H.Res. 1300

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, pursuant to House Resolution 1300, I call up the bill (H.R. 6047) to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the dollar amounts for the payment of certain disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation under the laws administered by the Secretary, 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 include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 6047, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6047, as amended, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, introduced by my friend and fellow veteran, Representative Tom Barrett.

I will speak to you today about some of the great Americans this bill will impact.

Sharri Briley is the survivor and spouse of Chief Warrant Officer 3 Donovan ``Bull'' Briley, an Army Special Operations pilot killed in 1993 in Somalia.

Most Americans would be more familiar with the movie adaptation of that harrowing day, the film ``Black Hawk Down,'' but for Sharri Briley, this was not Hollywood.

This was her husband and the father of her then-5-year-old daughter.

Donovan gave his life in defense of freedom, the type of sacrifice we will commemorate on Memorial Day.

This legislation would provide the first meaningful increase in survivor benefits for families like Brileys since 1993.

Over 500,000 survivors like Sharri receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation from the VA.

DIC is a monthly payment of $1,700 meant to help supplement lost income after a servicemember's death.

It has only been adjusted for inflation over the last 30 years, but this bill would add an extra 1.5 percent to the DIC over the next 2 years.

I also will discuss Sergeant Eric Edmundson.

When Eric was 25, his vehicle was destroyed by an IED on the Syrian border. His spleen ruptured. His kneecap shattered. His spine fractured, and he sustained traumatic brain injury. For 30 minutes, Eric's heart stopped beating.

Eric was transported to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to recover, but his injuries left him unable to walk or speak. For the past 20 years, his parents, Edgar and Bethany, and his wife, Stephanie, have been Eric's full-time caregivers, supporting Eric as they work together to raise Eric's two kids.

Despite these injuries, his family has empowered him to live as full a life as possible--hunting, painting, spending time with his children, and going to church.

As the Edmundson family recently wrote in an op-ed for Stars and Stripes: ``Two incomes vanished. The expenses multiplied. When a service-connected injury permanently removes earning capacity, the math doesn't bend for patriotism.''

This bill recognizes that and would provide a $10,000 increase to the 7,000 severely disabled veterans like Eric, many of whom require 24/7 around-the-clock professional medical care.

Veterans like Eric receive the three highest tiers of disability compensation called R1, R2, and T. Many of these veterans will never work again and cannot perform basic tasks.

Eric's family dedicate their lives making sure Eric, one of our Nation's most wounded soldiers, continues living with dignity.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is for families like the Brileys and the Edmundsons.

As the families put it in their recent op-ed, the circumstances are different, but the consequences are the same: ``The cost of military service does not end when the ceremony and the headlines fade. It echoes through decades--through college tuition bills, medical

equipment invoices, mortgage payments, retirement plans that must be deferred or abandoned altogether.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the op-ed referred to published in Stars and Stripes.

[From the Stars and Stripes, May 18, 2026]

Congress Is Debating the Details. Our Military Families are Living the

Consequences

(By Sharri Briley and Edgar ``Ed'' Edmundson)

One of us lost her husband, Army Chief Warrant Officer

Donovan ``Bull'' Briley, when he was killed in action in

Somalia in 1993. In a single moment, I became a Gold Star

widow--raising our children while trying to build a future

shaped by grief and the long financial shadow that follows

permanent sacrifice. The folded flag did not close a chapter;

it began a lifetime of responsibility.

The other nearly lost his son. Eric Edmundson suffered a

severe brain injury while serving in Iraq. He cannot walk. He

cannot speak. He requires constant, round-the-clock care. He

will never return to work--and his parents cashed in their

retirement to care for him. Two incomes vanished. The

expenses multiplied. When a service-connected injury

permanently removes earning capacity, the math does not bend

for patriotism.

Our circumstances are different, but the consequence is the

same: the cost of military service does not end when the

ceremony and the headlines fade. It echoes through decades--

through college tuition bills, medical equipment invoices,

mortgage payments and retirement plans that must be deferred

or abandoned altogether.

That is why the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans

Benefits Expansion Act of 2025 matters and why Congress must

act. The legislation offers a long overdue increase in

compensation for the most catastrophically wounded and ill

veterans and offers a down payment on desperately needed

increases to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for

survivors. In plain terms, it would update benefits that have

not kept pace with the true cost of severe injury or loss of

life.

As reported by Military Times, the proposal would add

roughly $10,000 annually for veterans with the most severe

disabilities and modestly increase monthly survivor

benefits--an adjustment long overdue as living and care costs

continue to rise.

What is being considered in Washington may look like

numbers on a page. To families like ours and so many other

Americans, it is the difference between a road toward

stability and a financial cliff.

The impact of service is not confined to two households. A

landmark Rand Corp. study estimates that 14.3 million

Americans are caring for wounded, ill or injured service

members and veterans. More than 500,000 Americans are

navigating life as surviving spouses. The ripple effects of

war extend far beyond the battlefield--and far beyond a

single generation.

For decades, compensation for the most catastrophically

disabled veterans and survivor benefits have not been

meaningfully adjusted to reflect modern realities.

Catastrophic injury is permanent. Widowhood caused by war is

permanent. The obligations do not shrink with time--they

compound.

Accessible housing must be maintained. Specialized

equipment must be repaired or replaced. Therapy continues.

Children grow up. Savings are stretched thin. None of this is

abstract. It defines daily life.

We recognize that lawmakers have a responsibility to

examine how legislation is structured and funded. That

scrutiny is part of governing. But delay is not neutral.

Every year that passes without modernization forces those

living with the most severe consequences of service to absorb

costs that were never meant to be borne alone.

This is not about comfort. It is about dignity.

It is about ensuring that a veteran who cannot walk or

speak can live with security. It is about ensuring that a

surviving spouse can raise children without wondering whether

gratitude from a nation will translate into financial

stability.

We are grateful--for survival, for sacrifice, for the honor

of loving those who served. But gratitude does not pay a

mortgage. It does not fund adaptive equipment. It does not

replace lost earning power.

Service members are not wounded as Republicans or

Democrats. They are wounded as Americans. The promise to care

for them--and for those who live with the lifelong

consequences of their service--should rise above party lines

just as clearly.

This legislation now stands before leadership in the U.S.

House of Representatives. The question is not whether the

need exists--it does. The question is whether Congress will

act with the urgency that lifelong sacrifice demands.

Because the financial cliff facing those most profoundly

affected by war--like our families--is not rhetorical. And

once stability is lost, rebuilding can take years, if it is

possible at all.

Our loved ones answered the call without hesitation. It is

time for our leaders to do the same--not with speeches, but

with action that honors veterans, survivors and the enduring

cost of service. It is time for Congress to pass the Sharri

Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of

2025.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would also expand VA home loan eligibility to members of the National Guard and Reserve who have at least 14 days of Active-Duty service at a 1 percent higher rate.

Today's Guard and Reserve deploy along Active-Duty servicemembers. They deserve a broader access to VA homeownership opportunities, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I also will address the offsets in this legislation because there has been a great deal of misinformation surrounding them.

The fact is that House Republicans chose to follow the House rules and the law. We fully paid for this legislation so that we could get this bill done because promises made to veterans should be promises Congress can keep and not show votes or fake outrage to get clicks and votes.

Now, let me be clear about what this bill will not do. This bill will not eliminate or harm the VA Home Loan Program. It would also not impose a loan fee on any disabled veteran, and it would not eliminate zero percent down on a VA home loan.

Instead, this bill contains two bipartisan offsets that would extend current home loan fees and would extend the current cap on certain veterans' pensions who are in government-funded nursing care. It also increases the home loan funding fee that families would pay when refinancing by a small amount.

During the 116th Congress, then-Chairman Takano supported and voted in favor of a similar funding fee proposal on refinancing VA home loans. I find the arguments against our similar proposal today insincere. It reeks of the type of politics our veterans don't deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I am a veteran. If I thought that this bill would harm veterans, you can trust I would not bring the bill to the floor. But, as the saying goes, don't take my word for it, because over 22 veterans service organizations support this legislation as written. Let me repeat: The veterans groups like the VFW, The American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, and many others support the bill. These organizations represent millions of veterans and military families who support this legislation because they know these families cannot afford to wait another decade for Congress to act.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a joint letter from 20 veterans organizations supporting the bill.

February 9, 2026.

Hon. Mike Bost,

Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mark Takano,

Ranking Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman & Ranking Member: As the second session

of the 119th Congress begins and the House Committee on

Veterans' Affairs continues its work providing for the needs

of our nation's ill and injured veterans, their caregivers,

and survivors, we write to share our strong support for the

amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6047, the

Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion

Act. As you proceed with discussions around this bill, we

urge you to remember those with whom the bill is intended to

help--veterans with the profoundest of injuries and the

survivors who have lost their loved ones. Provisions in this

important legislation would increase the amount of Special

Monthly Compensation (SMC) by $10,000 annually for the most

severely disabled veterans and raise the rate of Dependency

and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) by a total of 1.5 percent

over a period of two years for the surviving family members

of deceased servicemembers and veterans.

SMC is arguably the most important ancillary benefit for

veterans with severe, service-connected disabilities. To be

clear, given the extreme nature of the disabilities incurred

by most veterans in receipt of SMC, we do not believe that

the impact on quality of life can be totally compensated for;

however, SMC does at least provide these veterans an

opportunity to have the financial resources to accommodate

their individual needs.

DIC is intended to protect against survivor impoverishment

after the death of a service-connected veteran. These monthly

payments were intended to provide surviving spouses with the

means to maintain some semblance of economic stability after

the loss of their loved one. DIC is also an indemnity payment

from the government for the loss of life. Unfortunately,

without an immediate increase, many survivors who, in many

cases were once caregivers, face a financial cliff with

catastrophic results. This legislation represents an initial

downpayment on what is truly owed to veterans' survivors, and

we are committed to continuing to work to bring

DIC in parity with other federal survivor benefits.

Congress established the baseline rates for these crucial

programs decades ago and updating them is long overdue. The

time to act is now. For decades, the veteran community has

urged Congress to strengthen these critical support programs

and increasing SMC and DIC would be the first step in helping

our most severely disabled and their survivors. Passing this

important legislation will provide critical relief to these

communities and we look forward to your swift action.

Sincerely,

Paralyzed Veterans of America; Elizabeth Dole Foundation;

Wounded Warrior Project; Disabled American Veterans; Tragedy

Assistance Program for Survivors; Military Officers

Association of America; Jewish War Veterans of the USA;

Vietnam Veterans Association; Quality of Life Foundation;

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc; Commissioned Officers

Association of the USPHS; AMVETS; The Independence Fund;

Military Order of the Purple Heart; Blinded Veterans

Association; Fleet Reserve Association; Marine Corps League;

Gold Star Spouses of America; Armed Forces Retiree

Association.

Mr. Speaker, additionally, I include in the Record a joint letter from ROA, MCRA, and EANGUS in support of expanding VA home loan programs to include Guard and Reserve members with 14 days of Active Duty.

January 13, 2026.

Hon. Tom Barrett,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Barrett: On behalf of the members

represented by our respective organizations, thank you for

your leadership in offering the Home Affordability for Guard

and Reserve Act as an amendment to H.R. 6047, the Sharri

Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of

2025.

This amendment expands VA home loan eligibility to Reserve

and National Guard servicemembers who are currently

ineligible under law. Specifically, it broadens the

definition of ``active duty'' to include qualifying service

under Title 10, Title 14, and Title 32 orders, as well as

training duties, and applies retroactively to service

performed on or after September 11, 2001. Further, eligible

individuals who have completed at least 14 days of qualifying

service and remain in the Reserve or National Guard may

access VA home loans, subject to an additional 1 percent

funding fee.

Our organizations support this amendment. However, if the

broader package does not advance, we urge you to move your

amendment forward under regular order as a standalone

measure.

At the same time, we reaffirm our longstanding support for

provisions that guarantee equal fees for all servicemembers.

Introducing different fee structures based on component or

category of service risks creating inequities and

discrimination within the program.

Accordingly, we urge a thorough review of the proposed

additional fee in Section 3 of the amendment, along with the

broader fee adjustments in the bill, to evaluate their impact

on the VA home loan program's purchasing power, solvency, and

the break-even horizon for veterans when refinancing. Without

such scrutiny, these changes risk diminishing the program's

affordability and pricing out the very servicemembers it was

designed to support.

Should the review conclude that these adjustments make

housing under the program unaffordable or significantly

extend the break-even horizon in a way that compromises the

program's intended flexibility, we strongly recommend

reconsideration and appropriate corrective action.

Thank you again, Congressman, for your leadership. We

appreciate your attention to these concerns and stand ready

to assist in moving this amendment forward.

Respectfully,

John B. Hashem,

Major General, USA Retired,

Executive Director, Reserve Organization of America.

Paul K. Hopper,

Colonel, USMC Retired,

National President, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Association.

John D. Gipe,

Command Sergeant Major, USA Retired,

Executive Director, Enlisted Association of the National

Guard.

Mr. Speaker, veterans deserve more than speeches. They deserve results.

If you support these benefit increases, then you need a serious plan to pay for them, because simply saying that someone else will figure it out later, that is not real leadership.

Mr. Speaker, this bill comes down to a simple question: When America sends our soldiers off to war, the result sometimes is life-changing injuries, grieving spouses, and full-time caregivers. Will this country stand behind them later in the years?

Again, I ask my Democrat colleagues: If veteran groups support the bill, then why in the world don't you?

Mr. Edgar Edmundson testified before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and he asked Congress to stop the politics and get this done.

Mr. Speaker, families like the Edmundsons and the Brileys deal with the reality most Americans never see. The Brileys answered the call to serve. The Edmundsons answered the call to serve. Now, Congress must answer their call.

This legislation, these families, and the thousands of families like them, we have your back. It is a distinct honor to advance this bill just before Memorial Day.

I urge all Members to support H.R. 6047.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate my colleagues for suddenly wanting to be fiscally responsible, I do not appreciate my colleagues implying that the home loan funding fee as an offset is unnecessary or inappropriate. Finding a way to pay for expenditures and benefits is not an option. It is a requirement.

May I remind my colleagues and Ranking Member Takano that he has supported dozens of bills that contain the home loan funding fee. My colleague has also submitted a manager's amendment on the floor to increase fees for refinancing loans in the 116th Congress. While the offer used by the ranking member only increased fees, refinancing loans by 0.5 percent and 0.85 percent, and was only a temporary increase, the concept still remains the same.

This legislative body has long understood that fiscal responsibility is not separated from caring for our veterans and their survivors. It is part of that responsibility.

The House has repeatedly relied on adjustments to the VA home loan funding fee to pay for veterans' benefits expansions. Members on both sides of the aisle have voted for that approach many times. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I don't just pay lipservice to the veterans and survivors who we serve. I get things done for them.

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if my colleagues across the aisle would stop caring about political wins and focus on getting a win for the most deserving population of veterans and surviving spouses, so let's get the bill paid for and across the finish line.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barrett), the sponsor of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it deeply disingenuous for some of my colleagues to suggest Republicans are willing to pay for war but unwilling to pay for veterans.

As chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am closely aware of the true cost of war. We see it in disability compensation, in survivor benefits, in prosthetics, in mental health care, and in long- term care of catastrophically disabled veterans. Those costs exist because brave men and women answered the Nation's call and came home carrying the physical and invisible wounds of war. The VA budget continues to grow because America continues to honor the promises made for those who serve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden), my good friend, who knows and understands what it is like to stand in the gap for the rights of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate earlier in the debate the interest rate reduction and refinancing loans. That was all brought up, and I appreciate my colleague's comments on the interest rate reduction and refinancing loans.

I would also like to make it known that the ranking member is correct that he has not had legislation to increase the rates to the level that this bill is intending to do.

However, during the 116th Congress, the ranking member proposed an amendment to the bill on the floor that would have increased the same refinancing piece we are discussing today. Now, although the rate may not be the same, the concept is the same. I note that the small increase reference piece is the only change that we make after the mark-up version of this bill, which has been done, and that is to cover the cost incurred by expanding the VA home loan program to the National Guard and Reserve, which they wanted, by the way.

The ranking member is making this partisan when it does not need to be.

Instead of focusing on the delivery and an increase to the veterans and surviving spouses, those people who the VA really is focused on taking care of, regardless of who authored the bill, the ranking member has chosen to turn it into a political exercise, and I wonder why.

Earlier in a discussion on the committee's future, the Ranking Member Takano himself stated: We want our gavel back. That is what it is about. The statement speaks for itself.

This bill is not about committee gavels. This is not about partisan advantage. It is about thousands of American families who have waited long enough for the VA benefits to increase.

My fellow GOP colleagues and I are fighting for them, not the gavel. There are 22 veterans service organizations that agree with this.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard from my colleagues on this side of the aisle. Two of them were veterans. I am a veteran.

Why do we agree with it?

It is because we understand.

We also understand the rules of the House. With no disrespect for the ranking member and the other people who spoke, they never raised their hands. We did. We are asking to help those who need the help, and this is the way to do it today.

In the future, if we want to increase it and we want to work towards a larger amount, which I believe they deserve, both of the groups that are mentioned in this, the families who survived and those who have received the most heinous and most difficult wounds that they have to suffer through the rest of their lives, then we will do that, but this is the bill before us today.

I am going to say this, and I will say it to the Members on the other side of the aisle: If you want to go home on Memorial Day weekend and go out there and stand in the parade and tell everybody how great you are for our veterans and vote ``no'' on this, you had better think about it. You had better think about it.

I am going to tell the other side; the veterans and their voices here have spoken. They want this bill.

Mr. Speaker, if they choose to vote ``no,'' then they can answer to those veterans.

I am going to stand for them. I am going to stand for them because I am a grandson of a veteran; a son of a veteran; a nephew of a veteran, who had to have a lot of these services that we deal with in the VA; a son who still serves; a grandson who is going to have to receive some of these benefits; and another grandson who is serving at this time. I don't know what his career is going to be in the field, but it is possible that he could have to have this support too.

Is it personal to me?

You bet it is, Mr. Speaker. This is an important bill. It is important to the families who receive these benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have said it before, and I will say it again: The Smithsonian American Women's History Museum is long overdue, and it deserves a place on The National Mall, period, end of sentence.

The National Mall is America's front yard. It is the place we welcome visitors from all over the world. The Smithsonian is where we gather the stories, ideas, inventions, and memories that make us who we are. It is where we keep what matters to our large and, yes, very diverse American family. It is where our Nation tells its story, and American women have shaped every chapter of that story.

This is why I enthusiastically supported the bipartisan version of H.R. 1329, produced by my Republican colleague and friend from New York, Representative Nicole Malliotakis, along with her companion bill, H.R. 1330, related to the National Museum of the American Latino.

Together, those bills would resolve a statutory anomaly that has stalled both museums and allow them to move

forward on The Mall as Congress intended.

The bipartisan legislation is a simple, straightforward fix with 231 cosponsors in this House, including over 100 Members from each side of the aisle.

For some reason, that is not the bill we are debating. I am saddened and disappointed that the Republican majority has needlessly politicized what has for years been a bipartisan priority.

The hyperpartisan museum bill we are debating right now differs from the original legislation in four primary and important ways.

First, it omits the National Museum of the American Latino, which has been paired with the women's history museum since they were both authorized together in 2020.

Second, for reasons that pass all understanding, it grants the President of the United States unprecedented, unilateral, and unchecked authority to disregard the Smithsonian's recommended site and the Congress' recommended site for any reason, or for no reason at all, and pick his own.

Third, it hands control over design and construction to boards stacked with political loyalists who have already shown they will rubberstamp whatever the President wants. To see evidence of that, look no further than the pile of rubble that used to be the White House East Wing.

Fourth, it inserts an ideological poison pill intended to dictate what the museum can and cannot say about women's history.

Mr. Speaker, we deal with a lot of complicated issues around here that require complex solutions. This is not one of them. There is a Republican-led bipartisan bill just sitting here with 231 cosponsors, including 104 Republican Members. We could pass that bill on suspension right now.

The American people will be baffled, as I am, that my Republican colleagues have chosen this route instead, especially since, in 2019, Democrats accepted a Republican amendment requiring the museum to reflect ``the diversity of the political viewpoints held by women of the United States.''

Virtually identical language appears in this bill--ironically, right next to the provision that explicitly excludes political viewpoints held by women of the United States. I guess it should have explicitly read: the diversity of political viewpoints held by Republicans alone.

If the goal were actually to move this museum forward, we would not be abandoning the yearslong bipartisan process that has brought us to the brink of construction. We would not be considering a bill with a cynical, ideological poison pill. We would not exclude the Latino museum. We would not allow boards filled with Trump loyalists to have final say on the museum's design and construction. We would certainly not be giving President Donald Trump, of all people, unchecked authority to pick a location for the women's history museum. We would not be spending time debating a bill destined to fail.

Ask yourselves: Who should decide what appears in a Smithsonian museum, where it goes, and what it looks like? Should it be historians, scholars, and curators who, for 180 years, have made the Smithsonian the premier museum complex in the world, hosting 15 million visitors per year? Is that who it should be? Or a politician who complains publicly that the Smithsonian focuses too much on ``how bad slavery was'' and who has taken a literal wrecking ball to some of our most dignified and important landmarks in this country, a politician who uses our cultural institutions to rewrite history and hand out no-bid government contracts to his friends? That is the question before us.

If House Republicans want the museum to succeed, the path ahead is straightforward and easy. Bring the clean bipartisan fix with its 231 cosponsors to the floor, pair it with the Latino museum as we have done for years, and let the historians and experts do the work of telling the full and complex story of American women.

This legislation does the exact opposite. It takes a bill, the narrow purpose of which is to specify a museum location, and throws even more uncertainty into that very question. It makes literally no sense.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude where I began: The National Mall is where we welcome visitors from around the world, of all types. Everyone comes here. The Smithsonian is where we mark what makes us who we are. They belong to the American people, and the American people deserve both the women's history museum and the National Museum of the American Latino on The National Mall that tells their stories without political interference.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I urge the majority to bring the bipartisan bill that 104 Members of their Conference have cosponsored to the floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate my colleague and friend, Ms. Malliotakis, and her comments.

But the truth is, I don't, first of all, think anyone who lives in Rochester, New York, the home of Susan B. Anthony, just to the west of Seneca Falls, needs to be told about the history of the women's suffrage movement in the United States or the fact that Susan B. Anthony was arrested in 1872 for voting in a Presidential election.

We are well-steeped in it, and we think this ought to be a museum that is curated by scholars and by women and those groups.

The location of this, which was identified in a bipartisan bill--and the suggestion that somehow we now are not supporting or withholding our support for a bipartisan bill is simply wrong.

Actually, that would be the simple thing to do, to put the bipartisan bill on the floor. I don't know what the objection to it is, except that it doesn't have the following language, and this is really what it is all about, and I will read from the bill:

``The site for the Museum is hereby designated as the South Monument site, located on The National Mall, bordered by 14th Street Southwest, Jefferson Drive, Southwest, Raoul Wallenberg Place Southwest, and Independence Avenue Southwest, except that the President may designate an alternative site for the Museum within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this subsection.''

The extraneous portion that was added basically takes away everything the previous sentence said. Everything the bipartisan bill was intended to do is identify this location. But for reasons, as I said earlier, that surpass all understanding, we are now going to give the President of the United States complete, unilateral, unchecked power to make this decision.

It makes no sense. It is not a bipartisan bill. In fact, if you want to have this resolved, you could eliminate that portion of the bill, and we could just do the simple sentence under the bipartisan bill, which has 104 Republican sponsors of it. We could do that. We could do that right now.

That bill is already in print. Ms. Malliotakis is actually the sponsor of that bill, so I would be happy to support that bill of hers. But don't suggest for a minute that this is a bipartisan bill because it is not. It is actually the most hyperpartisan of bills, all intended to make sure that the President is happy with the location of the museum and give him the complete power over Congress to make that decision.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), my dear friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say I find it rather astonishing that we feel the need here to give a lot of advice and counsel

to the Smithsonian Institution about how to appropriately build and operate a museum, to curate a museum--I don't know if anybody has been--and, by the way, they do museums really well. We are supposed to pass legislation, which we don't even do that well, and now we are going to tell them how to run museums.

I would just encourage my friends, if you haven't, the Smithsonian runs a number of museums in town--one on American history, one on African Americans, one on American Indians, one on natural history, one on air and space. Fifteen million people come to them.

In the 8 years I have been privileged to be a Member of Congress, I have never once had a constituent or anybody else stop me and say, you know, I really have some advice to give to the Smithsonian Institution about how to run museums. I think they do it exceptionally well.

In fact, I would argue that the Smithsonian Institution is the greatest museum complex anywhere in the world. It is an extraordinary place, free to Americans and others who come from other places to see the American experience. I don't think they need, really, a whole lot of help from Members of the United States House of Representatives on how to run museums. Let's let them do that. Let's let academicians, scholars, historians, and museum curators do that.

All we are supposed to do here is say where the location of the museum is to be located. That is the one issue in front of us. Talk about making complex a simple issue. People will be baffled and scratching their heads to watch this debate should they ever watch this debate because this is a simple, simple matter, and we should not complicate this. Let's identify the location, and let's let the Smithsonian Institution do what they do better than any other organization in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall), my dear friend and colleague.

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

To quote Mrs. Cammack, whom I have great respect for, women's history ``is American history, full stop.'' I completely agree, and I am delighted to see her and her daughter in her maiden speech in front of the House talk about the importance of women in American history. I completely agree with that, as well.

What I find perplexing is that the construction of this museum has been held up now for several years since its authorization, because Congress could not reconcile the fact that we hadn't fully identified a location for the museum. That is the only thing that prevents the construction of this museum from moving forward. We have a bipartisan solution to address just that, the exact location of where this museum should be built.

I think the question that needs to be answered in this moment is why we are not doing that bill. It has 231 cosponsors, a majority of this House, and over 100 Members on both sides of the aisle. It is simple and straightforward.

Why aren't we doing that? Why are we here? Why do we have to debate for the balance of an hour a bill that is so simple to pass and has broad support?

It is because this bill was rewritten by the White House. This bill was rewritten so that not a woman but a man, and, frankly, a man with something of a questionable history toward women, would have the final say.

By the way, if he didn't like the location that we have identified in this bill, he has a way to raise his objections called veto the bill. He could veto it if he didn't like the location, and then we would negotiate.

The Article I prerogative of the Congress is to pass laws. That is what we should be doing, but what we have done is, we have managed to twist ourselves into a pretzel just to satisfy the President so that the President can look at the location that Congress by, law would, like to make clear and say: I don't like that after all. Sorry, Congress. Thank you for your input, but go away. I, Donald Trump, will decide unilaterally where the women's history museum will go. Forget about the 435 Members of the House. Forget about the 100 Members of the Senate. We appreciate your input, like little children. Now, go away. I will make the decision.

That is what is going to happen. That is what this bill is. If that is not the case, I would love to hear a single word of explanation about why we are not doing the bill that has broad bipartisan support that specifically says where this museum will be located on The National Mall, on America's front yard.

Why is that not the case? Why are we here? We can dance around it. We can talk about the contributions of women. Certainly, no one on this side of the aisle would ever, ever spend any time disputing that. We are in complete agreement, which is why we have over 100 sponsors for the bill on our side of the aisle, as well.

The question is, and the question that people watching will want answered, is: Why aren't you doing that bill?

I will be eagerly listening for an explanation as to why the bipartisan bill with 231 cosponsors, which specifically says where this museum should be, the exact location, and why we are not doing that bill.

I will sit quietly and listen. Maybe not so quietly, but I will sit and listen. I am looking for one word of explanation about why that is not the case. Until that time, I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. It is interesting she began her comments by citing the bipartisan bill that isn't before the House, the bipartisan bill that I am urging us to pass, the bipartisan bill that has over 100 sponsors on the Republican side of the aisle and over 100 sponsors on the Democratic side of the aisle.

She used that frame even though that is not the bill before the House. Of course, she could not offer an explanation as to why the bill that she cited actually isn't before the House, and instead, we have a hyperpartisan bill that gives Donald Trump unilateral power to decide where this museum is going.

I would also note that among the rights that she talked about for women, the right to vote, et cetera, she didn't mention the right to control their own bodies. You know why? Because we have taken that away from women. This Supreme Court and this President have taken away the right of women so that my grandchildren, my granddaughters, have fewer rights than my mother did, than their grandmother and their great- grandmother had. We didn't talk about that if we are going to talk about the rights of women and how important it is to support women in this country. We didn't talk about why this bill is going to end up with no museum being built because we insist on giving unilateral power to Donald Trump to decide all things that the Congress should be deciding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

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

Mr. Speaker, we could do this bill, get this done, and make clear where this museum is supposed to be. All we have to do is pass the bipartisan bill.

If we want to amend it with this exact location, if that is what Ms. Malliotakis is suggesting, then I am happy to do that, but there are so many things that she said that I have to respond to.

First of all, President Biden couldn't do this because Congress has created in the authorizing legislation this anomaly, so we need Congress to be able to specify the location, which is the point of the bipartisan bill, which has over 230 sponsors on both sides of the aisle. We could do that. This is simple, but that is not what is here.

By the way, just to remind the gentlewoman in case she is not clear, the chairperson of the NCPC, which has responsibility here, the chair of that is the current White House staff secretary, William Scharf. It is the President's employee who runs it.

By the way, anyone who believes that the President has much regard for the law or how these things should go should just look at the pile of rubble that is the East Wing of the White House, where the President defied tradition, common sense, and appropriateness and just knocked down one of the most historic sections of the most historic building in the world and is building it without anyone's contributions, without any appropriate guardrails, and without any appropriate oversight. That is because, let's face it, that is what this President does.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to go back. I am sorry. I thought I read this into the Record, but just to be clear, if people think this is an exact location, then they should read it to the end. After we identify the site, it says: ``except that the President may designate an alternative site for the museum within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this subsection.''

That is a little like when I was in high school, saying to my father: Can I stay out late? He would say: Yes, unless I say you can't. Does that mean I can stay out late? It only means I can stay out late if he gives me permission.

We are going to put it at this site. We have it specifically here. Ms.

Malliotakis is right. There is an exact location, unless the President says that is not where he wants it.

This is the Congress. Article I--when I first came to Washington, Article I, it must have been said 1,000 times in my first few weeks-- Article I prerogatives, the Congress, Article I, the first section of the Constitution, the legislative responsibilities herein lie with the Congress of the United States.

Yet, what are we doing, Mr. Speaker? We are passing legislation, which the President does have the right to sign or veto, in which case, if he vetoes, it comes back here for further action by the Houses. He gets one bite at the apple, but we are not content with that. We have to then give him unilateral power over what we have just passed to do whatever he wants. It is insanity.

There is no explanation for why we are not doing the original bill-- None. I am still listening, and I still haven't heard it.

I will continue to listen for the explanation. Perhaps in the close by my colleagues and friends, we will hear why, finally, there is something wrong with passing the original bill.

By the way, this isn't going to clear it up because this bill is not going to become law. I will tell you what, Mr. Speaker, in a new Congress, when there is a new majority, we will put the actual location. We will put it in law. We will send it to the President, and we will see whether or not he insists on not only a bill that has a location, but insists more on the power to unilaterally do whatever he wants.

The only way this majority is willing to do anything in this House seems to be to ultimately give the power, complete power, to the President to do what he chooses to do without our input.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, do you want to know why I think so many Americans have given up on this institution? Think about what we are doing right now. Think about this debate. I hope people see it.

We were handed something extremely rare in this building nowadays, a finished, bipartisan bill sponsored by more than half the Members with over 100 Members on both sides agreeing to it, and we lit it on fire. We have basically thrown it out and put it in a dumpster.

And for what: to stroke the President's ego, to bully a vulnerable group of people who make up less than 1 percent of the population?

The worst part is that we are doing it at a museum that is intended to honor women and the enormous contributions of women to this country who succeeded despite a government that failed them at times. They overcame great obstacles. We manufactured ours. They had every excuse to fail and made history anyway. They overcame those obstacles. We have no excuses. Yet, here we are on the verge of failing them, once again.

They deserved better then and they deserve better now.

Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues one last time: Stop with the games. Bring the bipartisan version of this bill to the floor, along with the Latino museum build so we can finally get shovels in the ground on The National Mall for these critically important museums and honor the amazing people in this country who have written the chapter of American history that we all stand on the shoulders of and whose legacy we enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this bill. Bring back the bipartisan bill. We will enthusiastically build it. We will put shovels in the ground and we will build these national museums as they should be.

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

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a very heavy heart and in opposition to this bill.

Representative Barrett and House Republicans have engineered here an impossible choice. What they have said to the American people is that only by raising costs on one set of veterans can we afford to help another.

At a time when we are spending trillions on defense, trillions on tax cuts for the wealthy, and countless other frivolities, like ballrooms and a slush fund for the President's friends, to suggest that we can only help veterans by hurting them is patently ridiculous. That is why I oppose this bill.

I want to clearly state that we owe our servicemembers, veterans, their families, and their survivors a debt of gratitude, as they have given everything to this Nation. The promise we made to them is something we strive to live up to every day. However, I believe this bill misses that mark.

We know that these groups desperately need more resources as our veteran population ages and requires more acute care. As I have mentioned before and as I am sure the majority will repeat, the catastrophically injured and survivor community has not seen an appreciable increase in their monthly rate since 2009.

I agree it is well past due that we correct that wrong. I certainly believe they are worth it. In fact, I wish we were increasing these benefits even more.

Unfortunately, this majority seeks to correct that wrong by inflicting harm on another community of veterans who are deserving of support and who are struggling veteran homeowners.

Just in case anyone needs a reminder, let's look at the last year and a half. Last spring, Secretary Doug Collins canceled the VA Servicing Purchase program, otherwise known as VASP, which assists veterans facing mortgage challenges prior to setting up their backstop program.

Chairman Bost and Representative Van Orden cheered on this development as thousands of veterans suddenly faced tenuous financial circumstances and no resources to turn to as they faced foreclosure.

Let me say, in the past 12 months since the closure of the VASP program, 10,000 veterans have lost their homes due to foreclosure. We could call this the Secretary Collins, Representative Van Orden, and Chairman Bost foreclosure program.

All the while, during this time of the past year, President Trump's affordability crisis has sent prices through the roof, making the dream of buying a house entirely out of reach for many Americans.

To recap, at a time when it is already hard to buy a home, Republicans want to make it even harder. They have made it easier for veterans to lose their homes when funds are tight. Now, they want to make it harder for veterans to even buy a home in the first place.

Not only do they want to make it unaffordable to buy a home, but they want to squeeze our veterans when they attempt to refinance. For many, it is a last-ditch effort to save their home. Remember, they already came after VASP. They canceled the program. They cheerleaded for the Secretary to cancel the program.

What we are seeing today is an attempt to take away affordable housing for veterans. These veterans I am talking about have used a home loan while in service to live with their families at a duty station and used it again when they moved on to the next tour.

Understand, the VA home loan is not just about veterans. It is also about

Active-Duty servicemembers. They are also eligible to use a veteran home loan to buy a home and, also, refinance a home.

I am talking about the transitioning servicemembers who want to buy a place back home, folks who have done their part in this country and want to transition to civilian life, Active-Duty servicemembers moving to a duty station, transitioning servicemembers who want to buy a home back where they want to settle. Even more critical, these are veterans attempting to keep their homes amidst rapidly rising foreclosures.

Now, we are asking veterans to shoulder the cost of survivors and catastrophically injured veterans--again, taking from one set of veterans in order to help another group of very deserving veterans.

Again, I will emphasize the impossible position we are putting our veteran community in. We are pitting one set of veterans against another, instituting a civil war in which we rack and stack which community is more deserving than the other. Frankly, it is shameful.

Before my Republican colleagues who have served stand up here and tell me that they would be happy to pay that benefit for their fellow veterans, I would ask them one thing: Why are we asking them to? Why are we asking our veterans to shoulder this cost? Why must we put the onus on veterans and servicemembers? Haven't they paid enough?

Yes, I agree that we need to be responsible with how we spend tax dollars, but I am curious: Why is it only when we are looking at benefits for the veteran and survivor community that we take this mindset?

We certainly didn't have this debate when we were offsetting a $30 billion war of choice in Iran, which will only make more veterans, Trump's $1 billion new ballroom, or a $75 billion slush fund for ICE, which now the Senate is having trouble getting over to the House.

If my counterparts in the Republican Party truly gave a damn about veterans, they would not pit them against one another just to give them a meager downpayment on veteran benefits. No. If they did, they would enact meaningful change.

We could be, instead, bringing to the floor the Love Lives On Act. We would pass the Caring for Survivors Act, and we would ask the American people to pay for them. I have no doubt the American people would say: Yes, we should pay for these things. We shouldn't put this on veterans.

I could go on and on all day. We could expand access to toxic-exposed veterans, provide fertility care for our women veterans, and address traumatic brain and blast injury. Getting things done on behalf of our veterans requires bold action.

That is why, today, I have filed a discharge petition on the Major Richard Star Act. It is live and ready for signature, and I invite my colleagues on the other side, as soon as we are done with this debate, to go down and sign that petition. I believe it will reach 218 very quickly.

Chairman Bost, Congressman Barrett, and Congressman Van Orden, I invite you right after this debate to go down and sign the discharge petition to bring the Major Richard Star Act to the floor.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me when they come to vote, in maybe 45 minutes or so, to sign the petition. We can get something meaningful done on behalf of veterans right now.

Let's end the wounded warrior tax. If we are not committed to caring for veterans and ensuring that they and their survivors get benefits that they were told they would be entitled to when they signed on the dotted line, then we need to stop making more veterans, full stop.

We can choose to do the right thing. We can choose to do the honorable thing. We can choose to do the moral thing and give survivors a meaningful benefit.

Right now, my colleagues across the aisle are choosing a Band-Aid for a wound that needs stitches. We cannot allow ourselves to accept veterans paying for their own benefits, and we should not tolerate forcing this community to fight each other in a pecking order of who matters most.

I hope to appeal to my colleagues' morality when I say that increasing compensation to survivors and catastrophically injured veterans is the right thing to do. We should do it, but we cannot do it at the expense of other veterans.

This legislation has pushed us to the point of having to make a hard decision out of what should have been an easy one. Waive paygo and pass meaningful legislation.

Today, we sit here debating a change on the margins that opens a Pandora's box to charge veterans for their own benefits. That is why I simply cannot support this legislation as written, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I will say that was a wonderful post of all the veterans service organizations that support this legislation. Yes, they support raising the compensation for the catastrophically disabled. If you read their letter very carefully, they are silent on the pay-for. They are silent on the subject of should you ask our servicemembers who are serving right now in the waters around Iran whether they should be charged $1,000 or more in fees to refinance their homes. There is not a single one of those veterans service organizations that says that they agree with that pay-for.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman has referred to moments when I was chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee when we did look at pay-fors related to increasing the interest rate reduction refinance program.

We did pass a bill out of the House in 2020 that would have increased the interest rate reduction refinance loan fees by one-fourth of a percent, but it did not become law. When you strip away all of the context around that bill, you can try to set up a gotcha--you did what we are trying to do--but the reality is that we are in a much different situation now.

First, the proposed increase in 2020 returned to current levels just after a few years. Representative Barrett's and Chairman Bost's proposed increase replaces the current level with their new fee level. It is not a temporary change. It is a permanent increase.

Today's proposed increase is almost three times what was contemplated back in 2020. That translates into $2,500 to $3,000 more in fees that veterans would have to pay under Representative Barrett's plan. That cost doubles when the veteran has to pay interest on that fee increase.

Also back in 2020, home loan mortgage and refinance rates were at record lows. Fees had much less of an impact on veterans' abilities to lower their housing costs. Today, interest rates are so much higher. Many more veterans are facing foreclosure. As I said, 10,000 veterans in the past 12 months, and thousands and thousands of veterans are in jeopardy of losing their homes in the coming months.

The Trump administration has gotten rid of VASP, as I said, with the cheerleading done by the chairman and Representative Van Orden. VASP was the last-ditch program to keep veterans and their families in their homes. It has been a year, and the replacement, the partial claims program, which I supported in instituting, has still not been rolled out yet, and it won't be rolled out for several months. Meanwhile, we will see more veterans foreclosed upon.

Refinancing, therefore, is currently the last line of defense in keeping veterans with distressed loans in their homes. Representative Barrett is proposing that we raise costs at this very moment, in this financial environment and when this Congress has passed a reconciliation bill costing billions and billions of dollars that were not offset. Mind you, the $70 billion that the Senate was hoping to send over here, the Republican Senate, that this House presumably would have also approved of, the Republican majority, that $70 billion will not offset.

We are also looking at potentially a $1.5 trillion defense budget increase, and there is talk about $1 billion on the President's ballroom.

How do we justify taxing veterans to access their own benefits? How do you justify that?

Let me just say that I offered an amendment. I offered an amendment to pay for this bill not with the money that would have gone to other veterans. I had an amendment that would have delayed for 3 years the implementation of a big, bad, ugly bill tax break we were giving to very wealthy people--people with $15 million to pass on to their heirs. We wanted to delay the tax break that rich people get when they want to pass on their wealth to their heirs. We would delay that for 3 years. That would pay for the cost of this bill.

That amendment was rejected. I think that very wealthy people benefit from the bravery and the courage of our military servicemembers. It is not too much to ask the wealthiest people of our country to bear the cost of paying for the catastrophically disabled veterans.

I think the American people would countenance that much better than: Let's take away the ability for our servicemembers who are currently serving in the waters surrounding Iran, or our veterans--we shouldn't be asking them to have to pay more in home loan fees for benefits that they thought they were getting when they signed up.

It is the choices that we are making that bother me here. I don't think we should be doing something that is very, very worthy by charging one set of veterans to pay for another set.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida.

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

I do think the gentleman doth protest too much. The gentleman cheerleaded and encouraged Secretary Collins to end the VASP program over a year ago, forthwith. He is now on the floor arguing to take away the last remaining tool that veterans who have distressed properties have to hang on to those properties, which is the ability to refinance their homes under the VA home loan program. He is advocating for the passage of a bill which will admirably address the catastrophically disabled, but cause veterans who are in distressed homes higher costs in refinancing.

Let me explain further. Veterans are experiencing record foreclosures. Unfortunately, it is not hard to explain

exactly why. It is because of the Trump administration's assault on the VA loan assistance options.

Just months into the Trump administration's second term, President Trump and Secretary Collins, at the urging of Chairman Bost and Chairman Van Orden, ended the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase program, otherwise known as VASP.

The VASP program was a lifeline offered to veterans by President Biden that served as a last resort option for veterans before foreclosure. The program worked. For inane, extreme ideological reasons, Chairman Bost and Chairman Van Orden urged Secretary Collins to end the VASP program.

It is no surprise that foreclosures for veterans have doubled since that action. Ten thousand veterans have lost their homes in the last year, and tens of thousands more are set to be foreclosed upon in this Trump economy.

The majority might claim that their partial claims law, which was finally enacted last fall, is the answer. The gentleman from Wisconsin says that it is going to be implemented next month. We will see. I hope he is right, but I believe that the law is still months away from being implemented. Based on the rollout, it is unlikely to save many of the veterans at risk due to limitations in the program and the delays in rollout.

At the very least, they could have urged Secretary Collins to continue the VASP program until the partial claims program was ready. But no, oops, it is unfortunate, says my colleague from the State of Wisconsin, that 10,000 veterans had to lose their homes.

Now, what brings us to this moment? With VASP gone and partial claims not ready for prime time, the only last true option for veterans is to refinance their loans so they can get current on their outstanding payments.

This very legislation we are considering right now puts that relief further away. Refinancing will become more expensive, which makes it no longer a viable option for many veterans. Veterans have less options than they did a year ago, and this bill will reduce those options even more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been searching my memory to recall such righteous indignation about costs when we prosecute wars.

The rhetoric about the true cost of war is very different. In fact, it is nonexistent. No one is prepared to handcuff our military at a time when they need equipment. Yet, the individual consequences of war can last a lifetime, and we must take them into account.

After 250 years, we have more than enough historical data to understand that the cost of these wars does not end at the last appropriation marked for battle.

We already promised to care for veterans. In this case, that means their families, as well. Congress should not turn away or hide from that fact. If we are to support the cost of starting and sustaining war, we must acknowledge the financial cost of supporting those veterans it creates when they come home.

We need to stop treating our work in Congress as something out of the ``Hunger Games,'' that someone must suffer so that someone else can get what they need, that we need to force schoolchildren, small business owners, and veterans to compete for help from their government. We on our side of the aisle are not going to play that game with the benefits our veterans have earned.

We should provide funding to give veterans who have gone to war for this country healthcare and benefits. In fact, if you want to continue to increase funding for defense spending and military aid, I would say that you should be required to consider the long-term cost of taking care of the servicemembers whom we are sending into harm's way.

I personally would never ask for offsets for funding for the equipment our troops need because it is the right thing to do, just like taking care of veterans is also the right thing to do. I hope that our country and this Congress will not perpetuate a double

standard when we discuss funding and support for our servicemembers and for our veterans and their families. America deserves better.

Again, I will conclude by saying we should be taking care of the catastrophically disabled veterans of our country. It has been too long. They have gone without for too long, but we should not be asking other veterans to do that work. We, the American people, should be the ones who foot that bill, not our veterans.

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

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