Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, there is little controversy surrounding this rule or the underlying bipartisan legislation which will help us meet the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens, children who have spent their lives in the foster care system. I hope all of my colleagues can see the wisdom of investing some Federal dollars in the programs that will prevent more young people from falling through the cracks once they turn 18 and leave foster care. Let us give them a fighting chance at some success and happiness in life. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the Foster Care Independence Act. 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, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me reiterate that the criteria does nothing to undermine laws that allow for the confiscation of property in the case of a convicted criminal. Instead, the bill focuses on the potential abuse under civil forfeiture laws when a property owner may not be accused of any crime or wrongdoing. The reforms in the bill protect the rights of innocent citizens to basic due process. The bill has the support of numerous organizations who span the ideological spectrum, but if my colleagues do not share the views of this broad coalition, they are free to offer amendments under this fair rule. Every Member of the House should support this rule, which provides for a full and fair debate on civil asset forfeiture reform in the interest of restoring fairness to our system of justice. I urge a yes vote on the 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, 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. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 216 is a modified, open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1658, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. The Committee on the Judiciary reported the bill by a bipartisan vote of 27-to-3, which demonstrates the broad support this legislation has garnered across the ideological spectrum. The list of organizations that have endorsed H.R. 1658 ranges from the Eagle Forum, Americans for Tax Reform, and the NRA, to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Bar Association, and the ACLU. Despite this broad support, there are some who feel that this legislation may go too far, and the rule accommodates these concerns by providing ample opportunity to debate and amend the bill. Under the rule, 1 hour of general debate will be equally divided among the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and, for the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute modified by the amendment recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, which is now printed in the bill. First, it will be in order to consider an amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report, which may be offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) or his designee. The Hyde amendment clarifies that the bill applies only to civil asset forfeiture, not criminal asset forfeiture. Few dispute that it is proper for the government to seize the yachts, planes and mansions of convicted drug dealers who finance their possessions with illegal drug money. Therefore, the bill does not alter the law with regard to criminal asset forfeiture. What H.R. 1658 seeks to address are the abuses of civil asset forfeiture law, where the government can seize the property of a person who may never be accused of any crime or wrongdoing. The Hyde amendment makes the focus of this bill unmistakably clear. After consideration of the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the rule allows the House to debate and vote on any amendment, as long as it has been preprinted in the Congressional Record and complies with the Rules of the House. To ensure the orderly and timely consideration of H.R. 1658, the Chair is given the option of postponing votes and reducing voting time to 5 minutes on postponed questions, as long as the first vote in the series is a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides the minority with the option of offering a motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, American citizens hold dear the protections they are afforded under our Constitution. Sometimes, we take these rights for granted, but we are quick to identify violations of the principles that serve as a foundation of our system of justice and government. Our current civil asset forfeiture laws, at their core, deny basic due process, and the American people have reason to be both offended and concerned by the abuse of individual rights which happens sometimes under these laws. Today, the government may seize the assets of any individual if there is probable cause to believe that these assets have been part of some illegal activity. Strange as it may sound, the legal tenet behind this process is that it is the property that is being accused, not the person. That means that even if there is no related criminal charge or extra conviction against the individual, the government may confiscate his or her property. And the current law gives little consideration to whether the forfeiture of the property results in a mere inconvenience to the owner, or jeopardizes the owner's business or very livelihood. All that is required of the government is a demonstration of probable cause, an unreasonably low standard of proof, given the fundamental property rights at stake. Then the burden shifts to the property owner, who may have done nothing wrong and may have absolutely no knowledge of any crime to prove that his property is not subject to forfeiture. To reclaim his property, the owner must overcome a number of obstacles that turn the principles of presumed innocence on its head. To contest a seizure of property, the owner must come up with $5,000 or a 10 percent cost bond, whichever is less. This serves little purpose other than to discourage individuals from seeking justice, and may even preclude low-income folks or those who have been made poor by the seizure of their assets altogether. Then, if the owner can come up with the money and afford to hire a lawyer, he has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his property is ``innocent.'' And again, under current law, if the owner succeeds in reclaiming his property, the government owes him nothing for his trouble; no apology, no interest, no compensation, nothing whatsoever. H.R. 1658 would put into check the possibility of government to unintentionally trample over the rights of innocent citizens in its rightful pursuit of the criminal element in our society. Again, this bill does nothing to prevent the confiscation of assets owned by convicted criminals. It applies only to civil asset forfeiture in an effort to restore due process for law-abiding citizens who are not accused of doing any wrongdoing. The bill includes eight reforms to restore fairness to the law. Under H.R. 1658, if a property owner challenges a seizure, the burden would be placed on the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the property is ``guilty'' and is subject to forfeiture. In cases where the confiscation of property imposes substantial hardship on a citizen, judges would have the flexibility to release the property before final disposition of the case. Judges also would be able to appoint counsel for indigent citizens in civil forfeiture proceedings to ensure that the poorest in society are protected from the government's exercise of power. In addition, property owners would no longer have to file a bond, and they could sue if their property is damaged while in the government's possession. The bill also provides for interest payments to a property owner who is successful in winning his money back. Other reforms would increase the time period during which a citizen may challenge civil forfeiture and provide a uniform defense for innocent owners who knew nothing of the illegal use of their property or did all that they could reasonably do to prevent it. Mr. Speaker, these are reasonable reforms that bring the scales of justice closer to balance and to protect the rights of Americans. For those who disagree, the rule provides an opportunity to debate the finer points of the law and amend the legislation, if it is the will of this House. I look forward to today's debate, and I hope my colleagues will give serious consideration to the fundamental issues of fairness that this legislation embodies. I urge the swift passage of the rule so that the House may proceed with the bill's consideration. 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 216 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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 190 is a structured rule that governs the consideration of H.R. 1905, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. This type of rule has become customary for legislative branch spending bills due to the controversy that often surrounds them. Last month, when the Committee on Rules held a hearing on this bill, we heard from very few Members who took issue with the provisions in the bill, but there are some unrelated issues that may disrupt today's debate. Therefore, a structured rule that ensures an orderly yet adequate debate is wholly appropriate and fair. Under the rule, 1 hour of general debate will be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives a limited number of points of order against consideration of the bill to address some minor issues related to the compensation of specific employees which fall under the Congressional Budget Act. The rule also waives points of order against some provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI which prohibits unauthorized or legislative provisions in a general appropriations bill. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the Subcommittee on Legislative for their hard work to bring this legislation to the floor in a timely manner. As a testament to their good work product, only seven amendments were filed with the Committee on Rules. Of the seven, two were very similar. Both would allow Members who do not use their entire budget allowance to return any unused portion to the Treasury. The savings would then be devoted to deficit or debt reduction. This concept, which has earned broad support in the past, encourages Members of Congress to lead by example and be frugal in the use of taxpayers' dollars. The Committee on Rules encouraged the cosponsors of these amendments to combine their efforts and made in order a Camp-Roemer- Upton amendment which is printed in the Committee on Rules report. That amendment will be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided between a proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment. Further, the rule waives points of order against the amendment for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. Four other amendments were filed with the Committee on Rules which addressed juvenile crime and gun laws. Obviously these issues are not even remotely related to funding for the Legislative Branch. Therefore, the amendments which are not germane to the bill or appropriate in the context of this debate were not made in order under the rule, and, as my colleagues are well aware, we will have the opportunity to address Youth Violence issues next week. Under the rule, the minority will have an additional opportunity to make changes to the bill through the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. The Fiscal Year 2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill continues our efforts which began in 1994 to scale back the Federal Government and balance the budget by cutting spending first. As reported by the Committee on Appropriations, the funding in H.R. 1905 is 6.6 percent lower than the total legislative spending provided in fiscal year 1999. The bill cuts some $135 million as well as a total of 98 positions throughout the legislative branch. We have come a long way since the first year of the Republican majority. Since 1994 more than 4,400 positions have been eliminated; that is, 16 percent of the legislative work force, and with enactment of H.R. 1905 the House would save a total of $1.2 billion over 5 years. However, many of my colleagues think that we should go even further than H.R. 1905 to reduce spending on the legislative branch. Therefore, I will seek to amend the rule prior to its adoption by the House to make in order an amendment that will further reduce spending on the legislative branch by $54 million. The amendment will be debatable for 20 minutes, and it will include cuts from the House's salaries and expenses as well as reductions in spending for the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress and the General Accounting Office. This amendment is in line with the Speaker's updated appropriations strategy announced earlier this week which will ensure that we allocate our scarce resources in an equitable manner among our many spending priorities while abiding by the limits agreed to in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It is important to keep in mind that the Legislative Branch Appropriation bill is about more than funding Members' offices and their staffs. H.R. 1905 ensures that the United States Congress runs efficiently as a professional institution, and at the same time the bill supports the Capitol Building as a tourist attraction and national landmark that plays host to thousands of visitors each year. The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill provides funding for the maintenance of the Capitol building and grounds through the Architect of the Capitol; it finances the security provided by the Capitol Police, and it ensures access to government documents through the Government Printing Office. These organizations serve the public as much as they serve the people's elected representatives. This rule will provide for sufficient consideration of the substance of the legislation in a fair and orderly manner, and with the amendment I will offer to the rule the House will have the opportunity to vote to further reduce spending on the Legislative Branch by $54 million. Our efforts today prove that Congress is willing to look in its own backyard and do its part to cut spending to reach our balanced budget goals. If the rest of the federal budget had been reduced at the same rate as the Legislative Branch, we would have an additional one trillion, one hundred billion dollar budget surplus. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule for a reasonable Legislative Branch spending bill which continues our commitment to a smaller, smarter government that works for the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and my amendment to it so that the House can move forward to debate and pass a responsible Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will provide for consideration of another amendment which would cut $54 million in legislative spending. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) or his designee will offer the amendment and it will be debatable for 20 minutes. In addition, the amendment prevents further dilatory tactics during consideration of H.R. 1905 so that we can finish tonight.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), whose amendment was made in order by the Committee on Rules, is absolutely right. Dollars are short, and that is one reason that the amendment to cut the $54 million out of our own account should be approved by this body so that we can make that apply across the board, down the line further when we do not have the dollars for Labor HHS and some of the other very important priorities of this Congress. So I urge us to adopt that amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 190 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act. I appreciate the hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), and the part the Committee on Rules played in this I am very proud of. Mr. Speaker, in 1995 when Republicans took control of Congress, it seemed that budget deficits financed by the Social Security Trust Fund would go on as far as the eye could see. But under Republican leadership, a newfound fiscal discipline contained Congress' penchant for spending and turned things around. Today, we are looking forward to realizing the first Federal budget surplus in decades. This moment in history presents us with a perfect opportunity to set a new standard by which we will define a true budget surplus. This new definition will ensure that no Social Security money is included in that equation. For more than 30 years big spenders in Washington have been raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for unrelated programs and pet projects. Even after the Congress claimed that it had put a wall between Social Security and general spending by taking the trust fund off-budget, the big spenders continued to dip into our seniors' retirement savings. Today, with the passage of this legislation, we will stop the big spenders by locking away 100 percent of our seniors' hard-earned retirement dollars for their Social Security and Medicare benefits. Over 10 years' time this legislation will protect $1.8 trillion, $1.8 trillion, from the greedy grab of those who thrive on immediate spending satisfaction and ignore the long-term consequences. The Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act prohibits the House and Senate from considering any legislation that spends the Social Security surplus, the one exception being legislation that improves the financial health of the Social Security or Medicare programs. This act would provide honesty in Federal budgeting, fiscal discipline and financial security for our Nation's seniors. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and H.R. 1259, in support of a new era in Federal budgeting that honors the social contract among the Federal Government, America's workers, and our Nation's seniors. Let us restore the public's faith in our government as the trustees of our hard-earned dollars by locking them safely away for their golden years.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this fair and balanced rule, which governs consideration of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999. This rule is very generous to the minority. Madam Speaker, out of 11 amendments the House will have the opportunity to debate and vote upon today, seven are offered by Democrats, one is bipartisan, and only three are offered by Republicans. All told, the House will have 6\1/2\ hours to debate their bill, which is very similar to legislation that passed the House last year by an overwhelming margin of 300 to 125. Madam Speaker, bankruptcy law is nothing if not complex, but the goals of bankruptcy reform are fairly simple and straightforward. Today, we are seeking to restore the values of personal responsibility and integrity to an abused bankruptcy system. The unfortunate fact is that bankruptcy is no longer a rare occurrence among many American consumers who today are becoming dangerously comfortable with the concept of credit and debt. Last year, more than 1.4 million bankruptcy cases were filed. That is a 500 percent increase since 1980. And the case load is growing, even as our country enjoys economic prosperity and low unemployment. Madam Speaker, we all understand that sometimes unforeseen circumstances, often out of our control, can lead to the financial ruin of an individual, a family or a business. Our bankruptcy laws are designed to help the truly needy, honest citizen when he finds himself in an impossible situation. We all see a societal good in that. That is one of the things that makes this Nation great. However, when intelligent citizens ignore basic common sense by spending outside of their means, we need to establish a reasonable level of accountability and demand some personal responsibility to protect those who have extended credit to them in good faith. That is not to say that creditors do not have some lessons to make about poor decision-making and high-risk lending; and there are some steps we take to urge responsible behavior among creditors. Madam Speaker, through this legislation we are asking individuals who apply for bankruptcy if at all possible to repay their debts to the extent that they are able. The bill sets up a needs-based mechanism to determine how much debtors can reasonably be expected to pay. This needs-based approach, based on current IRS standards, strengthens existing law to weed out abusers of the system who want all their debts dismissed but actually have the means to pay some of them. These individuals will be directed to a repayment plan so their creditors can collect at least some of what they are owed. This is a fair approach that will not excuse reckless spending but offers needed relief for those who are in a hopeless situation and need a fresh start to get back on their feet. And I am happy to say that the bill puts alimony and child support at the very top of the list. This bill recognizes that a parent's financial responsibility to his or her child takes priority above all other obligations, and I am pleased to report that Ohio's Attorney General supports the child support provisions of the bill, as do many other attorneys general throughout this Nation who are on the front lines, in the trenches, of child support enforcement and collection. Decreasing the number of bankruptcies in America requires more than new standards to guide repayments. We also must address the factors that lead to bad spending decisions in the first place. This act helps to educate consumers by requiring credit card companies to disclose the long-term costs of paying only the minimum balance each month. The bill also directs the Federal Reserve Board to study whether consumers indeed have adequate information about the consequences of borrowing beyond their means. Further, the bill will direct the General Accounting Office to examine whether extending credit to college students is contributing to a large extent to the bankruptcy rate. By combining these consumer protections with requirements that demand personal responsibility, the Bankruptcy Reform Act strikes a balance between the rights of debtors and creditors. At the same time this bill keeps the safety net in place for honest individuals who are in a hole of debt that they cannot climb out of without a helping hand. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and the underlying legislation which will restore some integrity to our bankruptcy laws.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). By way of background, the great majority of commercial properties within the United States are owned by corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies that only own one property. These are known as single-asset real estate entities. The typical single-asset real estate entity has only one major creditor, the mortgage lender that provided the financing for the acquisition of the property. In most cases, the mortgage lender's only remedy in the case of default is to take possession of the property through foreclosure. The recession of the late eighties and early 1990s caused a flood of Chapter 11 filings by single-asset real estate entities. In the typical case, the single-asset entity merely sought to stave off foreclosure and to use the bankruptcy process to force concessions from its mortgage lender. As a result, properties deteriorated and lenders suffered large losses as cases dragged on and on, sometimes for months and years. In the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, Congress recognized that single-asset entities should receive expedited treatment in bankruptcy proceedings in order to protect properties from otherwise deteriorating during these lengthy bankruptcy proceedings. At that time, Congress amended the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code to provide that mortgage lenders may have the stay lifted and proceed with foreclosure, unless the single-asset debtor files a feasible reorganization plan within 90 days, or commences monthly interest payments to the lender. However, these provisions currently apply only to single-asset debtors whose property are valued at $4 million or less. Typically, when the owner of a building is bankrupt and the lender is allowed to foreclose, there is usually a net economic benefit to the property, because it is the goal of the lender to maximize the value of the property. A weak owner is replaced by a strong owner who has resources to make the repairs, attract new tenants, and effect capital improvements. This benefits our communities as well, including the generation of tax revenues. Moreover, by helping to keep the property commercially viable, we help ensure that the workers who maintain the building, from the janitors to the engineers, will remain employed. Clearly, everybody benefits from keeping the property from deteriorating. Significantly, H.R. 833 would eliminate the arbitrary $4 million cap with respect to expedited foreclosures on these entities, so that all commercial properties, regardless of value, can be protected from deterioration during bankruptcy proceedings. However, the Conyers amendment would prohibit expedited foreclosure in any case where five employees of the property could be lost. As such, the Conyers amendment would not only gut the provision in H.R. 833 which lifts the $4 million cap, but it would also, in effect, nullify existing expedited foreclosure provisions in the Bankruptcy Code. The Conyers amendment would recreate the uncertainty that the current law seeks to remedy. Bankruptcy courts could hold endless hearings on the application of this amendment and whether certain employees may or may not lose their jobs. Chapter 11 debtors could continue to game the system, as they have sometimes in the past, by hiring employees before filing, or delaying the bankruptcy action unfairly. Moreover, the very employees that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) seeks to protect would be worse off because new entities would be hampered in their efforts to take over the troubled property and return it to a going concern, and keep them employed. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Conyers amendment, in the very interest of those he purports to protect.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the good doctor, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, for the past few weeks we have all been mourning the loss of the 12 innocent children who were so brutally slain in Littleton, Colorado. Today, we take this time to focus on other innocent children who lose their lives to other inconceivable acts of violence. As many know, the President declared April as Child Abuse Prevention Month, and we bring this bipartisan resolution to the floor to help focus the Nation's attention on this national tragedy. During the time which I stand before my colleagues for the next few minutes, at least one child will be reported abused or neglected in my home State of Ohio. By the time this hour of debate is over, 20 children will have been reported abused or neglected, 480 by day's end, and that is just one State, and those are just the reported cases. These statistics are staggering. But sometimes statistics are too sterile to demonstrate the real tragedy, because child abuse cases are not just statistics. Each case involves an innocent, fragile, living, breathing child who has a name and a face. Each bruise, broken bone, cigarette burn or death not only hurts that child, but also hurts all of us, because it so often means one less bright light for our Nation's future. A sad fact, Mr. Speaker, is that many child abusers are themselves victims of abuse or neglect, which suggests a vicious cycle of criminality. Aside from its relationship to crime and delinquency, child abuse and neglect is also closely linked to drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and welfare dependency. Therefore, in a very real sense child abuse prevention also is crime prevention, drug prevention and welfare dependency prevention. If we only could have paid more attention up front to prevent the abuse of those who years later will fill our jails or sleep on the streets strung out on drugs, or abuse their own spouse and children. We can make a difference if we stop the abuse now. We can reduce these problems in our future. We must recognize that our children are our Nation's most precious resource and redouble our efforts to fight child abuse. This is why we are here today. Throughout this month, a number of us have been wearing blue ribbons, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) referred to, as part of a campaign which is being waged across the Nation during Child Abuse Prevention Month. In fact, I received my blue ribbon from my constituent, Debbie Sendek, Executive Director of the Ohio Committee to Prevent Child Abuse. Debbie Sendek is but one of the thousands of unsung heroes across our Nation who are in our communities on the front lines in the fight to protect our children, and it is all of these unsung heroes that we recognize and commend today through this resolution. However, I am sure that we would all agree that the most important goal of Child Abuse Prevention Month is to protect our children. With 3 million children in the United States reported as victims of child abuse and neglect every year, we have a lot to do. While April is Child Abuse Prevention Month, I believe Congress must rededicate itself to fighting this national tragedy 12 months a year, and we need to make sure that this resolution is only the beginning and not the end of our efforts. Congress must continue seeking ways to help those on the State and local level to fight child abuse. To do this, I have joined with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in introducing the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act, or the CAPE Act. In a nutshell, this bill will provide State and local officials greater flexibility to use existing Federal law enforcement resources for child abuse prevention. Also, the bill would double the earmark from $10 million to $20 million in the crime victims fund for child abuse victims. All of these funds come from forfeited bail bonds, forfeited assets and fines paid to the Federal Government, not from taxpayers' dollars. The bill has the support of the National Child Abuse Coalition, Prevent Child Abuse America, and the Christian Coalition, just to name a few, and I urge all of my colleagues to sign on. Mr. Speaker, abused children do not have a powerful voting block; they do not have high-paid lobbyists in Washington to champion their cause. That is why we must take this initiative and work it together in a bipartisan fashion to continue the fight to protect our Nation's children. Finally, I would like to thank my fellow original cosponsors of this resolution for their support: the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), without whose help we would not be here today; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling); the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson); the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott); and my good friend, the gentlewoman from the great State of Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who has had so much personal experience in this area. To recognize all of those who work tirelessly in the field who see these tragedies up close, we dedicate this month, and set our sights to do what we can as the United States Congress to stem the tide of one of the saddest, most horrifying aspects of this great country, and that is child abuse. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution.