PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Sep 22, 2020
Veteran's Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research Act
This bill requires the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to implement programs and resources related to the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.
Specifically, the bill requires the VA to establish in its National Surgery Office a national clinical pathway for all stages of prostate cancer that includes specified elements. A clinical pathway is a health care management tool designed around research and evidence-backed practices that provides direction for the clinical care and treatment of a specific episode of a condition or ailment.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The VA must publish the proposed clinical pathway in the Federal Register for public comment. Additionally, the bill requires the VA to publish the established clinical pathway on a public VA website and to update the clinical pathway at least annually.
Under the bill, the VA must submit (1) a plan to establish a comprehensive prostate cancer program, and (2) a plan that provides for continual funding for supporting prostate cancer research through the VA Office of Research and Development. The VA must also establish a program evaluation tool to learn best practices of multidisciplinary disease-based implementation.
Finally, the VA must establish a real-time, actionable, national prostate cancer registry that is accessible to clinicians and researchers.
People & committees
Rep. Dunn, Neal P. [R-FL-2] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4684-4685)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6092.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4682-4685)
Mr. Takano moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 28, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6092 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6092 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6092 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6092 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.