Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Ohio for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Boehner substitute. Mr. Chairman, since his markup, the gentleman from Ohio has continued to work to improve upon his proposals. Specifically, he deserves credit as the first one to add strong cancer clinical trials language to his proposal. This language gives cancer patients access to all trials approved by the FDA or sponsored by federally approved entities, as well as those sanctioned by the Department of Defense, NIH, and Veterans Affairs. We simply must increase participation in clinical trials if our researchers are going to make strides in their search for new treatments and a cure for this horrid disease. This language has the support of some 40 cancer organizations, and it is not in the Dingell- Norwood bill. In addition to cancer patients, the Boehner substitute offers all patients basic protections. The amendment bans gag rules, ensures emergency room coverage, provides direct access to OB-GYNs and pediatricians, and offers continuity of care. These are the common sense reforms that we all agree on. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Boehner amendment.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very fair rule. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) on all his hard work to bring people together to find some middle ground on this emotionally charged issue. It was certainly no small feat, and his success will give the House the opportunity to vote on consensus legislation that offers all the patient protections that we agree on without the excessive litigation and Federal regulation that the Norwood-Dingell bill promises. I hope all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will give the Goss substitute their very serious consideration. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I find it very curious that my Democratic colleagues are opposed to this rule, which I believe is eminently fair. I think all fair-minded people will agree with me when I explain why. The Democrat leadership and some of our Republican colleagues asked the Republican leadership to bring managed care reform legislation to the House floor for debate. Today, with the passage of this rule, we will be able to. Mind you, we are not bringing just any old managed care bill to the floor. We are taking up the bipartisan bill with so much Democrat support, the Norwood-Dingell bill. This is the base bill under this rule. Then my Democrat colleagues ask us not to allow any poison pill amendments. We complied by making in order only full substitutes under this rule. But that was not enough. Then they asked us not to add any Republican amendments to the Norwood-Dingell bill that would provide greater affordability and access. We did not. Now my Democratic friends are upset that we did not save them from themselves, because apparently they just realized that their bill will increase premiums. I am glad that the Democrats have come to terms with reality. One would think that they would be pleased that this rule allows us to debate another bill that addresses affordability and access, but apparently they are still not satisfied. Now they use the politically charged rhetoric that the Norwood-Dingell bill will spend social security. It is a bit of a stretch, but I guess, in a political pinch, it will do. So now, at the last minute, the Republican leadership is supposed to fix their policy flaws by adding a last-minute $7 billion tax increase to the Norwood-Dingell bill? I realize we have been accommodating, but that is just a little bit too much for us to swallow. Frankly, their protests are beginning to ring a bill hollow. If my colleagues are truly concerned about health care policy, I suggest they support this fair rule. This rule will allow the House to debate various proposals to provide patient protections, as well as a bill that will help uninsured Americans and those that will eventually find themselves without insurance when the premium increases in the Norwood-Dingell bill price them out of the market. Mr. Speaker, this process is eminently fair. It gives all viewpoints a chance to be heard on the important health care issues facing our Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question and the rule.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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 the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 321 is an open rule providing for the consideration of the Child Abuse Protection and Enforcement Act, also known as the CAPE Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. And as the sponsor of this legislation, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, especially the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, for all of their work on the bill and their efforts to move this legislation forward. The rule waives all points of order against consideration and against certain provisions of the bill. The bill will be open for amendment at any point, and under this open rule any Member who seeks to improve upon the legislation may offer any germane amendment. However, priority recognition will be given to those Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Additionally, the rule offers an opportunity to change the bill through the customary motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally, to ensure timely and orderly consideration of the bill, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes as long as the vote follows a 15-minute vote. As the sponsor of this legislation, I am pleased that the House will have the opportunity to fully debate this important issue surrounding the tragedy of child abuse under a fair and open process. It is hard for most of us to fathom a rage so blinding that it could compel an adult to attack a helpless child, much less their own child. It may shock my colleagues to realize that every 3 minutes a child will be reported abused or neglected. And, sadly, that is just in my own State of Ohio. Nationwide, the crisis of child abuse is even more staggering. An estimated one million violent crimes involving child victims are reported to police annually. And on top of that, another 1.1 million cases of child abuse are substantiated by child protection agencies annually. This is a national crisis, and as leaders, we have the responsibility to take a stand and fight back against the cruelty that robs children of their innocence and produces troubled and violent adults. As a former prosecutor and judge, I have seen firsthand the manifestation of child abuse in the criminal behavior of adults. Breaking this cycle of violence in our society begins with child abuse prevention. But the most compelling case for child abuse prevention is not found in these troubled adults but in the eyes of children who live in constant fear. Children should be focused on school, little league, piano lessons, not reeling from punches or cowering from the adults who should be embracing them. The CAPE Act focuses on two critically important fronts: child abuse prevention and improved treatment of the victims of child abuse. The bill has a host of bipartisan cosponsors and has been endorsed by a wide variety of groups from every ideological background, including the National Child Abuse Coalition, Prevent Child Abuse America, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the Family Research Council. The CAPE Act would make three changes to current law: first, the bill expands a Department of Justice grant program that helps States provide equipment and personnel training for closed-circuit television and video taping of children's testimony in child abuse cases. Under the CAPE Act, these grants could be used to provide child protective workers and child welfare workers access to criminal conviction information and orders of protection based on claims of domestic or child abuse. Or the grants could be used to improve law enforcement access to custody orders, visitation orders, protective orders, or guardianship orders. Second, the CAPE Act expands the use of the Byrne law enforcement grants to improve the enforcement of child abuse and neglect laws, and, more importantly, child abuse prevention. Finally, the bill allows additional dollars from the Crime Victims Fund to be used for child abuse assistance programs, increasing the earmark from $10 million to $20 million. This increase reflects a growth in contributions to the fund since the set-aside for victims of child abuse was first established. Mr. Speaker, all of these changes will funnel more resources to the State and local level, where the individuals who are on the front lines in the fight against child abuse are best equipped to help our children. And I know my colleagues will be pleased to know that the CAPE Act draws on existing resources instead of creating a new Federal program that requires more taxpayer financing. The CAPE Act has bipartisan support and was favorably reported by the Committee on the Judiciary without controversy or amendment. So while we do not expect numerous amendments to be offered today, this issue is simply far too important to deny a full and fair debate. That is why the Committee on Rules has reported this open rule, which I hope my colleagues will support. I look forward to today's debate, which I hope will not only be a prelude to the passage of legislation that gives hope to millions of children, but also an effort to raise awareness about the horrors of child abuse and the steps we can take to end it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 321 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in participating in today's debate and strengthening the voice of millions of children who live each day with terror and in pain. Raising awareness is the first step toward ending the living nightmare of child abuse. The next step is providing the resources to eradicate this scourge on our society. Today, happily, we can do both. I urge my colleagues to vote for this fair and open rule and the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement 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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 307 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this morning, in coordination with today's House consideration of the CAPE Act, I and a number of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle toured the D.C.'s Children Advocacy Center, otherwise known as Safe Shores. For those who are not familiar with the children's advocacy centers like Safe Shores, they provide child abuse victims with a child- friendly environment where they can seek initial treatment and examination under one roof in one visit. This is far superior to the more traditional method which subjected children to a cold bureaucratic maze of probing and prodding that often have the unintended consequences of re-victimizing them. Mr. Chairman, like most children's advocacy centers, Safe Shores has a toy room which is where the cruel reality of child abuse really comes to life. I think we would all agree that toys should represent happy times in children's lives, but at Safe Shores they are merely temporary distractions from the nightmare inflicted upon them by adults who should be loving them. It is for those children at Safe Shores and all abused children around our Nation that I introduced the CAPE act and why we must pass it today. The CAPE Act focuses on two critically important aspects of child abuse, prevention and improved treatment of child abuse victims. Moreover, the bill recognizes that it is those on the front lines in our communities who are in the best position to make a difference for our children, the child protection workers, the police, the judges, the court-appointed special advocates, the doctors and nurses, the foster families, and the volunteers, just to name a few. In a nutshell, this bill takes three important steps to help children, and they have already been described by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), so I will not go into the technical aspects; but suffice it to say that all the money for this bill comes from forfeited assets, forfeited bail bonds, fines paid to the Government, not taxpayers' dollars. So, without tapping the U.S. Treasury, the bill will increase the amount of funds which can be used for such things as training child abuse investigators, training child protection workers, and the development of children's advocacy centers like the one I toured this morning in Washington and the one which is evolving at Children's Hospital in my own hometown of Columbus, Ohio. In fact, I am very proud that Children's Hospital soon will be embarking on a brand new state-of-the-art children's advocacy center on its campus in Columbus, building on its 10 years of experience and success in its existing location inside the hospital. Also, this bill gives State and local officials the flexibility to use existing grants to provide child protection agencies access to criminal history records. This will help ensure that abused and neglected children are placed in safe foster and adoptive homes as expeditiously as possible so that they do not languish any longer than necessary in bureaucratic limbo. The bill will make a difference in the lives of children without any additional cost to the taxpayer. It removes federally imposed straight- jackets on Federal funds and gives local folks the flexibility to invest in our children as they know best how to. Quite appropriately, Deborah Sendek, Director of Columbus Children's Advocacy Center at Children's Hospital is with me today in Washington, for she is on the front lines in the fight to protect our children. It is heroes like this that the bill is designed to empower in their tireless efforts to bring care and comfort to our children to make sure that they are protected from their abusers. In closing, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, and the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for all their perseverance in helping me bring the CAPE Act from the Committee on the Judiciary, to the House floor. I also want to express my gratitude to the original cosponsors of this bill, the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who is a devoted foster parent and a tireless champion of the CAPE Act, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), and last but not least, to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), my fellow colleague from the Buckeye State, who has so much experience in this issue. Finally, I want to tip my hat to all the child advocates around the Nation in our communities, some of whom are here today, for all they do to nurture and treat victims of child abuse. Mr. Chairman, abused children do not have high-priced lobbyists in Washington, nor are they a powerful voting block; but they are counting on us to act on their behalf, and the CAPE Act is for them. I urge adoption of this CAPE Act.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Johnson amendment, and I congratulate my friend for her work on this very and most important issue, and I appreciate the chairman's support. Very simply, this amendment makes an investment in children's health by authorizing funds for physician training. Currently the Medicare program provides the most reliable and significant support for graduate medical education, but children's hospitals do not treat Medicare patients who are largely senior citizens. Mr. Chairman, the current system leaves children's hospitals searching for compensation for the time-consuming and resource- intensive training they provide to enhance our physician work force. While children's hospitals or while children's teaching hospitals represent only 1 percent of all hospitals, they train nearly 30 percent of all pediatricians, nearly half of all pediatric specialists and a significant number of general practitioners. Now I have spent the better part of the past year in and out of Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and I know firsthand the critical difference between medical care for adults and medical care for children and all the commensurate differences in training that go along with the treating of a sick child as opposed to a grown adult including very basically the size of medical equipment, the dosage of drugs, the size of prosthetics, the administration of anesthesia, the ongoing development, the physical development, of children, the communication barriers. The list goes on and on, and it is absolutely critical for the physicians who treat children to have the proper training to meet the needs and challenges that are specific to children. It is this kind of training that our Nation's children's hospitals are uniquely qualified to provide. Our current system of financial support for medical training disadvantages children's teaching hospitals, and the Johnson amendment begins to address the inequities of our graduate medical education system by authorizing a grant program to advance pediatrician training and pediatric research. It is a small price to pay to ensure that our children's hospitals can continue their mission to care for the sickest and poorest children while training the next generation of caregivers. It makes sense to add this provision to legislation that is focused on promoting public-private partnership to ensure health care quality research and patient access to care. This interim solution to fix the inequities of our GME system has the support of 190 Members of the House and 38 Senators who have cosponsored similar legislation. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in support of the Johnson amendment and in recognition of the special work that children's doctors devote their lives and energies to.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 2605, the Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. This annual appropriation bill includes full funding for the West Columbus Floodwall, an important project located in my district. Each year, as the appropriations process unfolds in Congress, I have made budget requests for the Floodwall Project, and have closely monitored the process to ensure that it receives the funding it needs. I remain committed toward achieving this goal. The $16 million included in this conference report will allow this project to proceed on-schedule and on-budget and sends a strong message that Congress intends to fulfill its existing commitments to the people of Columbus. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Chairman Packard (CA), Vice-Chairman Visclosky (IN), and the House and Senate conferees for the inclusion of $16 million for the West Columbus Floodwall Project. The threat of a major flood disaster continues to loom in Columbus and Central Ohio. In 1913, 1937, and 1959, melting snow and heavy rains caused the Scioto River to overflow its banks. The resulting catastrophic floods caused the loss of many lives, destroyed homes and businesses, and damaged millions of dollars worth of residential and commercial property. Until the Floodwall Project is completed, the potential for a major flood disaster will continue to threaten citizens, homes, and businesses located in the very heart of downtown Columbus that borders the Scioto River. Today, approximately 17,000 residents continue to be placed at risk of life, injury, and hardship. Should a 100-year frequency flood occur prior to completion of the project, the damages are estimated at $365 million and should a 500- year flood occur, the damages are estimated to exceed $455 million. While risk to human life and safety is of paramount concern, completion of the Floodwall will also permit important new development along the Scioto riverfront. Columbus is now the largest city in Ohio and the fifteenth largest city in the United States. Its economy is strong and the city is experiencing rapid growth. New construction in the downtown riverfront area, however, will not be able to proceed until the Floodwall construction is completed. Without the important protection of the Floodwall, this looming risk will deter future business and housing development, economic growth, infrastructure improvements, and recreational opportunities in the city. Currently, flood plain zoning restrictions continue to remain in place for 5,520 residences and 650 non-residential structures, as well as the future development of 2,800 acres. It is, therefore, imperative to the city's growth and economic health that the Floodwall Project continue on schedule. Therefore, it is not only the safety of Columbus residents and businesses, but also the future growth of the city's downtown which depends on the timely completion of this important project. On behalf of those that continue to live with the threat of a major disaster in Columbus and Central Ohio, let me again thank all the Members for their assistance on this very important project.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee who has worked so hard on this bill. (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 275 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 my good friend, 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. General Leave

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 275.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 275 is an open rule that governs the consideration of H.R. 2684, the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and independent agencies. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the ranking member and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. All points of order against consideration of the bill with respect to unauthorized or legislative provisions as well as the transfer of funds in the general appropriations bill are waived, except as specified by the rule. After general debate, it shall first be in order to consider the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report. This amendment would restore funding for the Selective Service, which the bill itself eliminates. The Committee on Rules understands that Members on both sides of the aisle have strong feelings about the value of the selective service. Therefore, we felt it was appropriate and fair to provide waivers for this amendment and let the House work its will. The amendment is bipartisan, and will be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, along with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), who chairs the Committee on Armed Services. Other cosponsors include the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), all of whom serve either on the Committee on Appropriations or Committee on Armed Services. Points of order against the amendment for failure to comply with clause 2 of Rule XXI are waived. The amendment shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and it is not subject to amendment or division of the question. To ensure orderly consideration of the bill, the rule provides priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Further, the rule allows the Chair to postpone votes and reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 minutes, as long as the first vote in a series is a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the VA-HUD appropriations bill combines fiscal responsibility with social responsibility. Under the Republican majority, Congress has fought tooth and nail for a balanced budget through lower government spending. We have combed the budget for waste, duplication, and inefficiency; and we have made the tough decisions necessary to ensure that the Federal Government lives within its means. Today we are seeing the fruits of our labor in a balanced budget and projected surpluses as far as the eye can see. But this is no time to rest on our laurels. We must be ever vigilant in our responsibility to the taxpayers to spend their hard-earned dollars wisely, while fulfilling the many obligations of government. One of our most important obligations is to the veterans of this country, who have been willing to trade their lives for the freedom and democracy that we enjoy. It may be impossible to compensate these individuals for their contributions and sacrifices, but this legislation makes a good faith effort by increasing funding for veterans' medical care by $1.7 billion. While the President recommended a freeze in spending on VA health in his budget, this legislation provides the largest increase in veterans' healthcare that we have seen in decades. This increase brings spending for veterans' medical care to a total of $19 billion. We did not pull this figure out of thin air. The Committee on Veterans Affairs heard testimony from the veterans service organizations and the VA healthcare officials from across the country before agreeing that a $1.7 billion boost in spending would meet our veterans' needs. We all want to give our veterans the best healthcare possible, and we probably all agree that the VA health system is inadequate in many respects, but money alone will not solve all of these problems. But an additional $1.7 billion is significant. This money will provide the needed injection into VA healthcare while the system as a whole is examined with an eye toward reforms that can have a much more profound impact on veterans' health. The Federal Government also has a responsibility to the poorest, most vulnerable of our citizens. We all have debated the importance of Medicare and Social Security as we watch our elderly population grow and life expectancies increase. This bill maintains our commitment to America's senior citizens by providing $660 million for seniors' housing assistance. The bill also recognizes the challenges faced by people with disabilities, who will receive $194 million in housing aid through this legislation. To ensure the continued availability of affordable housing for low income families, this legislation increases funding for the Housing Certificate Fund by $1 billion. This fund is used for the renewal and administration of Section 8 contracts. In other words, the bill provides 100 percent full funding for expiring Section 8 housing contracts. In addition to the government's responsibilities to our veterans and the poor, Americans have a shared responsibility to protect our environment for future generations. This VA-HUD bill provides $7.3 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency, which is $106 million more than the President requested. Not only is this commitment to the environment more generous than the President's, but it targets the money to local programs designed to protect our resources, rather than bolstering the salaries and expenses of bureaucrats in government agencies in Washington. For example, the State and Tribal Assistance Grants, which include the State revolving funds for clean and safe drinking water, will receive almost $2.3 billion under this bill. That is $362 million more than the President requested. Through the VA-HUD bill, we also fulfill our responsibility to so many of our communities that have experienced the devastation of natural disaster. In times of true emergencies and catastrophic loss, our Federal Government has a responsibility to reach out and help people put their lives back together. This legislation provides more than $3 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which represents an increase of almost $500 million over last year. In fact, disaster relief programs, emergency management planning and assistance, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program and the flood mitigation fund will all be funded above last year's level. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hard work of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) to fulfill these many responsibilities and still pare back spending to stay within the limits set in the budget agreement between Congress and the President. It is the fiscal restraint that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the Committee on Appropriations have demonstrated through this bill that is required if our budget surplus is to materialize and be maintained into the future. This VA-HUD bill funds our priorities, from supporting our Nation's veterans and housing our Nation's poor, to protecting our environment and rebuilding communities devastated by natural disasters. At the same time, this legislation will lower government spending by $1.2 billion. Some may not agree with the allocation of dollars among the many important programs in this bill. Fortunately, under this wide open rule they are free to offer amendments to rearrange the spending in this bill, so long as their amendments comply with the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, this bill is one more challenge we must be willing to meet as we work to change the culture in Washington. We cannot continue to accept the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars merely because it is dedicated to a program with a popular name or one with good intentions. We must be diligent in our protection of taxpayer interests, both as wage earners and as members of a free society, where government fulfills its legitimate functions and gets out of the way. We recognize that veterans' programs, environmental protection, and emergency assistance are all key government functions, but we also understand that the government can be more efficient in achieving its desired purpose. There are always places where we can trim spending without undermining our objectives. It is our challenge to reconcile these realities to achieve multiple goods. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting yes on this open rule, and in support of the principles of fiscal and social responsibility which the VA-HUD bill protects. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I am having a hard time following the logic here. We are increasing funding for veterans medical care by $1.7 billion. That is $1.7 billion more than the President asked for, and it is the amount that was authorized by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The gentleman is acting as if we are cutting spending when we are increasing it by 10 percent. If there is some cause and effect between the tax bill and this increase, one would think the veterans would push for tax relief legislation every year. Mr. Speaker, there is no logic here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the committee.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an explanation of the previous question, a procedural, not a substantive vote. The Previous Question Vote The previous question is a motion made in order under House Rule XIX, and accorded precedence under clause 4 of Rule XVI, and is the only parliamentary device in the House used for both closing debate and preventing amendment. The effect of adopting the previous question is to bring the pending proposition or question to an immediate, final vote. The motion is most often made at the conclusion of debate on a special rule, motion or legislation considered in the House prior to a vote on final passage. A Member might think about ordering the previous question in terms of answering the question ``is the House ready to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the pending question?'' Furthermore, in order to amend a special rule (other than by the managers offering an amendment to it or by the manager yielding for the purpose of amendment), the House must vote against ordering the previous question. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House is, in effect, turning control of the Floor over to the Member who led the opposition (usually a Member of the minority party). The Speaker then recognizes the Member who led the opposition (usually a minority member of the Rules Committee) to control an additional hour of debate during which a germane amendment may be offered to the rule. This minority Member then controls the House Floor for the hour. The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and amendment on the legislation it would make in order. Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no substantive legislative or policy implications. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to remind my colleagues that this is an open rule. Any Member may offer any amendment to this legislation so long as it complies with House rules. The VA-HUD bill reduces spending by $1.2 billion while adequately funding our top priorities, not the least of which is veterans and medical care. In fact, this bill increases VA health care by $1.7 billion. This is a 10 percent increase, far more than Congress has provided for VA medical care in any one year. Mr. Speaker, again I will take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for his hard work to craft a bill that strikes a delicate balance between fiscal and social responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce be permitted to file its reports on the following bills no later than midnight September 7, 1999:

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on the legislative day of August 5, 1999, to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1905) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes; the conference report be considered as read and all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration be waived, and; the previous question be ordered to final adoption without intervening motion except 20 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees and one motion to recommit.