To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish an Ombudsman within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it is astonishing to me to what lengths this liberal Congress will go to shut down debate and close the legislative process.

This House, Mr. Speaker, has become far more dictatorial and far less deliberative in the last 19 months than ever before. In this Congress, there have been 59 closed rules, which is more than in any Congress in the history of our country.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, a closed rule means Members are prohibited from coming to the House floor and offering an amendment to the bill that is being considered on the floor. An open rule allows Members to offer amendments to a bill that's being considered on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, it is simply as simple as that.

But Mr. Speaker, there hasn't been one single, solitary open rule this entire year in this body. For this entire Congress, going back to January of last year, there has been only one open rule on bills that were not appropriations bills. These facts present a stark picture of just how closed and restrictive this liberal Congress has become.

Yet the Speaker and Democrat-controlled Rules Committee aren't satisfied with having the worst, most closed record in history. They've decided to go even further to undermine the rules and traditions of the U.S. House of Representatives. With this rule, they've reached an absolute new low. They have chosen to breach the long-standing, bipartisan process of an open rule for the consideration of appropriations bills.

On what has been an open process on the House floor not just for years, not for decades, but dating back to the creation of the Appropriations Committee itself, this process is being closed down by this oppressive, liberal Congress.

This rule provides for consideration of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill for the next fiscal year. It is a bill that has always, Mr. Speaker, had strong bipartisan support. For example, last year it passed by a recorded vote of 409 in favor and only two against. And during that debate last year, there were just 15 amendments that were offered. And the total debate on the House floor was just 5 hours, which is a short time for appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, there is no part of this record that justifies what is being proposed today to decimate this open process. There is simply no excuse for what is being done and proposed by this rule.

I can only conclude that this is a blatant political attempt to stifle debate on the House floor in order to hold onto political power. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, it is being done at the expense of the rules and traditions of the People's House, the U.S. House of Representatives.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the new fiscal year begins on October 1; that's just 62 days away. Yet this House hasn't passed one single appropriations bill. At the end of the week, it will probably have passed one. By comparison, Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Republican House had passed every bill except one by this point of the year.

It is a troubling, disappointing, and dangerous situation when those who control this liberal Congress are punting on their duty to pass the 12 annual appropriations bills while simultaneously undermining the open consideration of these very same appropriations bills, an open process that has been a bipartisan hallmark of this House since the inception of the Appropriations Committee.

And why is this being done, Mr. Speaker? Again, I can only conclude that it is because this liberal Congress refuses to allow open debate and votes on producing more American-made energy. Those who control this Congress have refused to allow a vote on lifting the ban on offshore drilling, at ANWR in Alaska, and on other Federal lands.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama oppose offshore drilling and in ANWR, but they refuse to let Congress vote on this important issue while gas prices, Mr. Speaker, are at record levels and Americans are hurting.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record three articles, one from the New York Times regarding Speaker Pelosi, one from the McClatchy Washington Bureau regarding Speaker Pelosi's position on offshore drilling, one in the House of nearly 6 weeks ago from The Hill regarding Mr. Obama's opinion on drilling, and one from the Las Vegas Review Journal regarding Majority Leader Reid's position on drilling in the Senate.

As you know, Speaker Pelosi has repeatedly insisted that this House won't ever vote, is not going to be permitted to vote, and that she will do everything possible to block a vote on lowering gas prices by producing more American-made energy by drilling for our own Nation's gas and oil. Americans can't afford this head-in-the-sand approach. Congress needs to stand up and vote on the Republicans' ``all of the above'' energy plan that simply says, let's do everything that we can to produce more American-made energy, including pursuing more clean alternatives like wind and solar, more nuclear power, more biodiesel, improving conservation, more investment in new technology research, and of course, immediately more drilling and refining of oil and gas from America's huge underground reserves.

Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear: we can continue with this ``drill nothing'' approach, or we can decide to act, to change course and to debate and vote on the Republicans ``all of the above'' plan to lower gas prices by producing more energy here in America and finding ways, at the same time, to use less.

Mr. Speaker, I believe our ``all of the above'' approach to lowering gas prices would pass. It would pass, I believe, Mr. Speaker, if it were permitted to have a vote on this House floor. I believe there is a majority that would vote for it in this U.S. House. But such a vote has yet to be allowed and is not being allowed today. And next week, we're going on a 5-week vacation. Mr. Speaker, I think that is intolerable.

The House is being shut down in new, bolder ways to block a vote on producing American-made energy. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this rule is proof of it.

The long-standing, bipartisan practice of considering appropriations bills under an open process is being trampled on by this rule. The actions that are being taken to restrict and shut down Members' ability to offer amendments and debate spending bills--which I might add, Mr. Speaker, is the very job that the American people elected us to do--is being undermined by this appropriations process, and it creates a very dangerous and volatile situation in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the leaders and the chairmen who've made this decision may well rue the day that they chose to go down this path.

By their actions, bipartisanship is being diminished, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the traditions of this House are being diminished. One cannot trample on the rules and practices of traditions of this House with impunity and then expect no long-term damage to result.

This is a sad and shameful rule. So I urge my colleagues to oppose it and demand this House uphold open rules for consideration of appropriations bills, which is one of the best practices historically of this institution. If we do not correct the closed rule course that is being set by this rule, it will do a great deal of long-term harm to this House that will prove, in my opinion, more difficult to reverse in the future.

[From the New York Times, July 17, 2008]

For Pelosi, a Fight Against Offshore Drilling

(By Carl Hulse)

Washington.--Upon entering Congress in 1987, Representative

Nancy Pelosi quickly became part of the solid California

front against oil drilling along much of the nation's coast.

The Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969 and the steady push to

tap the potential reserves off the state's rugged coast had

galvanized Californians and made opposition to offshore

drilling part of the political DNA of up-and-coming figures

like Ms. Pelosi.

She repeatedly resisted oil drilling in marine sanctuaries

near her San Francisco district and, after joining the

Appropriations Committee, was an advocate of reinstating the

ban on coastal drilling through spending restrictions each

year.

``We learned the hard way that oil and water do not mix on

our coast,'' Ms. Pelosi told a crucial committee in 1996 as

she argued for keeping the ban before a Congress then

controlled by Republicans.

Now, with gasoline prices soaring, those drilling

restrictions are facing their most severe test in years as

calls intensify to pursue

domestic oil more forcefully. Yet despite increasing pressure

from President Bush, a full-bore assault by Congressional

Republicans and some anxiety among her own rank-and-file

Democrats, Ms. Pelosi is not budging.

``The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a

gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying

to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore,'' Ms.

Pelosi said in an interview. ``That is not the cause, and I

am not going to let him get away with it.''

Her voice carries considerable weight because Ms. Pelosi,

who is now House speaker, can prevent a vote on expanded

drilling from reaching the floor.

And she and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority

leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to

approve drilling in areas now off limits. They argue that the

oil and gas industry is not aggressively exploring large

expanses it has already leased on land and offshore. They

have also urged Mr. Bush to pour some fuel from national

reserves into the commercial supply chain in an effort to

lower prices.

Trying to demonstrate that Democrats are not opposed to

drilling in acceptable locales, the House is scheduled to

vote on Thursday on a proposal that would deny oil companies

any new leases unless they can show they are diligently

exploring existing holdings. The measure would also require

annual lease sales from lands in Alaska set aside as a

National Petroleum Reserve, and direct the Interior

Department to make sure a pipeline is linked to the reserves.

Democrats, not subtly, are calling the measure the Drill

Responsibly in Leased Lands, or Drill, Act.

In the Senate, Democrats are pushing a measure to curb

speculation in oil markets.

But Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican

leader, who is escorting a delegation to the Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge in Alaska this weekend, said the Democrats'

approach was woefully insufficient. Mr. Boehner said Ms.

Pelosi, in insisting on preserving the drilling ban, was

putting Democrats in the crosshairs of voters furious about

gas prices.

``I think Speaker Pelosi is walking her Blue Dogs and other

vulnerable Democrats off a cliff, and they know it,'' said

Mr. Boehner, referring to the coalition of Democrats

representing more conservative districts.

He accused the speaker of using procedural maneuvers to

thwart votes on expanded drilling, a position that he said

would prevail if the moment arrived. ``Harry Reid and Nancy

Pelosi are standing in the way of what the American people

want,'' Mr. Boehner said.

In both the House and Senate, small groups of Democrats

have begun meeting informally with Republicans to try to

reach a bipartisan response to higher oil prices, and opening

up new areas to drilling is part of the mix. Leaders of the

Blue Dog coalition are openly pressing for drilling in the

Arctic refuge and elsewhere.

Backers of the drilling ban have pushed back furiously and

appear to have bolstered some of their colleagues. Senator

Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who has been fighting

offshore drilling since the 1970s, has been cornering fellow

senators to impress upon them the importance of the ban to

Californians, comparing it to a mainstay of farm-state

senators.

``This is our ethanol,'' Mrs. Boxer said of protecting the

coast from oil drilling.

Since taking over as speaker, Ms. Pelosi has asserted

herself on energy policy, which she sees as an overarching

cause that encompasses national security, climate change, the

economy, health care and the environment.

``This captures everything,'' said Ms. Pelosi, who last

year broke a deadlock that had lasted for decades over

increasing automotive fuel economy standards.

In a private meeting last week, according to some in

attendance, Ms. Pelosi told members of her leadership team

that a decision to relent on the drilling ban would amount to

capitulation to Republicans and the White House, and that she

was having none of it. She attributes today's energy problems

to a failure of the Bush administration to develop a

comprehensive approach, to its ties to the oil industry and

to a mishandling of the economy.

With the drilling restrictions under such scrutiny, backers

of the ban say they are heartened that Ms. Pelosi wields the

power she does.

``It is really important to have a Californian as speaker

on this topic,'' said Representative Lois Capps, a Democrat

who represents Santa Barbara.

Ms. Pelosi has shown a willingness on issues like terror

surveillance and spending on the Iraq war to look past her

personal views and allow legislation she opposes to move

through the House. But on the drilling ban, it is clear she

sees her position as the one that should carry the day. She

said national policy had to move beyond the long dispute over

the ban.

``This is part of the fight we are in,'' she said. ``We

have to get to a place where one day my grandchildren will

say, `Do you believe our grandparents had to go with their

car and fill up?' It will be like going with a barrel on our

head to a well to get water. That will be the equivalent.''

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding.

Let me ask this question: Would a Member be able to come down to the floor when this bill is being taken up and offer a second-degree amendment to an amendment that is being offered by another Member?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee dealing with this issue, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, just for purposes of trying to plan the time, could I inquire of my distinguished colleague how many speakers she has left.

I thank her for that information, and am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1384 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1384.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1384 provides an open rule with a preprinting requirement. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

The rule waives points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule provides that any amendment to the bill must be printed in the Congressional Record by July 30. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be considered as read.

The rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Finally, the rule provides that the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to stand with my colleagues in support of H.R. 6599, the 2009 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act and this rule.

Mr. Speaker, the New Direction Congress has made the lives of America's veterans one of our top priorities. Years from now, history will reflect that it was this Democratically led 110th Congress, in the middle of two wars, that renewed the country's commitment to veterans and their health.

Our commitment simply is a reflection of the pride and appreciation the American people have for the service of their brave men and women in uniform, who have served so greatly in recent conflicts and wars.

Now, just weeks ago, after months of perseverance in the face of opposition from the White House, this Congress, in a bipartisan way, adopted the new 21st century GI Bill that provides a full 4-year college tuition to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The new GI Bill for our veterans was adopted by a vote here in the House of 256-156.

Last year, we adopted the largest reform and investment in veterans' health care in the history of the Veterans Administration. And just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Congress adopted additional reforms to the Veterans Administration process that will improve the lives of veterans across this country.

Congressman Cazayoux from Louisiana brought H.R. 6445, that prohibits the collection by the Department of Veterans Affairs of copayments or other fees for hospital or nursing home care when they are catastrophically disabled.

Congressman Paul Hodes of New Hampshire also brought H.R. 2192, that establishes in the Department of Veterans Affairs an Office of the Ombudsman to act as a liaison to veterans and their families with respect to VA health care and their benefits.

I also salute my colleague, Congressman John Hall of New York. We adopted his bill yesterday, H.R. 5892, the Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act, that directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to modernize the disability benefits claims processing system to ensure that our veterans are served in a timely and accurate way.

Now, in this appropriations bill that is before the House today, the American people, through the actions of this Congress, will provide the necessary resources for veterans and facilities and the infrastructure for the Armed Forces. This includes training facilities, housing, and equipment for our troops in their ongoing fight to defend our great Nation here and overseas.

While our brave servicemembers are overseas, most military families remain at home on bases, and we are committed to an excellent standard of living for them and quality of life. That includes convenient child care, and a safe and affordable place to live. I know this because I have conversations with the men and women who serve on the MacDill Air Force Base in my hometown of Tampa, Florida. They tell me that they feel much more safe and secure knowing that their families are well taken care of and well served back home on the base.

So Members should be proud that we have gone above and beyond the White House's initial budget offering. We provide nearly $4 billion more than the President in additional resources, particularly for our veterans health care programs.

Just last week, a panel testified before the Congress that returning soldiers still are not receiving the health care they deserve at Walter Reed and across the country, and this is unacceptable. And that is why in this appropriations bill we fund the VA health care system to try to get it back on track because we've asked everything of these great men and women, the ultimate sacrifice, and the least we can do as their government is support them when they return and ensure that they have the health care they need. When our troops go off to fight valiantly for our country, we're going to ensure that they have the best health care when they return.

Now, the signature injuries of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. Oftentimes, these injuries will require a lifetime of continuing medical care. In fact, the Veterans Health Administration estimates that just next year, in 2009, they will treat more than 5.8 million patients. I'm very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, that in my hometown of Tampa, we have an outstanding VA hospital, the James Haley VA Center. It is known as the busiest VA hospital in the country. We are also fortunate to have one of only four polytrauma units there that serve the most critically wounded veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

So I've seen directly how oftentimes medical staff is overworked, they don't have the facilities that they need. That's why we provide above and beyond the President's request and reject his $38 million cut for medical and prosthetic research. We will continue to invest in medical military construction to improve the aging and outdated medical treatment facilities so they have access to the best medical care.

Now, to help the VA get a head start on helping those hundreds of thousands of new patients in the VA system, we're going to ask that they bring on additional VA claims processors because there is a terrible backlog in this country, and that's the last thing that our veterans should have to face after their service. Currently, in my State, there are over 25,000 pending cases, and nearly 19 percent of those have been in a holding pattern for over 180 days. We can and we must do better for our veterans.

We also oppose, through this appropriations bill, the Bush administration's squeeze on veterans' wallets. The Bush administration has proposed increases in enrollment fees and doubling of prescription drug copayments. How sensible is it to add to the already large number of uninsured in America by making it harder for those who have sacrificed in service to this Nation to get the care they need? Well, this New Direction Congress can and will do better for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly applaud the leadership of Chairman Chet Edwards, who held numerous hearings in an open, bipartisan process that gave Members and the many military families and veterans groups an opportunity to review and weigh in, in a thoughtful and responsible way, to ensure that our current and past military troops and their families get the much-needed funding for various programs that they have earned by way of their service.

Mr. Speaker, I know the American people will appreciate that this is a bipartisan effort for our country's sons and daughters, who put their lives on the line for us every day. We will fulfill our promise to help them lead whole and healthy lives in honor of their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the record reflects and that it is very clear that on this very important appropriations bill relating to veterans affairs and military construction, every Member out of 435 in this House had the opportunity to submit an amendment if they chose to do so.

I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am fairly new in this Congress. I was proud to be part of a class that ushered in the strongest ethics reform since Watergate, and it seems to me that it is entirely fair and proper for Members to be able to offer an amendment to this bill, this very important bill, but it's also important that it is done in a responsible way so that there are no ambushes.

And I would like to point out that the Republican member from the Appropriations Committee that came to the Rules Committee did state, and I took notes that afternoon, that Chairman Edwards did a great job. We've had 18 hearings. This has been an open and bipartisan process, a very open process. It has served as a model of bipartisanship.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close after the gentleman from Washington has made his closing statement.

I would also like to join with my colleague from Florida (Mr. Keller) in saluting Chairman Obey and the other members of the Appropriations Committee and the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Subcommittee because as that new VA hospital goes to Orlando, it will relieve a great deal of pressure in Tampa, in my hometown, at the Haley VA Center, the busiest VA Center in the country, and the Bay Pines Medical Center in St. Petersburg.

So I thank the gentleman for expressing his opinion on this, and I join with him.

With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

I very much appreciate my colleague's yielding. It is really a most interesting commentary, your presentation, which summarizes in this rule what appears to be the dominant leadership of the liberal Democratic leadership in the House. That is, in the quest of power, the ends justify the means. Indeed, at this point in our history when the people's House finds itself dominated by leadership who will exercise the ends justifying the means to maintain power, indeed the public ought to be most concerned about their people's House.

Mr. Speaker, I in turn, though, want to congratulate, myself, both Chairman Edwards and Mr. Wamp for producing a truly bipartisan fiscal year 2009 Military Construction appropriations bill in the longstanding tradition of this committee. Their work is a demonstration to the House that the Democrats and Republicans can work together to create legislation the majority of our Members can support.

As we all know, the Appropriations Committee has steered off course this year because of one single issue which is critical to the American public and which has significant bipartisan support in the House. I do not fault my friend Chairman Obey for the breakdown of the appropriations process this year. While we have had our share of disagreements over the years on overall funding levels and policy issues, he and I have historically worked well together to move our spending bills through the House in a timely fashion.

However, this year the largely bipartisan work of the Appropriations Committee has ground to a virtually standstill because of the energy issue. For reasons I do not fully understand, given present pressures on our economy and the increased worldwide demand for oil, the majority leadership has decided to put on the shelf most of the annual spending bills as well as any and all meaningful bipartisan efforts to lower the price of oil and gas. I don't understand this decision nor do I agree with it. We have had an opportunity and we have an obligation to work on a bipartisan basis to develop and pass long-term energy solutions that involve a combination of conservation, alternative and renewable energy sources, and the development of proven resources both onshore and offshore in the United States.

This effort to bolster our energy resources would create thousands of well-paying union and nonunion jobs across the United States. The overwhelming majority of Americans favor increased domestic energy production. So what is the downside if we develop energy resources in a responsible, environmentally safe manner? Why is the Democratic leadership standing in the way?

Just yesterday a dedicated group of Members, led by our colleagues John Peterson and Neil Abercrombie, introduced sweeping bipartisan energy legislation in an attempt to break the current energy gridlock in the House. I applaud their efforts. We ought to debate their bill openly in the Appropriations Committee and on the House floor before we leave this town for an August break.

The mere message that Congress was actually debating energy policy, in meaningful, bipartisan debate, would send a signal to the markets and to the foreign suppliers of oil that the United States is serious about addressing its energy future. That powerful message would send oil prices down almost overnight. I believe that an honest energy debate on the floor of the House would be, in itself, a stimulus package that would have a tremendously positive ripple effect throughout our economy, touching every American business and consumer.

Let me respectfully remind my colleagues that it was our Speaker, then the minority leader, in 2006 who outlined the new Democrat majority's governing philosophy, and I quote: ``Bills should come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate. Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee markups.'' Mr. Speaker, that's important enough. Let me repeat. The Speaker: ``Bills should come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate. Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee markups.''

As the body knows, we have not had an open, full, and fair debate on energy policy in committee nor have we had any open amendment process on the House floor. In fact, the House Appropriations Committee has not moved any bills through the full committee since June 25 because of a pending energy production amendment supported by a bipartisan majority of the committee members but opposed by the majority leadership.

I would remind our colleagues that most of the challenges facing us today have little or nothing to do with partisan politics. At a time when our country is facing daunting challenges at home and abroad, my constituents and your constituents are looking for real leadership. Rather than providing the leadership our constituents deserve, the body is now in a state of paralysis.

Again, I remind my colleagues that it was then a minority leader, the gentlewoman from San Francisco, who wrote in an October 20, 2007, letter to Speaker Hastert: ``The voice of every American has a right to be heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on this floor.''

I encourage each of my colleagues to remind the Speaker of these words so we can return to regular order in our committee work and restore civility and open debate to the legislative process in the House. It is time to set aside partisan politics and get to work. We can do better. We must do better. Let's support our veterans funding bill today and then move quickly to support our constituents by openly debating potentially energy solutions.

Again, the House should not leave town for the August recess until it votes to lower gas prices, increase the supply of American-made energy, and promote energy independence.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.

This is a critical piece of legislation that speaks to the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. One of the consequences of having the most effective, powerful military force in the world is that we have a great deal of activity that takes place training and operating military facilities across the country. And, sadly, Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that we have not been quite as good as we should is dealing with the consequences of those military operations. The American landscape are littered with the residue of past military operations, base operations, and training exercises. There are bombs, explosives, military toxins and environmental hazards in every State of the union, over 3,000 sites across America.

One of the things I have worked on since I came to Congress was to have the Department of Defense and, most important, we in Congress do a better job of helping the military clean up after itself. I have come to this floor repeatedly with examples where bombs have turned up in people's backyards. I see the former chairman of the committee from California on the floor and am reminded of the three young children in San Diego who discovered bombs in a subdivision, and two of them were killed. Over 60 more people have been killed according to my research here in the United States.

It is time for us to take responsibility to clean up that explosive and toxic legacy, in part because it's not going to get any cheaper. Over the years it's going to cost more and more. Failure to do this right puts innocent children's lives at risk. Remember when we came to the floor with a coloring book that told children what they should do when they found unexploded ordinances near their schools. The Pentagon had Larry the Lizard trying to tell them what to do, when they found a shell . . . rather than spending money to clean it up and remove that hazard.

I am pleased that this year we are fully funding the--the 2005 BRAC account. I am pleased with the leadership from Chairman Edwards, Ranking Member Wamp and my good friend Mr. Farr from California, who has been struggling with this issue for years in his district, they were able to put an

additional $80 million to clean up the legacy of BRAC sites.

I appreciate that this is a difficult budget year but it's always a difficult budget year, and we never seem to quite have enough to deal with the environmental problems that face our Department of Defense. I hope that this is a start in the right direction for a renewed commitment to clean up this toxic legacy that risks American lives here in this country and will develop new technology that will actually save American lives overseas in places like Iraq and Afghanistan if we do it right. I hope it makes possible more progress in the future, and I urge support.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2192) to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish an Ombudsman within the Department of Veterans Affairs, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle were able to work together to craft this important piece of legislation. I would like to thank the Subcommittee on Health Chairman, Mike Michaud of Maine, and Ranking Member Jeff Miller for the bipartisan leadership they demonstrated in working on this important bill.

Over 30,000 servicemembers have been wounded in Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Many of these servicemembers suffer from multiple serious injuries that will require long-term care, spanning beyond their discharge and into the care they receive from the VA.

In 2007, reports from the Independent Review Group, the President's Task Force on Returning Global War on Terror Heroes, and the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors, all highlighted the need to improve case management for servicemembers and veterans in the military health system and in the VA. In response, the VA instituted a number of initiatives to support veterans and their families. These measures include appointing patient advocates in every medical center for OEF and OIF coordinators and transition patient advocates for those seriously injured in combat.

The Joint Federal Recovery Coordinator Program was also established to serve as a single point of contact for seriously wounded and ill servicemembers, veterans and their families. However, the scope of the FRCP is very

limited. As of June 1, 2008, there were only eight recovery coordinators working with 80 patients. Less seriously wounded veterans do not have access to the FRCP. Instead, they must attempt to navigate the complex system using medical centers, patient advocates, benefit counselors, OEF and OIF coordinators, transition patient advocates and vet center counselors.

H.R. 2192, as amended, would create the Office of the Ombudsman within the VA to oversee patient advocacy work and coordinate assistance for our Nation's veterans. The office would be tasked with identifying trends across the system in patient issues and complaints that would allow improvements to VA policies, practices and procedures. The office would also serve as the arbiter of last resort for complaints and issues that cannot be resolved at local or regional levels.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2912.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the author of H.R. 2192, a tremendous friend of veterans, not only in New Hampshire, but across this country, Congressman Paul Hodes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.