Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1300 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), 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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule providing for consideration of a few measures.

First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1329, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for the flexibility to consider a rule related to reconciliation on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules in order to expeditiously consider such legislation if it is received from the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, passage of my resolution today allows us to take important action this week. My resolution allows us to consider legislation affecting veterans, military families, and future generations.

This week, the House has an opportunity to take action on behalf of those who answered our country's call to serve, the families who stand beside them, and the stories that help define who we are as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us also provides consideration of H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), my friend and colleague.

Chairman Bost has long been a strong advocate for veterans and military families. Yesterday, during discussion of this legislation, we spent time talking through the practical consequences of an issue affecting veterans across our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thought Chairman Bost helped paint an important picture, and I believe it is worth sharing with the House today, while certainly to address the 250,000 veterans who have been affected by this issue, but sometimes understanding legislation begins by thinking about just one person and sharing their story. Picture for a moment a veteran navigating the lasting effects of military service. Maybe they are balancing appointments, recovery, family responsibilities, and challenges associated with service-connected injuries. They are not a danger to themselves. They are not a danger to anyone else, but they simply reach a point where they recognize something many Americans recognize from time to time: I just need a little help. Maybe they speak with fellow veterans at The American Legion, a local VFW Post, or another veterans service association. Maybe they visit Veteran Affairs seeking support, and maybe they are having difficulty managing finances while focusing on their recovery.

The VA then determines a fiduciary may help manage their benefits. This isn't uncommon. A fiduciary is exactly that--someone assigned to help oversee financial matters.

Under the current framework, assignment of a fiduciary results in veterans being reported by VA bureaucrats to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, otherwise known as the NICS list, despite never being determined to be a danger to themselves or anyone else.

Once entered into that system, veterans can lose their Second Amendment constitutional rights, despite never receiving the same process or legal findings applied to nonveterans.

Mr. Speaker, that is the issue before us.

Earlier this year, President Trump's Department of Veterans Affairs, led by a great Georgian, the Secretary of Veteran Affairs, Doug Collins, took important steps to restore fairness for veterans. The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act builds on that progress by establishing lasting protections under law.

Simply put, this legislation ensures veterans seeking support through the VA are not subjected to different treatment solely because they sought assistance while navigating the lasting effects of military service.

The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act consists of several important provisions.

Section 2 restores due process protections and ensures that the assignment of a fiduciary alone cannot automatically result in placement onto the NICS list, which prohibits firearm access. If you are a veteran at home seeking assistance from the VA, this means asking for help no longer creates uncertainty surrounding your constitutional rights that you defended in uniform. You can seek support. You can focus on recovery. You can continue moving forward with the benefits the Constitution affords you.

Section 3 ensures that veterans previously affected have their records corrected and updated. It rights a wrong and corrects an injustice. If this issue affected you or your family, this legislation creates a path to address concerns that may have followed you for years.

Section 4 clarifies that assistance in managing financial matters alone cannot serve as the basis for different treatment. Seeking support should never result in different treatment.

I applaud the many organizations that have stepped up to help us consider this legislation and advocated for its passage, including the National Rifle Association, the Gun Owners of America, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Their leadership and partnership throughout the consideration of this legislation will yield success today. Their advocacy helped elevate this issue and move it forward, beyond just a concept and a debate, for families and military families across the country.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us also provides for consideration of H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026. While military service may come to an end, for many veterans and families, the responsibilities and challenges associated with that service can continue for years.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to think back to the veteran we were just discussing. Now, imagine that

same veteran returned home from catastrophic service-connected injuries. Recovery did not end after leaving the battlefield. Instead, recovery became a part of everyday life. Medical appointments became routine. In-home care became necessary. Family members stepped into caregiver roles, and financial responsibilities continued arriving every month.

For veterans and families, that reality continues for many years after military service ends. That is exactly why Congress must act.

Mr. Speaker, legislation receives a name for a reason. This legislation before us bears the names of Sharri Briley and Sergeant Eric Edmundson because their experiences help explain why stronger support matters.

After losing her husband, Army Chief Warrant Officer Donovan ``Bull'' Briley, during the battle of Mogadishu, Sharri Briley experienced responsibilities no military family should have to navigate alone. At just 24 years old, while serving our country near the Iraq-Syria border, Sergeant Edmundson's vehicle struck an improvised explosive device, an IED. The blast caused catastrophic injuries that fundamentally changed the course of his life. By the grace of God, Sergeant Edmundson survived.

Today, years later, Sergeant Edmundson and his family continue navigating the lasting effects of injuries sustained in service to our country. Their experiences remind us of an important reality: Military service often creates responsibilities carried not only by veterans but by entire families.

Simply put, H.R. 6047 strengthens support for catastrophically injured veterans, caregivers, surviving spouses, and military families. The Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act consists of several important provisions.

Section 2 increases compensation for catastrophically injured veterans requiring regular in-home care. If you are that veteran at home, navigating daily care, appointments, adaptive equipment, and financial strain associated with severe service-connected injuries, this legislation provides approximately $10,000 annually in additional support. That support helps offset costs that families experiencing such burdens carry every day.

Section 3 strengthens support available to caregivers and military families. If your spouse, parent, child, or loved one helps care for you each day, this legislation recognizes an important reality: Military service often affects entire families.

Section 4 ensures these reforms are implemented effectively.

Section 5 expands eligibility requirements for Guard and Reserve servicemembers by reducing qualifying Active-Duty requirements for VA home loan eligibility. If you are a Guard or Reserve servicemember at home, this legislation expands opportunities for homeownership and helps more military families achieve the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, finally, the rule before us provides consideration of the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, introduced by my colleague, Nicole Malliotakis of New York, one of the most respected members of the House Republican Conference.

The vision for the Smithsonian American women's history museum is straightforward but important: to preserve, research, and share the stories, experiences, and contributions of women whose leadership, sacrifice, and service built our country.

On December 27, 2020, President Trump signed legislation into law, taking an important step toward making that vision a reality. That reflected something many Americans already understand: The story of our country cannot be fully told without the stories of the women who shaped it.

While Congress and President Trump established a path forward for the museum, the project stalled because one important piece remained unfinished: The museum still does not have a permanent home on The National Mall because the original law prohibited it from being located within the Reserve. The Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act helps complete that work.

Mr. Speaker, all of us can think of women whose strength, sacrifice, and example led us to who we are today: a mother, grandmother, teacher, mentor, leader, or someone whose example shaped our own story.

In many ways, these stories became part of our country's story, too. For generations, American women shaped our country through military service, public service, education, science, innovation, leadership, and sacrifice. That is why Congress must act.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act moves this project from authorization toward reality by providing a path for the museum to be built alongside other Smithsonian museums at a place of historic and national prominence.

The Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act consists of several important provisions.

Section 2 removes restrictions preventing the museum from being located within the Reserve on The National Mall, designates the south monument site, and allows the Smithsonian to move forward with planning and construction.

Section 2 also facilitates transfer of the land to the Smithsonian Institution and establishes planning and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability as the project moves forward.

If your family visits our Nation's Capital years from now, a child walking through those exhibits may learn about a scientist, teacher, servicemember, entrepreneur, or national leader, and even be inspired to change our country, too.

I applaud Representative Malliotakis for her leadership on this effort.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the House has an opportunity to act on behalf of veterans seeking fairness, military families carrying lasting responsibilities, and future generations who deserve to understand the stories that helped shape our country. These measures address different issues, but they are connected by a simple principle: We should honor service; we should support families; and we should preserve the stories and values that continue shaping our country.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my resolution, which is provided for consideration in this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure everybody at home knows what is before us. I find it notable, and I am sure we will debate H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, but just to comment on H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, this bill has meaningful, meaningful reform, and it enables veterans to live a much better life.

It significantly increases the monthly benefits rate for catastrophically, service-connected disabled veterans with a traumatic brain injury or other service disabilities that require regular, around-the-clock, in-home medical care, offering an additional $10,000 annually. It raises survivors' VA benefits by an extra 1.5 percent over 2 years, providing an extra couple hundred dollars to over 500,000 survivors.

Since 1993, Congress has not adjusted DIC aside from inflation. This is meaningful, and it has a great impact on veterans across the country, notwithstanding the fact that it also expands the eligibility requirement for National Guard and reservists from 90 days of Active Duty service to 14 days of Active Duty service with a 1 percent fee. This would allow more Members of the Guard and Reserves, generally younger members, to be able to live the American Dream by owning their first home.

Over 500,000 survivors, National Guard and reservists, and thousands of catastrophically disabled veterans and their families will be positively impacted by this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to list some of the organizations that stand with us, hoping this bill is considered for debate and final passage later today.

It is helpful for the Record to note that The American Legion endorses this legislation. The Wounded Warrior Project endorses this legislation. Paralyzed Veterans of America endorses the legislation. Vietnam Veterans of America endorses this legislation.

AMVETS, the Elizabeth Dole Foundation, Gold Star Spouses of America, Inc., the Military Order of the Purple Heart of the USA, National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, The Independence Fund, Quality of Life Foundation, Veterans Multiple Sclerosis Alliance, and National Military Family Association all support this legislation, which to me illustrates why its passage is so important. Again, I stand with those groups, as do many of my colleagues.

I suspect this will receive wide bipartisan support. What we are doing today is debating the rule, the resolution that enables us to consider that legislation. We can have that debate, but we can't do it unless we pass the rule, which is why our side feels so fervently responsible for helping move this issue forward to solve these issues for veterans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the Representative is referring to with respect to trans-obsessed bills. This resolution has nothing whatsoever regarding that legislation. That was passed 2 weeks ago. I assume the Representative is just 2 weeks too late.

That having been said, I do want to spend a little bit more time talking about H.R. 1041, Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. I think this is owed a lot of contemplation, deliberation by people watching at home. As I mentioned before, 250,000 veterans, a quarter of a million people, who served our country in uniform, have been subjected to an injustice. We have the ability to correct that today.

I walked you through, the viewer at home, but just picture a veteran who is navigating those lasting effects of military service, and they may be having a hard time trying to pay for their bills or trying to figure out a way to make ends meet. So they reach out to The American Legion, the VFW, many of the organizations, by the way, who endorse the other veterans legislation that we discussed and the other side so passionately opposes.

However, nonetheless, take yourself into this picture. The veteran is going into The American Legion hall, having a conversation, and they say: Hey, why don't you reach out to the VA?

They do so, and the VA says: Okay, let's see what we can do.

They end up appointing a fiduciary to help them manage their benefits. For over 30 years--I should say, 28 years, but nearly 30 years, that veteran has then been subjected to an unconstitutional process that we can correct today because when that happens and when someone is appointed a fiduciary to help them manage their benefits, they have been sent to the NICS list, which is administered by the Department of Justice, the FBI, which prohibits the owning and ownership of a firearm. To me, that is a grave injustice. The people who put on the uniform of our country and served our country to defend our constitutional rights should be afforded the exact same constitutional rights that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to encourage everyone to remember reading this resolution, there are three bills we are just looking to have a vote on today. The other side is trying to block consideration of this legislation. I hope some will cross the aisle and help us achieve this later. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to debate this resolution before us today, but I will comment briefly. With respect to President Trump, first and foremost, over the 4 years of his first Presidency, he was subjected to persecution unlike any President before, which probably led to the now at least three assassination attempts.

I welcome the other side joining us in not just condemning those but helping us ensure that he is not subjected to that type of threat going forward.

What I will say, with respect to the ballroom, is that there was a bipartisan group of individuals who came down and said this was necessary. Presidents from both parties have extolled the virtue of having a safe space not just to host functions but to ensure that the President and members of our country, who serve our country, are protected in those environments.

We saw that, unfortunately, on full display just a month ago when a shooter tried to rush a dinner, at which the President and many other Republicans and Democrats were congregating, with the explicit purpose of assassinating members of President Trump's administration. I welcome the calls of condemnation from the other side and look forward to hearing them in the gentlewoman's rebuttal.

What I would say is the issue before us today, just a good reminder, there are three bills on which we are seeking to have a vote. We are seeking to have a voice and an opportunity to vote on this legislation today. You can vote however you want. This rule allows us to have that opportunity.

As I mentioned before, this gives us a chance to help veterans who have suffered catastrophic injuries. That is one of the pieces of legislation we are voting on today. This has the ability to restore the constitutional rights of 250,000 veterans who have had their rights stripped from them because of legislation that was passed 28 years ago that has been interpreted in a certain way ever since. This legislation enables us to build a museum honoring America's women and all the contributions they have made to this incredible country that we all enjoy today.

I just remind folks that that is what we are debating, and that is what we are voting on. I welcome conversations about each, but that is the question before us.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Representative mentioned, or rather alleged, that the legislation before us this week is not an American priority, so I think we should just dissect the three bills under consideration.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, is it not a priority for us to ensure that the constitutional rights our veterans fought to defend are conferred on to them?

Is that not a priority for us to correct an injustice inflicted upon our veterans?

Is it not a priority for us to pass legislation that will help strengthen benefits and help catastrophically injured veterans that is broadly supported across the veterans community including veterans service organizations like The American Legion, Wounded Warrior Project, and Paralyzed Veterans of America?

Those groups and those associations support our legislation.

How is that not a priority?

Lastly, how is it not a priority to ensure that we honor America's women by building the museum that has rightly deserved to be built for many years?

We are going to take action to do that today.

I will just note, too, the Representative mentioned many things about President Trump. But, yet, I still wait to hear from the other side the broad condemnation of the relentless persecution that has led to attack after attack, after attack on President Trump and his family. It is unfair to him, and it is one of the reasons why, as the Representative noted, later this week we may be considering--we will see what happens in the Senate--but we may be considering legislation that is going to help pay our law enforcement officers in the Federal Government. That is a priority for us and always has been for us.

Again, Mr. Speaker, when you look at what we are debating this week, we are trying to help veterans get their constitutional rights back. We are trying to help veterans through bills that are endorsed by every veteran service organization that serves our Nation's veterans, and we are trying to build a museum that we have been trying to build for 6 years. I think all three are priorities for our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), who is one of the most respected voices in the House Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would say the colleague to whom my colleague from New Mexico referenced was speaking about a bill that already passed 2 weeks ago, so I think he was 2 weeks too late for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

Mr. Speaker, again, that is one of the reasons why my colleague is one of the most respected voices in the House Republican Conference, one of the best debaters we have.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the rule I have presented today, House Resolution 1300, enables this House of Representatives to carry out its responsibilities and consider legislation affecting veterans, military families, and future generations.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to think one more time about that veteran we discussed today. Think about the veteran who walks into the VA simply looking for support. Think about that veteran navigating recovery, appointments, and the lasting effects of military service. Think about the spouse, the parent, or the loved one who quietly stepped forward and carried responsibilities that military service brought home. Think about the families who continue showing up every day with strength, perseverance, and grace because for many military families, service does not simply end when the uniform comes off.

Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate, we discussed different bills addressing different issues, but each measure before us reflects a simple principle: When the brave men and women of our country answered the call to serve, they did so without hesitation. When they return home, they should know their country will stand beside them with that same commitment.

That means protecting constitutional freedoms. That means strengthening support for veterans and military families, and that means preserving the stories and experiences that help tell the story of our country.

To the veterans and military families watching today, these issues are not abstract. They are your lives. These are your experiences, and these are the responsibilities Congress has an obligation to take seriously.

Mr. Speaker, this rule allows this House of Representatives to move forward and continue delivering on those responsibilities. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment To H. Res. 1300 Offered By Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

In section 2, insert ``and the amendment specified in

section 5 of this resolution'' after ``accompanying this

resolution''.

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

section:

``Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 2 of this

resolution is as follows:

Page 5, strike line 20 and all that follows through page 6,

line 10 and insert the following: (and redesignate

accordingly):

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

President Trump has not used his first 18 months in office to reduce costs or end foreign wars like he promised--quite the opposite. Last week, he said he doesn't ``think about Americans' financial situation.''

His priorities have never been the American people. His administration's priorities are the Trump name, his wealth, his war, and his profits. Everything he does costs Americans more money and more pain.

Let's recap the administration's actions in just the last few days. They created a $1.8 billion slush fund to pay off January 6 insurrectionists, who beat law enforcement officers in this very building. Taxpayers will foot that bill. Trump toured his dream ballroom that will cost taxpayers at least $1 billion. He traded stocks worth up to $750 million and then promoted the companies he bought.

We are in the 82nd day of Trump's war that is costing Americans over a billion dollars a day. Because of his war, gas prices have skyrocketed to $4.55 a gallon. Farmers are going bankrupt, and Americans can't afford groceries.

Trump gets away with all of this because House Republicans stand hip to hip with him. House Republicans' bills this week are proof, once again, that Trump calls the shots in this House.

Some of these bills had bipartisan promise, but Republicans poisoned them. For instance, for more than a decade, a bipartisan group of our colleagues fought to establish the women's history museum and put it on The National Mall. Women led this fight. We worked across the aisle because of our shared belief that women's history is integral to our Nation's story. Then, after decades of working together on building both a women's history museum and a Latino history museum on The National Mall, Republicans suddenly changed the bill.

The White House directed Republicans to amend the bill, so Trump and

his ballroom committee could determine what the museum looks like, where it should be placed, and even what we can talk about in the women's museum.

Yesterday in the Rules Committee, I asked the Republican chair of the House Administration Committee why he gave Trump this control. He refused to answer my questions because there is no good reason.

Before they hijacked the museum, 127 Democrats proudly cosponsored that bill. Now 146 Members of Congress have signed a letter opposing it until it is restored to its original version. These Members--these Members want us to tell a story of how women marched, protested, and were jailed so that they could vote and the story of women who fought in our Revolutionary War and continue to defend our country today.

Women deserve to be the ones to tell our story, not Trump and his ballroom buddies.

My colleagues should reject this partisan bill and return to the original, bipartisan version that honors the diverse contributions that women made to this country. One man should not dictate what women's history looks like.

This rule also makes in order two bills from the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Democrats and Republicans agree that we should increase benefits for disabled veterans and their surviving family members. These soldiers gave their limbs, vision, and mobility for our Nation. We owe veterans the benefits that truly reflect their sacrifice. But we should reject Republicans' choice to pay for those benefits by making it more expensive for veterans to stay in their homes.

That is what the Republicans' Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act does. It pays for the needed increases in disability benefits by making housing more expensive for veterans. Republicans' choices are all wrong.

Now is not the time to make housing harder to get when, thanks to Trump's war, tariffs and inflation, mortgage rates are averaging at 6.75 percent, the highest rate since last July; when gas and utility bills are skyrocketing; and when more than 10,000 veterans have lost their homes since Trump's administration shut down a VA program that helped veterans avoid foreclosure. There are another 90,000 veterans currently behind on their mortgages or in the foreclosure process who, thanks to Trump's administration, won't be able to use that program.

Now more than ever, we should make it easier for veterans to keep their homes. Yet, instead of pushing back against Trump's attacks on veterans' housing, Republicans chose to make housing more expensive.

Republicans have the money for tax breaks for billionaires but not veterans' housing, money for a White House ballroom but not veterans' housing, money for a $1.8 billion slush fund but not veterans' housing. Those are Republicans' priorities, and they are all wrong.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we think that we should do all of these. We think we should increase the disability benefits for veterans. We agree on that.

Yet, what we are taking issue with is just the additional disability compensation, if you look at the score, what do they cost? It is $1 billion.

What else costs $1 billion? It is that ballroom. What else costs $1 billion? Actually, more than $1 billion--$1.8 billion. It is their slush fund. That is where we have a disagreement. We think we should do this, but we don't think we should cut veterans' housing to pay for it.

They are willing to pay for ballrooms and slush funds, but they want to cut veterans' housing in order to provide these needed benefits. We agree that these are needed increases in benefits.

Mr. Speaker, to address this issue more fully, I suggest that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to adopt an amendment to H.R. 6047, authored by Ranking Member Takano, which would strike the sections of the bill that would raise fees on veterans who want to refinance their homes and replace these fees with a reduction in the estate tax exemption from $15 million to $14.5 million.

There is an easy question: How do we pay for this? How about asking the millionaires to help out a teeny bit for our veterans. Yet, under this Republican-controlled government, there is always money for the tax cuts to the rich, funding illegal wars, forking over $1 billion for Trump's ballroom, or the latest insanity of creating that $1.8 billion slush fund to pay out to January 6 insurrections and other Trump allies.

Yet, none of that spending by Republicans is paid for. It is on the backs of American taxpayers. It is on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Yet, when it comes to veterans, Republicans say that we have to offset the bill's cost by jacking up their home loan fees.

Scaling back the estate tax exemption by $500,000 after Republicans tripled it in their big, ugly bill isn't going to make a big difference to the heirs of all of those wealthy parents, but that alone would fund the benefit increases for disabled veterans and survivors in this bill without penalizing veterans who are just trying to stay in their homes and afford their mortgages.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the sponsor of this important amendment and the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the April 6, 2026, NPR article, ``Trump's VA killed a home loan program. Vets are now losing their homes because of it.''

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the issue we have. We are supportive of increasing disability benefits. We started out with that. We believe this is long overdue. Our problems are with the choices Republicans make. Now, at a time when veterans are losing their homes--90,000 veterans are headed toward foreclosure--is not when you should actually make it more expensive for them. This comes after a yearlong debacle inside the Department of Veterans Affairs has whiplashed thousands of vets between various enacted and canceled programs.

Trump's VA is really beating up our veterans as they have tried to stay in their homes. These are the choices they are making: Let's make it harder on them. We shouldn't be doing that. We should make it easier on our veterans to stay in their homes. What happens? Are we going to kick them out? Are they going to be shivering? Are they going to have to be moving in with others? That is not the answer.

The answer is what we propose. There are other ways to pay for this, but Republicans won't go there because they are always protecting the wealthy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, Republicans voted down Ranking Member McGovern's amendment, which was intended to stop what might be the most dangerous corruption scheme in modern American politics, the abuse of the Judgment Fund, the little known government account that is now being turned into a political slush fund.

Yes, I am talking about the $1.8 billion, you know, almost twice as much as we need to pay for the disability benefits. It is a $1.8 billion slush fund.

Before yesterday, most Americans might never have heard of the judgment fund. It is something that was created that is funded by the taxpayer, so I want Americans to know a little bit more about this.

It is intended to fund legitimate legal settlements, but Republicans are now blessing a system where a President and his own Justice Department, his Attorney General, his private lawyer, can create a law, make a deal, settle that lawsuit, and then send Americans' money wherever they want without congressional oversight.

That is what we were saying yesterday. It is like, no, Congress, under our Constitution, controls the purse. We are the ones who decide where America's money goes because we have to stand up in front of them every 2 years and explain ourselves. Well, Republicans never have townhalls, so they never stand in front of their constituents, but we do.

What they have just done is say: No, we are going to bypass that, and we are going to send $1.8 billion to Trump's allies. We control the money. You don't have a say, and we are going to make all of those men and a couple of women who came in here, who beat our law enforcement officers, the same people you walk before every day--those Capitol Police were beaten, and 140 of them

went to the hospital. Now, we are giving them money because we created the system.

I think it is important that Americans know what they are blessing. They are blessing a slush fund that any President can just make up a lawsuit, enter a settlement, and have collusion. This is how the Mafia works. You hand out money. The problem is that the Mafia, in this sense, is getting their money from your taxpayer dollars.

Let's sound the alarm. This is corruption of the most egregious manner. We should not operate like a Mafia in the United States.

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

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

We are debating today what Republicans' priorities are and what we are going to be voting on this week in the House.

That is the question I ask: Where are Republicans' priorities? Their bills highlight where their priorities are, and what is coming up this week highlights where their priorities are.

We have already talked about how they are going to be taking from Peter to pay Paul, except Peter and Paul are veterans who deserve both their housing and their disability benefits.

They are also going to be bringing to the House floor this week--not through this rule, but probably another one--maybe $72 billion worth of spending that is not paid for.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's May 5, 2026, article: ``CBO Scores FY 2026 Reconciliation at $72 Billion.''

Mr. Speaker, the article details that the Congressional Budget Office--they are the ones that tell us how much everything costs--estimates the bill would add $72 billion to the deficit over the next decade--actually, about $94 billion with interest.

Part of that is the ballroom, so I think it is important to say where they are willing to spend the money. Are they willing to spend the money on disability benefits or on a ballroom? They have just told us they are willing to spend money on a ballroom, with interest, that is not paid for, but not on disability benefits.

These are where we get to where the issues are that we are addressing and what we are going to take up on the House floor. They are not taking up the issues that Americans are facing, which are the economic failures of this administration and of these Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a May 17 Time magazine article titled: ``Americans Sour on Trump Over Inflation and the Iran War.''

Mr. Speaker, the new polling data and the story show that Americans have caught on. Republicans promised to lower costs on day one. Where are costs? Up.

Gas is up. Groceries are up. Inflation is up. Look at the numbers. America is hungrier and sicker, deeper in debt, and deeper in war than the day Donald Trump took office.

The nationwide average for gas is $4.55 a gallon. That is $1.35 higher than last year. For families in Santa Fe, Farmington, or Roswell, in my district, that means filling up your pickup truck costs $147.

Do you know how many times we have to fill up our trucks to be able to get around our district to check on the cattle, to deliver feed, to actually just maybe even take the trash to the dump? We use our trucks, and they are costing us so much money just to fill up, let alone how much it takes when we get to that grocery store and buy those groceries that cost so much. From meat to poultry to everything else in between, it is more expensive because of the policies of the Trump administration.

Are we addressing that? No.

I think I can quote Donald Trump. His quote was: ``I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.''

Clearly. The 57 percent of the people who now say his economic policies have made their families worse off, who is thinking about them?

Millions of American families have been kicked off their health plans. Healthcare premiums have risen constantly because of decisions that Republicans have made that have been signed into law by President Trump that he trumpeted.

Mr. Speaker, 88 percent of the largest corporations, including Tesla, paid zero, nada, in Federal income tax last year, thanks to Trump and Republicans' tax giveaway in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Their billionaire-first policies are driving up costs for American families at the fastest rate in years, and it is affecting everybody, including our veterans.

Republicans said they would lower costs. Instead, they raised them through the roof. Now, our families are paying for their incompetence and greed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's go through sort of where we have Trump's name.

Trump's name is now on the Kennedy Center without congressional approval. Trump's name is now on the United States Institute of Peace, and Trump has destroyed part of the White House without congressional approval, and he is putting up his ballroom.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

These places don't belong to Trump or any President. They belong to the American people. As Judge Leon said when he ruled against the White House ballroom construction: ``The White House does not belong to any one man--not even a President.''

I think that the women's history museum does not belong to Trump. It belongs to the American people and the women whose blood, sweat, and tears paint the picture of America, and to the Haudenosaunee Clan mothers who controlled decisions over war and the economy.

Mr. Speaker, for those of you who don't know who those are, that was the Iroquois Federation. They were the inspiration for our Constitution. The only thing that was different was our Constitution didn't include and recognize women the way that the Haudenosaunee Clan mothers were recognized.

I want to have a museum where Deborah Sampson, a woman who disguised herself as a man to fight in the Revolutionary War, is discussed, not divided, but discussed about this was the fervor of those women during the Revolution who served as spies, who served as soldiers, and who served to actually win our Revolutionary War.

I want to honor Jeannette Rankin of Montana, the first woman to serve in Congress who served before women were even allowed to vote.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

She was a Republican. Let's honor her.

Their stories deserve to be told, but they deserve to be told in a museum that is designed, that is built, that is located, and that talks about issues that the women of America have decided, not any one President.

That is why we are rejecting their partisan proposal and we are urging a return to the original bipartisan bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning we heard my colleague talk about the fact that Republicans seem to be trans-obsessed. He said they had 126 bills, trans-obsessed bills, and this is one of them.

The women's history museum bill was a simple bill that said: Let's make sure that the museum is placed on The Mall. You all amended it, not just to address your trans-obsession, but then to also give the authority to President Trump's committee to decide where it should go and what it should look like. We do not agree with that. We do not agree with that, which is why you have 146 Members who have signed a letter in opposition to the amendment.

It was a simple bill. You kind of ruined it with your trans-obsession and your culture wars.

Why don't we go back to the simplicity of what the bill was: Put the women's museum on The Mall, and let's move forward.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this week has been about what Republicans value and who they are willing to hurt to give Trump more power and more money.

In July, Republicans found money for billionaire tax breaks when they passed the big, beautiful bill. They found money for another war in the Middle East. Now, they want us to vote for a billion dollars for Trump's ballroom and more money for ICE's terror campaign, but when we need to increase benefits for disabled veterans, Republicans say veterans have to pay for it themselves.

When women want a museum that tells their own story, Republicans hand control to Donald Trump. When families struggle with groceries, rent, gas, and utility bills, Trump says he doesn't even think about their financial situation.

That is the Republican agenda: everything for Trump, everybody else on their own.

Republicans in Congress refuse to stand up to Trump. They refuse to stand up for their constituents. They have no courage.

Now, Republicans want to give Donald Trump power over where the Women's History Museum should be located, what it looks like, and what we talk about.

A museum dedicated to the story of American women should not be controlled by a man who is mentioned more than 38,000 times in the Epstein files. It should not be controlled by a man who was found guilty of sexual abuse.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1300, I call up the bill (H.R. 1041) to amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to the Department of Justice for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 1041, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, H.R. 1041, as amended, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.

The choice before the House today is clear: whether those who defended our freedom deserve the same constitutional protection as nonveterans.

This past February, President Trump and Secretary Collins answered that question with a resounding yes.

VA overturned a longstanding policy of automatically reporting veterans and beneficiaries to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, also called NICS, simply because they needed help managing their VA benefits.

VA reported them not because they committed a crime or because a judge or a medical professional determined they were a danger to themselves or others. VA reported them to NICS simply because they needed help managing their benefits. That was the policy for over three decades, Mr. Speaker.

I have been working on this issue for 10 years because I know that this interpretation of the law is wrong. That is why I have long- championed this bill, as well as my bipartisan provision in this, the yearly VA appropriation bill, to prohibit VA's fiduciary program from reporting veterans' names to NICS.

This is a bill about due process. Most importantly, it is about protecting our veterans' Second Amendment rights. It is time we put a permanent end to the practice of treating our veterans' Second Amendment rights as an option and pass H.R. 1041.

This bill would codify the policy rider that was included in the MILCON appropriation bill that passed the House last week.

As a veteran and sportsman, I believe it is a gross violation of due process to say that a veteran with a fiduciary should be treated as a second-class citizen. Our veterans raise their right hands to defend the constitutional rights of American citizens. I know because I was one of them, and I took that responsibility seriously.

Yet, when the question came before our committee on whether it would defend their rights, Ranking Member Takano and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate fact that some Members in this Chamber plan to defend this discriminatory practice. Generally, a civilian cannot lose their Second Amendment rights without involvement from a judge, but veterans did for three decades. Democrats would prefer they continue to.

A veteran goes to the VA to ask for help, and the VA bureaucracy answers ``yes,'' but only in exchange for your Second Amendment rights.

Mr. Speaker, that is not due process. This is an antigun, antiveteran agenda. If a veteran poses a legitimate threat to themselves or others, judges already have legal tools available to them. Let me say that again. Judges already have legal tools available to them. A veteran should receive the same rights as every other American.

There is also something else that I want to raise: the false assumption that disabled veterans are dangerous and the harmful assumption that the capacity to manage your finances has any bearing on dangerousness or that you are dangerous, as well. Those sorts of cartoon-like simplifications cause those with disabilities to face extra hurdles when exercising their rights. It is unacceptable, and, as a veteran, I am not going to stand for it anymore.

There is no evidence that these veterans are more dangerous to themselves or others simply because they need help managing their benefits. Holding veterans to the evidence-less standard is outrageous. Frankly, it paints the veterans' mental health issues in a way that should concern everyone. Over 200,000 veterans were reported to the NICS list under this practice. Let me say it again: 200,000 veterans.

Secretary Collins and President Trump worked with DOJ to change that, wiping the list clean. I want to be clear that no person, veteran or otherwise, reported to NICS by a State judge, law enforcement agency, or other reporting bodies for any other reason was removed.

At committee markup, Democrats also offered amendment after amendment designed to delay and weaken this bill. They wanted more studies.

Mr. Speaker, I am tired after 10 years of delays. Democrats want a system where veterans are presumed guilty and a system where veterans are forced to prove their innocence.

In America, constitutional rights are God-granted rights. Veterans should never have to choose between assistance and preserving their constitutional rights, and veterans with disabilities should not be discriminated against.

This Congress has a responsibility to protect veterans' rights just as fiercely as they protect any other American's rights.

This Memorial Day, let us not just remember those veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice. Let us also remember the freedoms and the people who they sacrificed it for.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 1041, as amended, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a veteran, I find this argument offensive, that veterans with fiduciaries are dangerous. This is simply not true. There is no evidence provided that veterans with fiduciaries are any more violent, suicidal, or dangerous than nonveterans.

Yet, Democrats continue to push the idea that veterans who need help managing their finances should be treated as though they were presumed dangerous. Now, he can say that that is not the case, but there are over 200,000 people who would argue differently.

Incompetence in financial ability is not and should not be something that should take away your Second Amendment right. Yes, veterans struggle with suicide and mental health greater than the rest of the population. Yes, those financial hardships often face negative thoughts, but the problem facing the veterans are separate and distinct.

They deserve to be treated as such. That is why we have a VA that spans everything from healthcare to benefits. If someone is truly a danger to themselves or others, there are medical and legal professionals who can stand by and address these issues just like it is for those people who are nonveterans. H.R. 1041 does not change that fact. It simply dispels harmful stereotypes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden), my good friend, who has been a veteran who served beside veterans, his combat brothers and sisters, and knows what veterans face.

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

I think we should go ahead and listen to what was actually said whenever we said that they actually were having some mental problems, the issue where the ranking member actually said that we only take it away and then they have an appeals process, and that that appeals process is a great appeals process. Mr. Speaker, 240,000 veterans have had their rights taken away, and through the appeals process, less than 800 got them back--less than 800.

He also said that some of them might not want to have their Second Amendment rights. There is nothing in our Constitution that forces you to use your Second Amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, constitutional rights do not become less important simply because ignoring them is convenient.

In fact, moments like these are when the constitutional protection matters the most. My colleagues say we should respond with more studies. That is what they want, more studies. A peer-reviewed study is not standing for the rights granted to every American citizen of our Nation. Who should keep their rights more than the people who stood up and fought for them?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen to what the previous speaker just said.

She explained that if someone has a mental health condition or someone has these other concerns, that she would offer an amendment to that. However, let me explain to you that if we grant them their constitutional rights, Mr. Speaker, they already have that ability.

They already have that ability and their constitutional rights would be treated exactly the same as a person that does not serve in the military and does not go to the VA.

Someone can see that if they had a problem, then they could take and raise that before a judge, not before a bureaucrat.

Let me explain this again. This is not about gun rights. This is not about dealing with our veterans that might commit suicide or anyone else that might commit suicide. This is about the constitutional right of a veteran who has fought for those rights that a bureaucrat has the power to take away their ability to have that Second Amendment, which is in the Constitution.

Now, they might not agree with that Second Amendment and that has been debated here several times. But now to continue to carry on and use this law to take away the rights of people who fought for their rights, how ridiculous is that? How ridiculous is it going to be to go back for Memorial Day and tell their veterans, I was there for you. We took away your rights. I think that is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Democrats claim that H.R. 1041, as amended, would harm vulnerable veterans. That is simply false, but just don't take my word for it. Organizations who represent millions of veterans and their families support this. In fact, the bill is supported by The American Legion, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, Mission Roll Call, the Black Veterans Empowerment Council. All of these groups, and countless others, veterans organizations across this Nation support this piece of legislation, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and many others. Why? It is because they understand that this is about the rights of the men and women who stood in the gap to make sure you can keep yours.

This bill is also supported by Second Amendment groups, including: Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, the National Association for Gun Rights, the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Importantly, H.R. 1041, as amended, is supported by the civil liberties groups and organizations who advocate for the elderly and those with disabilities, including the American Civil Liberties Union, not necessarily a conservative group, the National Disability Rights Network, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Association of Mature American Citizens Action, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, and the Disability Rights, Education & Defense Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree, and even Ranking Member Takano can admit that it is not every day that many of these groups come united together, especially probably the NRA and the ACLU. Their support shows how discriminatory the practice that the VA has been doing for over the last three decades has been by reporting to the next unit anyone who seeks fiduciary help from the VA.

Mr. Speaker, most of the people who have spoken on the Democrat side of the aisle would carry other laws that would take away your Second Amendment right.

Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing the gun law here, though I would. I am arguing the rights of our veterans for due process, the same as someone who never raised their hand. Why should someone have their rights improperly and without due process be taken away because they chose to stand up for this Nation?

I am going to tell you this wasn't for political purposes. I have been carrying this bill for a long time. This weekend, you are going to have to go back to your districts, and you are going to have to talk about the fact that: I am there for you, my veterans. Thank you. I am there for you, but I don't think you are worth your constitutional rights, even though you served to defend them.

Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that has wrongly occurred in this Nation for way too long. I thank the administration for getting it straightened out. We are not saying that someone that is a veteran and is a danger to themselves or a danger to other people can't go through the process like everybody else and say, okay, we do need to go ahead and look over their ability to have that Second Amendment right. That is why we have the NICS list. But whenever the NICS list is overburdened, matter of fact, with our veterans at the percentage that it is, something is wrong. Something is wrong. This bill has been a longtime coming.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from many of those organizations that I mentioned previously: The American Legion, National Disability Rights Network, National Rifle Association of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and American Civil Liberties Union.

The American Legion,

Office of the National Commander,

Washington, DC, April 29, 2025.

Hon. Mike Bost,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bost: On behalf of the American Legion 1.5

million dues paying members, I write to express our full

support for H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection

Act, as amended.

This legislation is a necessary step toward restoring the

constitutional rights of countless veterans who, despite

having honorably served our nation, have been unjustly denied

their Second Amendment rights. For far too long, veterans who

required the assistance of a fiduciary for managing VA

benefits--often due to physical or age-related issues--were

reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check

System (NICS) without any due process or judicial review.

These individuals were wrongfully categorized as mentally

defective, not based on a court ruling, but simply on

administrative decisions by the Department of Veterans

Affairs.

H.R. 1041 corrects this miscarriage of justice by

prohibiting the VA from transmitting personally identifiable

information to the Department of Justice for inclusion in

NICS unless a judge or magistrate has determined the

individual to be a danger to themselves or others. This

preserves the fundamental principle of due process--an

essential safeguard for any constitutional right, especially

one as central as the right to keep and bear arms.

The bill rightly recognizes that being assigned a fiduciary

does not equate to being a danger to oneself or others and

therefore should not serve as grounds to restrict firearm

ownership. Importantly, this legislation requires the

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify the Attorney General

that the basis for all prior reporting of veterans to NICS

solely due to fiduciary status does not apply or no longer

applies. This notification will, in turn, trigger the FBI to

update the NICS database accordingly ensuring that those who

were wrongfully reported will be removed. It is critical to

note that veterans who are on the NICS list for other

legitimate legal reasons, such as a state court finding

dangerousness, will remain unaffected by this correction.

This bill does not jeopardize public safety. Instead, it

upholds the balance between protecting communities and

respecting the rights of those who served our country with

courage and sacrifice. The assumption that a veteran is

incapable or dangerous simply because they require fiduciary

assistance is not only unfounded--it is deeply disrespectful

and discriminatory.

We urge members of Congress to support and pass the

Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act to ensure that no

veteran is stripped of their rights without a fair and

impartial judicial process.

For God and Country,

James A. LaCoursiere,

National Commander.

Mr. Speaker, my message to all Members is really clear: Support this bill. Support the constitutional rights of those people who fought for those constitutional rights for you.

As I said, this has gone on long enough. I think that a person who knows and understands this issue will stand up for their veterans and support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill and I urge my colleagues to vote against it, as well.

May is Mental Health Awareness Month, and it also happens to be Military Appreciation Month. We are also here a few days before Memorial Day, when we honor those who gave all to defend our country, so the cruel irony of the majority choosing to consider this bill now is not lost on me.

They are here, once again, putting politics above policy, only this time Republicans are playing political games with the lives of veterans.

It goes without saying that there is a mental health crisis in this country. Americans of all stripes lack access to the resources necessary to properly care for their mental health--or fail to fully realize them--and they suffer because of this crisis.

Veterans are certainly no exception, and they face additional challenges due to service-connected mental health conditions. Many veterans can access mental health care through the VA, but those not connected to VA care may face additional challenges seeking resources and support.

Unfortunately, because of cheap, easy access to firearms in this country, our Nation's mental health crisis is one of the many contributors to the epidemic of suicide and gun violence in America.

Again, veterans are not immune to that, and where those two issues converge, veterans and their communities suffer the consequences.

Let me just cite a few examples: Lewiston, Maine; Thousand Oaks, California; Sutherland Springs and Fort Hood, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana; Jasper, Georgia; and countless others. The absolute tragedy of veteran suicide remains persistent.

Despite our best efforts, the rate of veteran suicide has not declined as far and as fast as we would like it to. More than 6,500 veterans die by suicide each year, and more than 70 percent of those suicides are deaths by firearms.

In fact, veterans are three times more likely to die by suicide using a firearm than their nonveteran peers. So why, knowing all of that, do we find ourselves debating a bill today that will only lead to more firearms in the hands of the most vulnerable veterans in VA care? The answer is pure and simple: politics.

This bill is not about the Second Amendment. It is about Republicans invoking their favorite political shield whenever they need to distract from their failure to govern. They have brought versions of this bill to the floor and in committee. They have brought it up again and again for nearly a decade and usually when they want an election-year fight, not a serious veterans policy debate.

Veterans should know exactly what is happening here. The majority is using the Second Amendment as branding for a bill that has nothing to do with veterans losing rights for seeking care. That is not happening.

What is happening is that Republicans are stoking fear, feeding stigma, and using vulnerable veterans as props in a political fight. More specifically, Republicans desire to invoke the sacred Second Amendment and use the issue of access to firearms for political gain, and that is what is driving this conversation.

That they would do so by endangering veterans' lives is disgusting to me, and it should be to them, as well. What we will hear from Republicans is that fear of having their Second Amendment rights encroached upon leads to a reluctance of veterans to seek mental health care. That is true, but that very fear is being stoked by the stage that they have set for today's debate.

The constant refrain from Republicans that the VA will take your guns away if you seek help is what is fueling the harmful stigma. Under no circumstances does seeking mental health care at the VA lead to a loss of rights or firearms, and if the Republicans were interested in the truth, they would acknowledge that.

We will hear from the majority and we have heard from them already that veterans' due process rights are being violated and that veterans are having their rights stripped away unconstitutionally by bureaucrats at the VA. Again, not true and false on many fronts.

There is robust due process built into the VA's systems that passes constitutional muster. We are going to hear from Republicans that the VA's decision to assign someone a fiduciary and subsequently add their name to the NICS list is based on whether someone can balance their checkbook or whether they can manage their benefits. Again, another blatant falsehood.

The VA's decisions are based on a diagnosis of severe mental illness or injury that prevents a beneficiary from managing their own affairs. Let me say that again: The VA's decisions are based on a diagnosis of severe mental illness or injury that prevents a beneficiary from managing their own affairs.

It is documented in medical records by a clinician, not just some what they would call a bureaucrat. It is documented in medical records by a clinician and interpreted by someone trained in reading those medical records. At no point is anyone just given a mere math test.

Mr. Speaker, at times I feel like we are screaming into the void regarding gun violence. How many more preventable deaths and injuries will we tolerate? How many veterans will we let languish in a spiral that leads to it? When will we stop political posturing and start making meaningful change to actually help veterans?

This bill is certainly not accomplishing that task. Unfortunately, my counterparts have lost sight of the truth at the heart of this issue. What is at the heart of this issue is the veterans' health and safety.

The majority wants veterans to believe that this debate is about protecting constitutional rights. It is not. It is about recycling a decade-old talking point, stoking fear about VA care, and hiding behind the Second Amendment because they do not have a serious governing agenda.

Today, we are debating this bill, and I want you to remember that the rhetoric of the majority is not based on the reality of the situation but, rather, it is based on their desire to use veterans as pawns in their election-year political games.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me address this issue of who is actually in the fiduciary program. Let's talk a moment about the population that this bill is intended to cover, those who are actually in the fiduciary program.

These are veterans with severe illnesses, illnesses like schizophrenia, significant traumatic brain injury,

post-traumatic stress, bipolar disorder, and dementia. These are people who meet the level of injury or illness criteria such that they cannot manage their personal affairs, not just their checkbook.

I have heard this argument over and over again by the majority. Oh, people are being denied, veterans are being denied access to firearms because they can't balance their checkbook. No, no, no. This is not to be reduced to that talking point.

We should be looking to these veterans with care and compassion. We should look at how to better serve their needs regarding access to consistent care and treatment. All these disorders are associated with elevated risk of dangerousness to self and others--suicide in particular--especially when combined with a host of other factors that are actually concentrated in the veterans population.

Moreover, we also know empirically that veterans who are found to have poor financial management abilities are also two times more likely to have substance abuse disorders, suicidal ideation, or engage in violent behavior and be in the justice system.

Drawing a distinction between those who simply cannot balance their checkbook and those who are more explicitly dangerous to themselves or others is not warranted and, in fact, could cause more veterans to slip through the cracks.

It is important to acknowledge that there are significant data gaps that exist related to the population of beneficiaries in the fiduciary program. I, for one, would like to know more about the veterans that are in the fiduciary program.

This bill addresses none of those data gaps, which is one of its many flaws. Instead of seeking to understand who is in this population, the majority rejects any attempt to know more about them.

The majority suggests that there are veterans on the fiduciary list who don't have the opportunity to get off that list, that there is a lack of a robust appeals process. He cites 200,000 veterans being named in this list because they are assigned a fiduciary and cites that there is only maybe a couple of folks who have ever appealed. He cites that as a failure of the appeals process, but maybe it is the other way around. Maybe it is not really what veterans want to do who are on this list. I would like to know that for sure, and we could study that, but the majority has rejected all attempts.

There is very limited information publicly available about the population of veterans deemed to be financially incompetent who have historically been reported to the NICS list and whether they, on average, have elevated rates of suicidality or violence.

We have no data on the desired beneficiaries in the fiduciary program to purchase or own firearms. We don't even know if people on this list actually want to own firearms.

We have no data on why beneficiaries are failing to utilize the due process afforded to them in the system already.

We have no data on if fear of losing Second Amendment rights is a major impediment to seeking help or if other factors are more important.

In other words, the claim that fear of losing Second Amendment rights is a major impediment to seeking help is a claim being made that has not been borne out by any sort of research or study.

We also don't know the long-term mental health outcomes of those in the fiduciary program.

Democrats in the past have offered amendments to address all of these data gaps, and they were universally rejected by the majority because, again, this is not about policymaking to them. This is not about really trying to understand what we can do to help veterans.

What Republicans have put forth here today is a philosophical debate about the absoluteness of the Second Amendment, and they have made this argument in the absence of data to push legislation without safeguards that will have real-life consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and the ranking member of the Subcommittee for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Appropriations Committee.

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

I want to try to bring us back down to Earth and dispel the rumors that those on the other side of the aisle can't help themselves but to spread.

We have heard that H.R. 1041 is a matter of restoring veterans' due process rights, that it is a matter of veterans losing their guns if they need a little help with their finances, and that veterans are stripped of their rights to bear arms for life by unelected VA bureaucrats. None of this is true.

Veterans are not having their weapons taken away if they utilize VA mental health care. Under no circumstances is VA traipsing around the country confiscating firearms.

This is a story that needs to stop being told. I would encourage my colleagues to stop intentionally spreading misinformation.

The Veterans Health Administration, where veterans would be receiving care, has absolutely no role in this process and absolutely no communication with the Department of Justice or the NICS list.

Veterans can and should go to VHA, the Veterans Health Administration, and the VA medical centers for care without fear.

Stop spreading the false fear or the false basis for fear. Start telling the truth.

The truth is that there is robust due process present in this program. A veteran can appeal the assignment of a fiduciary and their subsequent reporting to NICS both before and after the fact, including in Federal court.

I will note, though, that VA data indicates that not many people choose to appeal this decision. That is not because it is too difficult but because it is a pathway that veterans simply are not choosing or simply don't desire.

Again, we are talking about veterans and other beneficiaries who have been injured or made ill in such a way that they cannot make decisions for themselves.

To be clear, this is not something VA launches into without regard.

Veterans in this program have gone through a rigorous, medically- based--medically-based--process to determine their needs for a fiduciary. The decision is not some flippant choice to take away weapons by unelected bureaucrats over a math test as we often hear. An assignment of a fiduciary is done after highly specific criteria are met, and only then, when those criteria are met, does a veteran's name get forwarded to the NCIS database.

However, the majority asks: Why are we treating our veterans like criminals?

Why are we assuming guilt and barring them from obtaining weapons?

This is a rhetorical flourish. It is also fantastical. Veterans are not being treated like criminals. They are being handled in a manner that is commensurate with their medical status as determined by a medical provider in order to protect them and those around them from potential harm.

We have to stop spreading falsehoods and be honest with our veterans. It is inappropriate full stop.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Georgia (Mrs. McBath), who is my good friend and a passionate advocate for gun safety in America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Minnesota (Ms. Morrison). Dr. Kelly Morrison is my good friend and fellow committee member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously frustrated with what I have heard here today. There has been a lot of lipservice to the concept of due process from my colleagues, which is particularly interesting considering they do not share this same passion for the application of this right elsewhere at VA.

If it wasn't already clear that my colleagues are only here to put on a show, I will remind everyone that even if this bill were to be signed into law today, it would have no effect whatsoever on the processes and procedures at VA.

Why you may ask? This is because in its infinite wisdom, the Department of Justice and VA, have decided to ignore Congress, once again, and unilaterally interpret the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act so as not to apply to VA.

VA isn't even doing the things the majority is accusing them of doing anymore, but sadly, my colleagues have decided it is worth continuing to sow mistruths, distortions, and risk endangering veterans and civilian lives alike by messaging on the backs of beneficiaries who need treatment, not weapons.

Mr. Speaker, we must be steadfast in providing meaningful support to our veterans, not using them as props for political gain as this bill does.

As the chairman said, this is not about gun rights. This is not about gun rights. I would suggest that what this is about is politics.

We must do anything and everything we can to protect the most vulnerable veterans in the VA system and not inject more risk of harm.

For those reasons and many more, I strongly oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take a moment to talk about this bipartisan effort to build the women's history museum. The reality is this was a museum that was first authorized in 2020 with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Donald Trump.

Now, this measure that I am proud to be a cosponsor of had 232 sponsors, an overwhelming number of Republicans and Democrats who support this legislation, and it had the support of President Donald Trump.

It is set up in a way where there is an advisory council which is already appointed, people can go see who those members are. It is basically evenly split, Republicans and Democrats, who advise on the content and the exhibits that will be in this museum.

So for anybody to stand up and say that somehow this legislation would allow the President to dictate the content and what will be displayed in this museum is simply untrue.

Now, there was an amendment that was made in the House Administration Committee that added one simple thing regarding content, and the simple thing is simply to add a sentence that said that this was a museum dedicated to biological women. That came out of a concern from people out in the community, women's organizations. Yes, the White House agrees with us that it should be restricted to biological women and many Members who brought up questions during the hearing of that bill when it was in the Natural Resources Committee.

Now, simply adding the word ``biological'' to this museum should not make it a deal-breaker for my colleagues on the other side. I don't understand why they are all refusing to now support a bill when we had, again, well over 100 sponsors from the Democratic Party. They can't say that that is not the reason that they are not supporting this. I mean, the Democratic Women's Caucus put out a memo. In there they said that it ``Adds a discriminatory provision intended to dictate what the museum can and cannot say about women's history, for example, language about biological women.''

That is the reason. They have said it. I think that is a disgrace that the Democrats will stand in the way of a national women's history museum being built by the Smithsonian, a reputable institution, simply because that sentence was added to the legislation.

This certainly can be a bipartisan, and should be, a bipartisan effort moving forward.

As I said, it is the advisory council that is evenly split Republicans and Democrats that will come up with the content when this museum is built. By the way, it will be a long time before it is built, and it will be longer if this bill fails because you guys decide to stop a women's history museum from coming to the floor.

The bill simply transfers land. So let's get that land transferred. Let's get the process going, and let's honor the women of America who have contributed so much and deserve to be recognized.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the party that is opposing a women's history museum on The National Mall because they want to have transgender exhibits, maybe they are the ones who are trans-obsessed. That is the reality.

This bill does nothing other than simply make clear that it is biological women who are in a women's museum. I don't understand that.

In terms of location, there is no committee. There is no Presidential committee that is set up to possibly change the site. In fact, the amendment clarified the location. Before, we did not have the specific South Monument site location, which is bordered by 14th Street Southwest, Jefferson Drive Southwest, and Independence Avenue Southwest specifically listed in the bill.

Now, it is specifically listed. Yes, the President may designate an alternative site within 180 days if there is an issue for some reason with that particular land. If we find out there is a particular issue and you can't build on that land, wouldn't you want to have the option not to have to do this all over again and pass another bill but instead allow for an alternative location to be set?

This bill further clarified that location as the chosen location, which the advisory council--made up of bipartisan women, not President Donald Trump or his commission--established.

I just think it is ridiculous that we are arguing over this when this is clearly something that was authorized by Republicans and Democrats under President Trump in 2020, and now the land should be transferred so it can be built with bipartisan support and President Trump, once again, here we are in 2026.

By the way, you had 4 years under the last President to do something about it. This was authorized by President Trump in 2020, and for 4 years you guys did nothing to move it along and get the Biden administration--which I had repeatedly lent my support to that effort to try to help.

So here we are. President Donald Trump is the President. He will be the one who will break ground on this museum, and I know that bothers you that it is going to be President Trump that delivers the women's history museum, but that is the reality because your President did nothing for 4 years.