Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2102) to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for concurrent receipt of veterans' disability compensation and retired pay for disability retirees with combat-related disabilities, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule XV, I call up the motion to discharge previously noticed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this motion to discharge a rule that will allow us to finally, finally debate and vote on the Major Richard Star Act.

It is far past time for us to end the wounded warrior tax and to give our combat-wounded veterans the compensation they have earned.

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

Mr. Speaker, we must reject the false choice that this majority is presenting us with and vote against H.R. 9237 later today. That bill is a slap in the face to every veteran whoever put on a uniform, and we must reject it.

This body must not now or ever tell our Nation's veterans that the only way we can deliver them benefits that they have earned and deserve is to cut them from other veterans.

We must do the right thing. Today, on Veterans Day of all days, reject TCAVA and support the Major Richard Star Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule, which would finally allow us to consider H.R. 2102, otherwise known as the Major Richard Star Act.

It is far past time to remedy the injustice that is the Wounded Warrior tax. The Major Richard Star Act would do just that, finally allowing our combat-wounded veterans to receive the full, fair, and just compensation they have earned through their service and sacrifice.

Before we get to that, I must say how shameful it is that last night on the eve of Veterans Day, the outgoing Speaker of the House has decided to ambush veterans by bringing to the floor the largest cut to veterans benefits in history. The Take Care of America's Veterans Act and the billions of dollars of cuts it contains fails to honor the promise we made to America's veterans. This is the parting gift of the current Republican majority, and Members should reject this harmful and hurtful bill outright.

Mr. Speaker, this bill forces veterans to pay the tab for their own benefits and creates two classes of veterans by making those currently serving ineligible for the same benefits current veterans receive.

Any perceived good that may be in TCAVA is more than outweighed by the harm inflicted by the way that Republicans are choosing to pay for them.

As I said, this is not just me saying this. This bill has been fiercely debated in the veterans community as well.

Let me read a few of the statements from some of the largest veteran service organizations in the country on TCAVA. This is from the VFW. The VFW has said in a press release last week: ``Section 108 [of TCAVA] would change how VA rates certain disabilities, including tinnitus and sleep apnea, resulting in lower disability compensation for some future veterans.

``These cuts would help pay for other provisions in the bill. But section 108 goes further by putting changes to disability ratings into law instead of allowing VA to make those changes through its normal process. That would make the changes harder to reverse, even if new evidence shows they should be reconsidered.

``It could also set a precedent for Congress to cut compensation for other service-connected disabilities in the future simply to save money.

``Veterans who already receive compensation would be protected from reductions under this provision, but future veterans could receive less for the same disabilities.''

``Congress should not improve benefits for some veterans by cutting benefits for others.''

From Disabled American Veterans: ``A scaled-down version of the Star Act was included in the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, a broader package of veterans legislation. That version would place limits on the retirement benefits some combat-injured veterans could receive.

``Even more concerning, TCAVA includes a provision that would reduce future disability compensation by $57 billion for up to 1.5 million veterans

over the next 10 years. Veterans should not be forced to lose benefits so others can finally receive what they earned.

``Correcting one injustice should not require creating another.''

From Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America: ``Today, the House will once again consider the Take Care of America's Veterans Act,'' otherwise known as TCAVA, H.R. 9237, ``which failed in July because of lack of support by major VSOs, veterans, and Members of Congress.

``Today is no different. TCAVA is still harmful to veterans, is still opposed by a majority of veterans, and is especially insulting being brought up on Veterans Day, under the guise of being a win for veterans.

``TCAVA is not equivalent to passing the standalone Major Richard Star Act. This package contains provisions that negatively affect veterans. It cuts disability compensation for sleep apnea and tinnitus without any formal VA regulatory changes. It includes a threefold increase to the VA home loan fee for refinancing loans. It establishes a dangerous precedent for Congress to treat specific medical conditions as budget opportunities.

``TCAVA is not the only path forward. Today and tomorrow, the House will discuss and vote on the standalone Major Richard Star Act. This bill is wholly backed by the entire veteran community and has 342 House cosponsors. It does not take money out of veterans' pockets''--

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

``This bill is wholly backed by the entire veteran community and has 342 House cosponsors. It does not take money out of veterans' pockets to pay for itself; it does not include caps to eligibility; and it does not pit veterans against themselves and divide the community.''

There is an alternative to the harm of TCAVA. It is why I stand here today. The Major Richard Star Act will address a longstanding injustice experienced by thousands of veterans.

The Major Richard Star Act has been championed for most of the last decade by my Republican colleague Representative Gus Bilirakis, whom I have nothing but the utmost respect for. He, along with my good friend Democratic Representative Raul Ruiz, has doggedly led the charge to ensure our combat-wounded veterans--nearly 59,000 at last count--are able to receive the entirety of their earned VA injury and illness compensation, as well as their full military retirement.

Under current law, when a servicemember is forced to retire because of wounds suffered in combat, their military retirement is offset dollar for dollar by the amount of VA compensation they receive.

That is unconscionable to me, so I am glad that we are finally, finally here trying to fix this.

Unfortunately, the path of today's action hasn't been a straight or easy one. This bill has 342 bipartisan cosponsors this Congress and had over 300 last Congress, as well.

Despite this yearslong, strong, overwhelming bipartisan support, it will only receive a vote this week for the first time in the House of Representatives. Even then, this is only because we were successfully able to use the discharge petition process to wrest this bill from the inertia that so often besets this body. This majority had no intention of ever bringing this bill for a vote.

So why, if there is so much stated support for this bill, has it taken so long? The answer is simple--cost, or should I say perceived cost. For too long, Members of this body have been concerned about the price tag of this legislation. This excuse was brought up repeatedly, even though those same individuals who complain about costs have no problem sending our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to war and approving the trillion-dollar Pentagon budgets that come along with it.

I will add that the current Republican majority has no problem absorbing the cost of tax breaks for billionaires, also in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars. So why then do they insist on balancing budgets on the backs of our veterans?

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, there are those among us who viewed cosponsorship of the Major Richard Star Act as a free space on their bingo card. Many thought they could placate veterans by adding their name, knowing full well they would hide behind cost concerns when it came time to put up or shut up.

Well, that changes today. No more handwringing and disingenuous talk of debt and deficits, and no more hiding behind hollow words of support without meaningful action to back them up. Today, we acknowledge that the higher cost is the cost of not passing the Major Richard Star Act. The higher cost is supporting a harmful bill like TCAVA, which takes from veterans and creates a new, lesser class of veterans.

The cost of breaking our promise to America's warriors is far greater than dollars and cents. Today, we put our money where our mouth is and vote to advance the overwhelming number one priority of veterans and veterans service organizations, the Major Richard Star Act.

We must also stand together and soundly reject the outrageous Republican effort to enact the largest cut to veteran benefits in history on today of all days.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to support our wounded warriors, honor the promise we made to them, support the Major Richard Star Act, and vote ``yes'' on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), one of the main advocates on the Major Richard Star Act, a partner of mine on the PACT Act, as well, and a champion for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 4 minutes to the gentleman from California.

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

I thank the gentleman from California, my neighbor, for your valiant and persistent work. I believe tomorrow we are going to get it done.

Mr. Speaker, we are only a week beyond a monumental election. Voter participation was at or near record highs across the country, and nearly everywhere voters made their voices clear: This Congress must do more to address affordability. I agree, and that is especially true for our Nation's veterans.

Earlier this week, we voted on the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act, which would raise the level of disability compensation to match inflation. It was the least we could do for our veterans, and it was also the right thing to do. But it is also absolutely the right thing to do to ensure that our combat-wounded veterans have access to all their retirement compensation and VA compensation, without forcing benefit cuts, because nothing addresses affordability more than simply giving them the money they have earned, and nothing harms it more than taking money out of people's pockets.

So let's pass this rule today, and soon after, let us pass the Major Richard Star Act as well and honor the promise we have made to our Nation's wounded warriors.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak for a moment on the looming vote on H.R. 9237, the so-called Take Care of America's Veterans Act. I think the title is ironic. It really should be called the taking benefits away from veterans act.

Let me just say that the House first considered this bill back in July, and Republicans were forced to suspend consideration because of opposition on both sides of the aisle.

As proof that we can't have anything nice with this current majority, as we stand on the precipice of passing an overwhelmingly bipartisan veterans' benefits expansion in the Major Richard Star Act, Republicans are bringing TCAVA back to the floor tonight.

Mr. Speaker, this majority is so desperate to cut veterans' benefits that here in Washington, D.C., on Veterans Day, of all days, they will force a vote on the largest cut to veterans' benefits ever enacted by Congress.

I have to say this is as confusing to me as it is callous. Why on a day meant to honor those who have served and sacrificed for our Nation are we considering a bill that will cut the benefits that they are owed? Why are we considering a bill that has divided the veteran community and divided this body? Is it this majority's true desire, as they exit control of this Chamber, to have their last action on behalf of veterans to be a massive cut?

I ask my Republican colleagues: Is that the legacy you really want for yourself?

TCAVA will, without a doubt, lead to cuts for those who already have service-connected disability ratings for sleep apnea and tinnitus to the tune of billions of dollars.

These cuts also make servicemembers currently serving, who may be incurring these injuries right now in the Gulf region, ineligible to receive compensation for service-connected tinnitus or sleep apnea. So those servicemembers President Trump keeps sending into harm's way in this foolish and reckless war with Iran would be ineligible for these benefits. That should give us all pause.

Yes, there are many good aspects to H.R. 9237 for veterans, survivors, and caregivers, as well, but as long as those

good things are paid for by cutting benefits for other current or future veterans, I cannot support it. TCAVA contains the most watered- down version of the Major Richard Star Act imaginable.

Mr. Speaker, I also take great umbrage, great umbrage, with the premise that the benefits of TCAVA must be offset at all. The chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has claimed that the provisions in this bill must be offset and that there is no path forward on the Major Richard Star Act or other needed benefit increases without also cutting. Once again, we know that this is not even remotely true.

We have heard the kind of self-righteous indignation on debt and deficit for decades from Republicans. All the while, they run up the tab on Pentagon spending and tax cuts for the wealthy. House Republicans are more than willing to spend big on their priorities, like corporate welfare, yet Chairman Bost demands cuts to pay for veteran benefits.

Madam Speaker, I ask you and Chairman Bost why we do not require offsets for Pentagon costs, yet veterans are required to suffer cuts to get the benefits they were promised.

Spending is a matter of priorities. Clearly, we know where the majority's priorities lie.

Madam Speaker, my message is simple today: Reject the cynical politics of the Take Care of America's Veterans Act and vote ``yes'' on the clean Major Richard Star Act. On this, of all days, Veterans Day, let's do right by the men and women who are sent into harm's way.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

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

Madam Speaker, just a week ago, in a historic election, the American people sent Congress a clear message: Bring down costs, end the forever wars, and stop the corruption that is lining the pockets of the White House insiders, billionaires, and corporate executives.

Families are struggling to pay for rent and groceries, while the President's reckless and illegal tariffs push their prices even higher. They are paying outrageous prices at the gas pump and on their utility bills while billionaires and the Trump family get richer and richer.

After hearing that resounding message from voters, what is the first bill that Republicans bring up? It is not a bill to lower costs, to end the war, to rein in AI, or to clean up corruption. It is a giveaway to banks, insurance companies, Wall Street investment firms, and unregulated retirement consultants.

Who pays for that giveaway? Teachers, nurses, and public servants, with their retirement savings, pay for it.

H.R. 1013 is widely opposed by the Americans it would most affect. The same people whose savings are at stake have told us where they stand. Teachers, nurses, public servants, and workers across the country do not want their retirement plans deregulated at the behest of Wall Street.

That is why this bill is opposed by groups such as: AARP; AFL-CIO; American Federation of Teachers; National Education Association; National Nurses United; Americans for Financial Reform; Service Employees International Union; Communications Workers of America; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the UAW; North American Securities Administrators Association; Public Citizen; and the Consumer Federation of America.

This bill would strip safeguards from 403(b) plans, which are how teachers, nurses, and the staff of hospitals and charities save for retirement. These plans hold $1.6 trillion. This is not a small change.

Today, the mutual funds and variable annuities sold to these plans must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Registration gives a plan standard information on fees and risks so it can compare its options on behalf of the workers who have put their hard-earned money into it.

H.R. 1013 would let banks and insurance companies sell these plans two kinds of products without registering them with the SEC: collective investment trusts and insurance company separate accounts.

A school district choosing investments for its teachers' retirement plan would no longer get the standardized detailed information it gets today. That is the information it needs to make the best investment decision possible. Unlike a mutual fund, a collective investment trust has no independent board approving its fees.

H.R. 1013, however, would let banks and insurance companies sell two kinds of financial products without registering them with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Republicans call this parity with 401(k) plans. It is not.

Nearly every 401(k) plan is covered by the safeguards of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, which holds the people who run a plan to a fiduciary standard and requires fees to be disclosed to every participant. However, the vast majority of 403(b) plans are not covered by ERISA at all.

This bill lets the employer, who is often busy with their day-to-day job, hand the job of approving investments to ``another person acting on behalf of the employer.'' This bill does not require that that person be a fiduciary, that is to act in the best interests of the plan and to be registered with a Federal agency or even to be independent of the companies whose products they sell.

This bill also specifically exempts these products from U.S. securities laws, so a firm that sells only these products would not have to register with the SEC as a broker-dealer, and the SEC's best interest rule, which ensures that a financial intermediary is acting in the best interest of the retirement plan. That would not apply. As a result, unregulated retirement consultants will end up nickel-and- diming our teachers' retirement options and our nurses' retirement options.

Teachers have seen what hidden conflicts cost. For example, in 2020, a subsidiary of a major annuity company agreed to pay about $40 million to settle SEC charges because the SEC found that it failed to disclose to Florida teachers that its parent company had paid an outside group for 13 years to promote it. That case depended on the SEC's oversight of the firms that sell to teachers. This bill removes the SEC from protecting those very same teachers.

Collective investment trusts can also take risks that mutual funds cannot. Mutual funds face limits on the illiquid assets and on borrowing. Federal banking rules set no such limits for collective trusts. Some of these trusts are run by State-chartered trust companies with no Federal oversight at all.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is moving to put risky private equity and private credit investments into workers' retirement plans. Collective investment trusts are a clear way to do just that.

I understand that there is a real desire to lower costs and increase competition for retirement plans, but this is not that approach. Democrats have offered a better path.

Ranking Member Waters offered an amendment that would let these plans use collective trusts, but it would require reforms and require trusts to benefit all investors by requiring them to publish their fees, disclose their holdings, explain how they conduct valuations and use leverage, and explain what they pay to middlemen who sell them. This approach would also hold State-chartered trust companies to the same standard. Republicans did not make that amendment in order.

I also offered an amendment that would only apply this bill to 403(b) plans that are also ERISA plans because those have added protections, which would ensure that there is still some Federal oversight and a fiduciary duty protecting those teachers and nurses.

Either amendment would change this bill into something that could become law. Again, we are not alone in these concerns. The teachers and nurses don't want their retirement plans being deregulated.

Last Tuesday, again, the American people rejected the Trump approach and this Republican Congress' efforts to put the people's interests last. They want Congress to change and to focus on their needs and not those of Wall Street.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1013 unless we make the necessary changes to protect our teachers' and nurses' retirement plans. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma, but I do need to take exception to the claim that collective investment trusts cost less than mutual funds on average and that allowing them would make it more affordable for teachers.

Collective investment trusts might have a lower price, but that is only because the safeguards that apply to those products have been stripped from them. They are gone. Products cost less, Madam Speaker, when you strip out the rules that protect the people who buy those products.

Think about our automobiles. Madam Speaker, you could sell a car more cheaply if you stripped out the seatbelts and the airbags. Adding the FDA to the process of drug approval probably makes it more expensive to produce those drugs. Those drugs might get cheaper if they didn't have to go through the FDA, but I don't think anyone really believes that that is how to make medicine more affordable, and it isn't how to make retirement affordable.

Proponents of this bill argue that collective investment trusts cost less than mutual funds on average, but on average isn't what a teacher pays. Collective investment trust fees are set by share class and negotiated plan by plan, so the biggest discount goes to the biggest plans. A small school district or a small community hospital insuring their nurses has the least bargaining power and would end up in the most expensive plan.

The fact is that as long as collective investment trusts do not disclose the same information as mutual funds, we don't really know whether they deliver on the promise to offer an inexpensive and equally safe investment option for teachers and nurses. If collective investment trusts are cheaper, then let

them prove it, and that is by a side-by-side fee comparison with a similar mutual fund and the costs that those represent.

If they are as cheap as the proponents say, publishing their fees would only help them sell those products. The bill before us doesn't require these disclosures, doesn't require those listings, and doesn't require that production. Ranking Member Waters tried getting that level of disclosure in this bill, but she was unsuccessful.

Fees aren't the only cost. The assets held by collective investment trusts can also be risky and opaque. A collective investment trust has no independent board, and Federal banking rules put no limit on how much it can hold in hard-to-sell assets or how much it can borrow. A lower fee is no bargain if the fund is loaded with private assets that are hard to value, hard to sell, and nobody knows how these funds will perform when the going gets rough in the financial markets.

Teachers can already get low fees. Index mutual funds are available for a few hundredths of 1 percent a year. Teachers need better plans and clear information, not fewer protections.

Now, we are not against all collective investment trusts. Democrats propose letting 403(b) plans use them but with public disclosure of fees and holdings and disclosure of what the middlemen are being paid. No one is barred. They just have to disclose that information. That gets teachers the savings without the hidden risks, but Republicans would not include that provision in this bill, and our amendments were not allowed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment and talk about the people who are actually responsible for protecting these 403(b) plans. These are the cops on the beat.

In a collective bargaining framework under ERISA, the employers of these nurses and teachers, the schools and the hospitals, the people who are running those schools and hospitals and the unions that represent the employees whose plans are being protected, they have spoken out on this bill.

I am a former union president of the ironworkers union, so I know a lot of these folks personally. I have heard from them directly, as have many Members of Congress. They are not asking for this bill. They are not. They are in stiff opposition to this bill.

Believe me, their full-time job when their feet hit the ground in the morning is to protect these employees, nurses, and teachers. That is what we on this side want for 403(b) plans. We want what the teachers, nurses, labor unions, and employers that hold these 403(b) plans want.

Let me tell you what the AFL-CIO; the American Federation of Teachers; the National Education Association; National Nurses United, which came to the Hill; members and leadership of the Service Employees International Union, the SEIU; the Communications Workers of America; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME; and the United Auto Workers told me and Members of Congress about this bill.

They wrote that this bill ``would open a new loophole enabling unregistered brokers to sell unregistered securities, such as collective investment trusts and variable annuities, to both ERISA and non-ERISA 403(b) plans and their participants. In practice, it would promote the sale of risky investment products by financial professionals who are not bound by the consumer protection standards that apply to registered brokers. Because non-ERISA 403(b) plans are widely used by public school teachers''--and nurses--``the bill would

effectively strip away key safeguards for one of the most vulnerable groups of retirement savers.''

That says it all. The people holding these 403(b) plans do not want underregulated and risky products without the proper protections.

This begs the question: Who is actually asking for this bill? The loudest support comes from the industry that creates these products and those who sell them to these plans. In fact, the unions that represent our teachers and nurses actually oppose this bill.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1650, I call up the bill (H.R. 1013) to amend the Federal securities laws to enhance 403(b) plans, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1013, the Retirement Fairness for Charities and Educational Institutions Act.

Across Missouri and throughout the country, millions of dedicated men and women wake up every day to serve our communities. They teach in our classrooms, care for our sick in our hospitals, serve in our houses of worship,

and run the nonprofit organizations that support the most vulnerable among us.

Yet, under current Federal securities law, these public servants and nonprofit workers face an unjust penalty, a penalty when saving for retirement. While private-sector workers enjoy low-cost, high- performing options like collective investment trusts, or CITs, in their 401(k)s, our teachers, nurses, and charity workers are locked out. Their 403(b) plans are barred from the same investment options.

The result: higher management fees, and over a decades-long career, those hidden fees quietly bleed thousands of dollars out of a worker's hard-earned retirement nest egg.

Madam Speaker, this is simply wrong.

Congress took a major step forward when we passed the SECURE 2.0 Act, updating the tax code to permit CITs in 403(b) plans. However, tax code changes alone are not enough if securities regulations remain unaligned.

H.R. 1013 finishes the job by granting 403(b) CITs and separate accounts the exact same SEC registration exemptions currently enjoyed by 401(k) plans.

Let me be clear: This bill does not allow direct-to-consumer retail sales. These options are available exclusively within institutional, employer-sponsored plans.

Participating plans remain fully governed by ERISA fiduciary standards or State and local public benefit laws. Banking regulators continue to supervise CIT structures, while the SEC retains full enforcement authority to prosecute fraud and misconduct.

This bill is an essential component of our broader strategy to expand investor access to our capital markets, something that I, as Capital Markets Subcommittee chair, have committed much of my time and tenure here in Congress to doing, and expanding everyday investor access to our capital markets.

When the Financial Services Committee advanced my INVEST Act, our mission was clear: empower entrepreneurs and small businesses, strip away red tape, and make wealth building accessible to Main Street.

H.R. 1013 extends those exact same wealth-building options to 15 million nonprofit workers. This legislation passed the Financial Services Committee with sweeping bipartisan support, and it passed the House floor as part of the INVEST Act with 302 votes, including every House Republican and 87 House Democrats, and with support from 81 outside organizations.

This bill, in particular, has the backing of several organizations focused on helping Americans achieve a secure retirement, including the Insured Retirement Institute, the SPARK Institute, and the American Council of Life Insurers.

People who devote their careers to strengthening our communities should not be forced to accept lower retirement savings simply because of an outdated regulatory oversight.

H.R. 1013 delivers true investment parity. It lowers costs and protects the financial futures of America's nonprofit workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) for their leadership on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1013, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the lead sponsor of this legislation, the chairman of our Task Force on Monetary Policy, Treasury Market Resilience, and Economic Prosperity, and my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify with my good friend across the aisle, Mr. Lynch, that I want everyone to note that unregistered does not mean unregulated. CITs are rigorously supervised by Federal banking regulators like the OCC and State banking authorities, while insurance companies' separate accounts are overseen by State insurance commissioners.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the SEC retains 100 percent of its authority under Rule 10b-5 to prosecute fraud, penalize bad actors, and police investment advisers.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a link for 16 letters of support for H.R. 1013, the Retirement Fairness for Charities and Educational Institutions Act. They include the Christian Employers Alliance and the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America to name just a couple. The link can be found here: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/ urn:aaid:sc:US:77c44faf-c547-4ee1-b790-7afdd6a92007.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), who is the chairman of our Financial Services Committee and my very dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you what: Rank-and-file union members are in and out of my office on a weekly or monthly basis asking for parity, asking for us to marry up what happened in the tax code with securities regulations so that they can have the same kind of retirement benefits that their neighbors in the private sector have.

I don't know what union leadership wants, but I am going to tell you what: Those rank-and-file firefighters, nurses, and teachers are in and out of my office asking for this, asking for parity, asking for those fees to be lifted from them on a regular basis.

Obviously, they are also going into the Democrat offices also, since 87 Democratic Members have voted to support this time and time again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), the chairman of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the other side is prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The choice before us is simple. Do we continue to penalize nonprofit workers for choosing a career in public service, or do we give them the exact same tools to build wealth that private sector workers have used for decades?

For years, Congress has worked to modernize our capital markets. With the INVEST Act we took a stand for everyday investors, knocking down arbitrary barriers so working Americans can build real, lasting wealth. Yet, right now, a regulatory misalignment continues to lock 15 million nonprofit workers--15 million nonprofit workers--out of a low-cost investment opportunity.

It makes no sense that a private sector professional can access low- fee collective investment trusts in their 401(k)'s while a public schoolteacher is forced to absorb higher management fees that quietly drain their retirement savings year after year.

H.R. 1013 is a commonsense fix that brings 403(b) plans into lockstep with 401(k)'s. It doesn't create new risks. It doesn't open the door to retail sales. It simply levels the playing field for the people who spend their lives putting others first.

Let's finish the job, Mr. Speaker, the job that we started. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1013, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support to pass the rule to vote on the discharge for the clean and full Major Richard Star Act.

Today is Veterans Day. Across this country, families are visiting the graves of loved ones who served. Veterans are standing a little taller. Communities are saying thank you.

I rise on behalf of California's 25th Congressional District, home to over 28,000 veterans and their families, because today we honor them. We honor our veterans, but honoring our veterans takes more than words. It takes action.

On this Veterans Day, this House is voting on a bill that makes the largest cuts to veteran benefits in history. It is called the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, but it does not take care of veterans. It takes from them.

It pays for itself by cutting disability compensation for tinnitus, the most common service-connected condition our veterans suffer, and for sleep apnea.

I am an emergency physician. I know a bit about tinnitus, and I know a bit about sleep apnea.

Tinnitus can lead to devastating hearing dysfunction and hearing loss that can lead to anxiety, depression, loss of sleep, matrimonial problems, and not being able to hear. Many veterans suffer through this day in and day out, and this bill will take away the benefits that they have earned in order to combat this illness.

Sleep apnea is the inability to breathe and take in oxygen while you sleep. People wake up with anxiety. They wake up with palpitations. They wake up with tachycardia. They wake up feeling worse than they did the night before. Their blood pressure rises 20 points. They have 10 years less of life than somebody who does not have sleep apnea. It is a real condition with difficulties in their lives. They want to take away benefits for people and veterans who suffer from sleep apnea.

According to Disabled American Veterans, 1.5 million future veterans would receive less.

Even its version of the Major Richard Star Act is watered down. It puts a cap on what wounded veterans get back. They still would not receive everything they have earned. They still will be shortchanged.

On Monday, Ranking Member Takano and I stood on this floor and presented our discharge petition to force a vote on a clean and full Major Richard Star Act.

House Members signed it. Veterans demanded it. And on Thursday, we will vote on it.

Then Republican leadership put this TCAVA bill on the schedule the day before. That is no accident. It is a political game. And we need to be clear about who loses that game: our veterans.

Time and again, the Republican leadership looks to shortchange the very people who gave everything for this country, while giving billions of tax breaks to billionaires when they all voted for the One Big Beautiful Bill.

We will not take from sick veterans to pay wounded veterans.

Vote ``no'' on the Take Care of America's Veterans Act because there is a better way.

As an emergency physician, I have seen what a serious injury does to a person's body, to their family, and to their future.

Daniel Hinojosa, Jr., a Sylmar, California, native and U.S. Army 13 Delta field operations specialist, served 9 years in the U.S. Army and deployed to Iraq three times.

He came home with injuries to his brain, his back, his neck, and his knees.

In 2011, he was medically retired, and then he was told he had to choose. He had to choose his VA disability compensation or the Army retirement that he earned. He should never have had to make that choice. No veteran should have to make that choice.

Today, Daniel is earning his master's in social work and interning in my Beaumont office, helping other veterans.

Veterans like Daniel are why I am proud to coauthor the Major Richard Star Act and why I joined Mark Takano, ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to pass this rule and pass the clean and full Major Richard Star Act.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to deliver justice and fairness for veterans, for all veterans, not to take away benefits in order to deliver justice for some veterans, because that is injustice for these veterans you are taking benefits from.

So under current law, veterans who are forced to medically retire due to an injury or illness before 20 years of service cannot receive their full retirement pay if they receive their VA disability compensation.

Two separate benefits, earned for two separate reasons: Retirement pay earned through their years of service, and disability compensation for the wounds they suffered in the line of duty.

According to the Military Officers Association of America, tens of thousands of veterans lose about $14,400 a year in this climate of inflation. On the face of it, that is offensive and wrong.

They are penalized for being wounded.

That is the wounded veteran tax. The Major Richard Star Act ends it.

Let me be clear. The Major Richard Star Act inside the Take Care of America's Veterans Act is not the real solution. It still shortchanges our veterans. It is capped, and it is paid for by cutting benefits from other veterans, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

That is not justice. That is a continuation of this injustice.

The real and clean Major Richard Star Act is simple. Combat-injured veterans medically retired before 20 years of service will receive both their full retirement pay and their VA disability compensation--no shortchanging, no caps, no cuts to other veterans to pay for it.

This bill is named for Major Richard A. Star, a decorated Army combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. When he was diagnosed with stage IV cancer, he spent his remaining time fighting for his fellow veterans.

His fight did not end with him. Today that fight has 340 bipartisan cosponsors in the House and 80 in the Senate. It is a very popular bill in the House. Why does Republican leadership want to circumvent it?

I thank every veteran service organization, from our national groups to the posts and chapters in my district, for standing with combat- wounded veterans every step of the way.

And to every veteran watching today, we see you. We see the time you spent away from your families, the wounds you carry, seen and unseen. You kept your promise to this country.

When a soldier or when a servicemember puts on the uniform, this country makes a promise, and this week we come to keep it.

They earned both benefits. They deserve both benefits. And now is the time to make sure they get both.

So vote ``no'' on the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. And tomorrow, on Thursday, vote for justice. Vote ``yes'' on the full and clean Major Richard Star Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here in Washington, D.C., voting around Veterans Day for the first time in several years. In fact, yesterday we proceeded outside the U.S. Capitol where we honored our veterans in a bipartisan fashion, as it should be. I can think of no greater way for the House of Representatives to honor those veterans who have sacrificed life and limb for our Nation than to live up to the promise we have made to them.

Unfortunately, rather than fulfill our sacred commitment to America's warriors, Republicans chose yesterday, on Veterans Day of all days, to sneak through the largest cut to veterans benefits in history. They knew they didn't have the votes to pass their bill. In a highly partisan move, they resorted to hook-and-crook to deprive veterans of the honest, fair, transparent processes they deserve. It is shameful and disgusting, and Republicans should be embarrassed.

I want every veteran and American listening to know that the Democratic majority you just voted for will not conduct business in that way. We will honor this institution and the veterans who have defended it by being forthright, open, and truthful. You deserve no less.

Today is a new day. We have before us a very worthy bill, the Major Richard Star Act, which I strongly support.

This bill will finally end the wounded warrior tax on our combat- injured veterans and allow them to receive the full measure of both their military retirement and VA compensation. It is the top priority of veterans, veterans service organizations, and if we judge by the number of cosponsors, the top priority of this Congress as well.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill will eliminate the wounded warrior tax without cutting benefits for future veterans as H.R. 9237 would.

We must firmly and fully reject the notion that the only way to honor those who have sacrificed so much for us is to take away from others.

We cannot, in seeking to do the right thing for one group of veterans, inflict harm on another. That is a value proposition that I simply cannot understand, let alone support, especially not when we have no problem whatsoever running up debt to send these very same veterans to war in the first place.

So I urge my colleagues to support this bill, as I will, without hesitation.

Let this body redeem itself after yesterday's shameful actions and vote to get our combat-wounded veterans the benefits they have earned and deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas), my good friend who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, as well as Senator-elect from the State of New Hampshire.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Budzinski), my good friend who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Technology Modernization of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Conaway), my good friend who serves on our Subcommittee on Health and our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Illinois whether or not he would accede to a unanimous-consent request to vacate the vote on TCAVA yesterday and proceed to a roll call vote of that very same measure since the gentleman is so confident that it expresses the will of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the gentleman that it was a unanimous expression of this House. I would challenge the gentleman--

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Let us show our veterans and the American people that we mean what we say here in Congress when we pledge to support our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Major Richard Star Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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