work to keep this economy going and feeding the Government's coffers with their own hard- earned cash. We in Washington love to take credit for the booming economy and the budget surplus, but the kudos should go to the American people who are driving the success. It is time to temper the Government's greed, and what better place to start than by supporting America's families. Let us end the marriage tax. I urge a yes vote on the resolution and the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who has worked so hard to champion the cause to bring this legislation to fruition. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)