Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 90th birthday of a community pioneer and legendary advocate for youth in my district, Mr. Adrian ``Dell'' Roberts.

Known to most simply as Dell, he began his 38 years of public service as a football coach at Riverside Poly High School in 1965, quickly gaining recognition by the principal for his kindness and patience during student conflict. He soon became campus supervisor, followed by assistant principal in charge of discipline, and finished his career as an assistant administrator covering discipline and campus security.

Since retiring in 2003, Dell has continued his philanthropic efforts through the Adrian Dell and Carmen Roberts Foundation, alongside his loving wife. Together, they host charitable fundraisers, backpack giveaways for students, scholarships for youth, conferences for young women, and lead the city's Annual Black History Parade and Expo, which celebrated its 46th year in February.

As Booker T. Washington wrote, ``Those who are happiest are those who do the most for others.''

Dell's selfless acts of giving back to our community have changed countless lives over the decades. You are a role model to us all. On behalf of the constituents of California's 39th Congressional District, I wish Dell a Happy 90th Birthday.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment would codify President Trump's executive order banning transgender Americans from serving in the United States military.

Since that order came down, the military branches have forced out Americans who have served their country bravely and honorably, leaving entire professional careers behind and gaps in the units and chains of command they once held together.

This amendment would codify that exclusion into law. There are no grounds to exclude trans people from the military except for hatred, prejudice, and bigotry. There is no evidence that having transgender troops negatively impacts military readiness.

Our military is strongest when every qualified servicemember is able to serve. Who are we as a country when strong, qualified, patriotic candidates who want to serve their country are turned away simply because of ignorant legislating?

The American people want Congress to support our servicemembers, not waste time rooting out the ones they want to use as political pawns.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 90 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), my colleague.

Madam Chair, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen).

Madam Chair, let me conclude by saying that trans servicemembers are honorable. Trans servicemembers are truthful. Trans members are disciplined. Trans members are heroic. Trans members have sacrificed for our country. They are physically and mentally fit to serve and have made America safer.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Once again, my Republican colleagues are moving forward with a sweeping ban on necessary healthcare, including mental health care for children.

This isn't about cost. This isn't about force readiness. In fact, this amendment will harm our military's force readiness.

This amendment will force servicemembers out of the military either for their own sake or for the sake of their children since this amendment bans mental health care for trans children.

There are and will be trans children born to military households. That is a fact. What parent would choose staying in their job if that means denying their child access to mental health care?

This amendment makes it impossible for the military to retain servicemembers with trans children. This is an inhumane, wasteful, regressive amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment's language opens the door to invasive, degrading, and humiliating physical examinations of children, children who simply want to play softball or join a basketball team. That is creepy.

This amendment would require the Department of Defense Education Activities schools to determine eligibility for girls' sports teams based on a girl's reproductive system. This amendment will empower child predators.

We can have a nuanced conversation about eligibility rules for elite sports teams, but this amendment is a one-size-fits-all approach that dictates the same rules for a kindergartner wanting to play soccer as a 12th grader participating in competitive basketball. It does so in the most dangerous way, by opening young girls to invasive exams.

Our communities thrive when every child, including trans children, can be part of a team, learn sportsmanship, and challenge themselves. They falter when we write exclusion into our laws.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 81st anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.

August 6, 81 years ago--which will happen in a couple of weeks--the first instance of a nuclear weapon being deployed against a civilian population occurred.

My cousin, Kikue Takagi, survived the bombing because she was sick and stayed home instead of being at the city center at ground zero with her middle school classmates. The vast majority of her middle school classmates perished that morning. She is a ``hibakusha''; ``survivor'' of the atomic bombing.

The U.S. and Russia had the New START Treaty which limited the number of nuclear warheads in both of their respective arsenals. This year the Trump administration allowed it to expire, dealing a major blow to arms control efforts. We must not allow negligence or indifference to lead to a disaster in the absence of diplomatic safeguards.

Mr. Speaker, I call on Congress, the President, and all of us to return to leadership in reversing the arms control race.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8823, Putting Patients First by Strengthening Provider Accountability in FECA Act.

Providers are the greatest source of fraud in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act program, otherwise known as FECA. For example, during this committee's oversight of the opioid crisis, we learned about corrupt compounding pharmacies that were crushing up pills and putting them into creams, even though the medicines in those pills were not absorbed through the skin. A 15-ounce tube of this useless cream got charged to the FECA program for $15,000.

Existing rules allow the Department of Labor to strike a provider from the list of eligible providers in the FECA program when they are convicted of fraud in any public health program. Those rules do not enable the Department to stop payment on any claims that a convicted provider has already submitted prior to the conviction. That could amount to millions of dollars in claims with a high risk of fraud moving through the system.

There are, of course, due process issues that could arise, but this bill already contemplates those issues by empowering the Department of Labor to develop appropriate rules for implementing the new authority. All in all, this bill closes an important gap and protects taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my colleagues Representatives Omar and Mackenzie on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this simple, bipartisan bill protects taxpayers. It does so without weakening the FECA program. It simply targets truly bad actors, corrupt physicians, pharmacists, and other providers who exploit injured Federal workers and rip off the FECA program.

This is an example of the kind of reform that makes sense. We are not saving money by turning our backs on the people who need these benefits. Instead, we are focusing the attention where it ought to be, on the providers who profit off workers' pain unlawfully.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 9237. It is a beautiful day here in Washington, D.C., but Republicans are casting a dark cloud over all of us and especially over America's veterans.

We have before us today a bill that, despite its name, does the exact opposite of taking care of veterans. It enshrines into law the largest cut to veterans' benefits ever in the history of this Nation.

The premise of this bill is that some veterans must be made worse off in order to make others better off. Mr. Speaker, I reject that premise, I reject this bill, and I encourage others to do the same.

Here is the core issue: The majority treats veterans as a zero-sum game: cut disability pay for some to find benefits for others. That is not governing. That is rationing suffering among our Nation's heroes.

With this bill, the majority would, for the first time ever, have Congress interfere in the scientific process that the determines veterans' disability ratings, overriding the expertise of medical professionals at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I respect that Chairman Bost is a military veteran, but he is not a medical professional.

The majority, for the first time ever, would have us cut tens of billions of dollars from veteran disability compensation to pay for the Department of Defense obligations. This is absolutely unconscionable.

Consider the math. Republicans are discussing nearly $70 billion in new Pentagon spending without offsets. They vote enthusiastically for $1.5 trillion in annual defense budgets. Yet, they insist on paying for veterans' priorities by cutting benefits with the two most common service-connected conditions. Apparently, there is no problem sending veterans the bill for the wars that Congress funds.

This is a massive 600-page bill--crafted behind closed doors and brought to the floor without careful consideration--packed with harmful provisions designed to boost a few vulnerable Members' electoral prospects.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons and many, many more, I cannot in good conscience support this legislation.

More important than my opposition is the opposition of the very people whom the majority claims to help, the veterans themselves. Over 30 Veteran Service Organizations and advocates oppose this legislation, including many of the largest, like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and numerous others. They know that reaching into the pockets of one set of veterans to provide for another is morally wrong. Creating tiers of veterans based on their period of service and treating tomorrow's veterans worse than today's is morally wrong. They will not stand for it, and neither should we.

In addition to the numerous VSOs and over two dozen labor unions opposed to this bill, including the Union of Veterans Council, American Federation of Government Employees, and AFL-CIO, so do professional associations like the American Psychological Association and the Nurses Organization of VA. They all recognize the devastating effect this legislation will have on VA's workforce and their ability to deliver high-quality care.

Even the Mortgage Bankers Association has expressed opposition to this bill. The majority has decided that, during a housing affordability crisis, it makes sense to raise costs on struggling veteran homeowners who are desperately trying to avoid foreclosure.

This package contains multiple harmful provisions. It would accelerate the privatization of veteran healthcare--creating new grant programs for private providers that divert resources from VA mental health and PTSD programs--and steer veterans into more expensive community-based care, even where VA services remain available, and strip VA psychologists of their collective bargaining rights.

This bill also contains numerous sections opposed by key stakeholders, like Student Veterans of America, Veterans Education Success, and the American Federation of Teachers, that would direct GI Bill funding toward low-quality, for-profit, unaccredited online programs.

This bill contains provisions that would allow GI benefits to be used for online welding courses. Can you believe it? Explain to me how you can teach someone online how to weld.

Inexplicably, H.R. 9237 even includes a $500 million IT slush fund that VA will use to enrich contractors and reward the President's cronies. The list goes on and on.

We are going to hear arguments from the majority today about all the good things this bill attempts to do. If we exist in a vacuum, I would say that I agree. There are parts of this bill with broad bipartisan support: long overdue increases to dependency and indemnity compensation and a special monthly compensation, for example.

We do not exist in isolation here, and we must take the bill as the total sum of its parts, especially since the majority has blocked amendments to this bill, as they have done so often in this Congress.

Regrettably, we will also hear the chairman say that cutting veterans' benefits is the only way that we can get them done. This is patently false, and the chairman knows it. Everyone in this Chamber knows it, and everyone in America knows it, as well. There are any number of other places we can find money for these priorities.

We don't lack money around here. What is in short supply, at least on the other side of the aisle, is the political will to use some of it on behalf of America's veterans. There is $1.5 trillion for the Department of Defense, $70 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and hundreds of millions of dollars for permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, none of it offset, and all of which the chairman voted for enthusiastically.

Just 10 days of President Trump's folly in Iran would pay for 10 years of benefits under the Major Richard Star Act.

Let me say that again. Just 10 days of President Trump's folly in Iran would pay for 10 years of benefits under the Major Richard Star Act.

The question we have before us today is this: Why do you insist on offsets now? Why only now when we are trying to do work on behalf of our Nation's veterans do you care about the deficit? Why are Republicans holding veterans' priorities hostage, including the overwhelming top priority of veterans, the Major Richard Star Act, in exchange

for multibillion-dollar cuts to veterans' benefits?

That is a mystery to me, and it is a question that Chairman Bost and Republicans will struggle to answer, as well.

I will point to this chart here.

Mr. Speaker, let me finish with a quote from just one veteran in opposition to this legislation: ``I am a disabled Michigan veteran and lifelong conservative. Please pass the Major Richard Star Act as a stand-alone bill. We do not support the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, H.R. 9237, and we will never elect Representatives who want to cut veterans' benefits. How could Republicans propose this.''

I couldn't have said it any better, and there are thousands more comments just like this as you can see here.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman has said several times that the disability changes this bill makes are coming anyway. That is simply not true. He is counting on a golden egg that the VA has simply not laid yet.

The first Trump administration floated changes to conditions like sleep apnea and tinnitus beginning in 2019. Then 4 years ago, when VA sought public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking, the 2022 changes during the Biden administration, VSOs and many Members of this body spoke loudly and clearly and unanimously in opposition to them, and what he doesn't mention is that the Biden administration walked away from those proposed rule changes.

The VA listened to those voices in 2022, and as a result, the proposed rule has been on a shelf since then. Just a few short weeks ago, VA clarified that it is not planning to take any action on this proposed rule. That was from a VA spokesperson in public. There is nothing inevitable about these rule changes, which are going to bring about the golden egg of savings, the $57 billion that the chairman is counting on in order to pay for this bill. The savings will come from cuts to veterans disability benefits. Their tweet that he is referring to this morning quoting an unnamed source is not the same as rulemaking.

This is simply the majority trying to find any excuse possible to cut benefits they view as overly generous, which has long been their goal. That is why Americans for Prosperity has endorsed this bill.

The architects of Project 2025 have been desperate to cut benefits for years, and they have been trying to find a way to touch veterans benefits. I am not going to let them do that. They even showed up at the majority's press conference to cheer on their efforts just a few short days ago, and now they finally have a majority who is willing to bow to their demands to harm veterans.

My majority counterparts have picked an interesting time to care about science again. Their remarks today attempt to demonstrate that they are working to align themselves with the best science to update and modernize the disability ratings schedule.

Yet, my majority colleagues fail to see the irony in legislating away veteran benefits before VA completes a thorough review of the best science. They are substituting their own judgment for that of VA clinicians and researchers who actually understand the medical evidence related to these disabilities.

If this bill is passed, the expertise of VA and the years of work that go into clinical determinations become moot.

If you don't believe me, just listen to what one of VA's top doctors, former VA Secretary and Under Secretary for Health David Shulkin, stated regarding this bill's proposed changes to disability ratings: ``Any modernization of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities should be instead conducted through an independent, evidence-based medical review led by the Department of Veterans Affairs, with opportunities for public comment and

congressional oversight. Any savings resulting from that process should be reinvested in improving disability evaluations, rehabilitation services, and veterans' healthcare--not used to finance unrelated provisions of the legislation.''

If my colleagues are suddenly interested in following that science, they should let the experts continue their work independently without the political pressure that passage of this bill will inevitably create.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood), my good friend. She is a former member of this committee who currently serves on the House Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a coalition letter from 10 veterans service organizations; a resolution from The American Legion Department of Texas; a statement from The American Legion, Trujillo-Sheets Post 28, in Durango, Colorado; and emails from Minnesota Blue Earth Post 89 of The American Legion and American Legion Post 58 in Belleville, Illinois, all in opposition to this bill.

June 24, 2026.

Hon. Jerry Moran,

Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Blumenthal,

Ranking Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

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 Chairmen Moran and Bost, and Ranking Members

Blumenthal and Takano: As organizations representing millions

of veterans, service members, survivors, caregivers, and

military families of all generations, we have long worked

with Congress to protect and strengthen the benefits and

services earned through military service. For that reason, we

do not support the funding mechanism within the Take Care of

America's Veterans Act (H.R. 9237/S. 4744) that would

significantly reduce future benefits for more than a million

disabled veterans.

The Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities is

intended to reflect medical evidence, functional impairment,

and scientific expertise, not serve as a budgetary offset. If

Congress establishes the precedent that disability ratings

may be rewritten through statute to generate ``savings'',

future Congresses will have a ready-made roadmap for reducing

earned benefits whenever fiscal pressures arise. Disability

compensation is not a government program to be trimmed when

convenient. It is earned compensation for injuries and

illnesses incurred in service to our nation.

Some supporters argue that Congress is simply implementing

changes previously proposed by the Department of Veterans

Affairs. However, VA never finalized those proposals, largely

due to receiving more than 2,600 comments raising concerns

about the medical justification for the changes and their

impact on future veterans. In fact, VA spokesman Quinn Slaven

recently stated, ``No changes are planned or imminent,'' and

noted that the agency is still reviewing the proposed rule,

which ``would need to undergo significant changes [emphasis

added] prior to being finalized'' before any implementation

could occur (Slaven, quoted in GovExec, June 16, 2026).

We are also troubled that reductions to future VA

disability compensation are being used to finance provisions

such as the Major Richard Star Act, which addresses a

military retirement inequity rooted in Department of Defense

policy. Correcting a Title 10 obligation should not come at

the expense of Title 38 benefits. We continue to support

enactment of a clean and complete Major Richard Star Act that

delivers full concurrent receipt to combat-injured retirees

without reducing earned benefits for future veterans.

Congress can and should address these priorities without

reducing compensation for future disabled veterans, bypassing

the regulatory process, or undermining confidence in the

disability compensation system.

We respectfully urge Congress to find a different path

forward for these important benefit increases, including a

clean and complete Major Richard Star Act, that does not

force one generation of veterans to bear the cost for

another.

Sincerely,

DAV (Disabled American Veterans), Iraq and Afghanistan

Veterans of America, Jewish War Veterans, Marine Corps

League, National Organization of Veterans' Advocates,

National Veterans Legal Services Program, Reserve

Organization of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars,

54kVeterans.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman has made the claim that VA is going to move forward with taking away sleep apnea and tinnitus as conditions that veterans may claim disability ratings for. I would like to ask the chairman who at VA has made that commitment. He has tweeted out this morning that this is the case.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) for the purpose of a colloquy to tell me the name of the person at VA who has confirmed that the VA is moving forward with these changes to disability ratings.

The Secretary?

So the gentleman is saying that a Secretary who backed away from changes to disability ratings in terms of medication--the intent was to say that if veterans take medication or get some sort of treatment, that if their conditions improve, that their disability ratings could then be lowered. He backed away from that after immense protest and opposition from veterans and veterans organizations.

You are telling me that this very same Secretary is telling you that he is moving forward with a $57 billion cut to disability ratings?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

The time is mine. I am reclaiming my time.

Mr. Speaker, there has been no public statement by the Secretary. There has been no named official from VA today. I defy the chairman to produce such a name. He is making a claim, but, again, I will contend that they are counting on a golden egg in disability cuts, savings on the backs of veterans, that has not been laid yet and that I contend will not be.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Deluzio), a veteran of the U.S. Navy, a former member of this committee and who now serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Transportation Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, there is overwhelming opposition to cutting veterans' disability benefits to offset the cost of this bill.

Major VSOs, like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, along with numerous others, all oppose this bill due to the offset.

More importantly, veterans themselves are overwhelmingly opposed, as well. Check out any online veteran forum, and you will find thousands of comments from both veterans and Active-Duty servicemembers decrying these proposed cuts.

Veterans of all eras agree that their receipt of benefits should not be predicated on cuts to benefits for another generation of veterans. It is our job to listen to them. There are other ways to fund this bill's provisions. We just need to have the political courage to stand up and do what is right for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee), my good friend who serves on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

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

I will point out that yesterday, House Republicans released a $95 billion supplemental for the reconciliation bill they want to bring forward next week for Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operations all without offsets. We are talking about $95 billion--none of them with an offset. Yet, we are asking our veterans to pay for this bill. Only in the case of veterans is the chairman looking for an offset.

I defy the chairman to tell me whether he will ask for an offset for the $95 billion supplemental that goes to Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operations. I eagerly await to hear his answer.

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

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

I continue to ask the chairman in advance of a $95 billion supplemental for Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operation, on none of this are the Republicans seeking an offset? Only the chairman in this particular case when it comes to our veterans is demanding that veterans pay for veterans.

We could pass this bill without having to ask veterans to pay for veterans--actually, for disabled veterans to pay for veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman again: Does he plan to seek an offset or demand an offset for the $95 billion supplemental for Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operations, none of which Republicans are intending to pay for? Their rules and their policy is to make veterans pay for veterans.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In listening to the chairman today and at the Rules Committee several weeks ago, it is clear to me that he has been picking his words very carefully. He has been very specific that this bill, the so-called Take Care of America's Veterans Act, would not impair current veterans.

I am not sure if the chairman fully understands how the disability benefits system works or if he truly believes what he is saying, but what he is saying isn't even remotely the full truth.

The bill can and will lead to cuts for those who already have service-connected disability ratings for sleep apnea and tinnitus. This is because anytime a veteran applies for a rating increase or applies for a new rating for some other condition, VA can and does review previous ratings, sometimes even lowering them.

It is foolish to think that VA won't apply the new rules for sleep apnea and tinnitus when veterans have their ratings reviewed.

Further, his remarks fail to take into consideration two other critically important populations here. First, these cuts would make servicemembers currently serving who may be incurring these injuries right now ineligible to receive compensation for service-connected tinnitus or sleep apnea. Those servicemembers President Trump keeps sending into harm's way in this foolish war with Iran would be ineligible for these benefits. That should give us all pause.

Let me just say a ``yes'' vote on this bill is a message that we are sending to the servicemembers currently serving in and around the waters of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz and our servicemembers that are stationed at bases who have already faced incoming missile fire and have been subjected to the blasts that have surely affected their eardrums, we are saying to them that they will not be able to apply to make claims based on tinnitus, much less sleep apnea. That is the message a ``yes'' vote will send to them. That is why I say vote ``no.''

In addition, the chairman and his colleagues fail to acknowledge that the existing veterans who have yet to file a claim for tinnitus or sleep apnea--I am talking about a group of people not the current servicemembers, but veterans who have yet to apply for a rating--these two groups of veterans, that is, current servicemembers and veterans who have yet to file, will be treated worse than those that came before them.

This contract will unilaterally be changed on them and for the worse. How my Republican colleagues are okay with treating two veterans with the same exact condition differently is beyond me.

Mr. Speaker, this is the largest cut to veterans' disability benefits in history being used to pay for this bill when Republicans are not demanding offsets for $95 billion next week. I don't know how you all can live with yourselves.

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

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

Throughout this process, I have tried to stay up to date on what veterans are saying online about the so-called Take Care of America's Veterans Act. I found the discussions to be enlightening.

Before my colleagues say I have cherry-picked those comments, I urge them to pull out their phones and take a look at the comment sections on any social media post discussing this bill. It will become clear to you that opposition to this legislation is coming from veterans on both sides of the aisle. Let's take a look. I am quoting from the comments:

``This creates two tiers of veterans.''

``Veterans should not have to take a reduced amount to provide savings to pay for fellow veterans. The U.S. Government should honor their commitment to us.''

``This is a false choice. Find the funds without making veterans literally pay the cost.''

``If they truly cared, they wouldn't rob all veterans to pay for this as there are plenty of other ways to fund this act.''

``Pitting veterans against veterans.''

``You taught us to take care of each other; this bill contradicts that.''

There are thousands more just like this from veterans in each of our districts telling us to vote ``no'' on this bad bill. If my colleagues won't listen to my concerns here, I urge them to listen to the veterans, dependents, caregivers, survivors, and advocates in their districts.

We cannot today, tomorrow, or ever balance budgets on the backs of veterans who have already sacrificed so much for their country. Instead, we must honor the contract we made with our Nation's veterans and reject the false choice Chairman Bost has foisted upon us.

I join the millions of veterans across the country who vehemently oppose H.R. 9237, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, and urge everyone to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Alvin Stephens, a distinguished Army veteran, pioneering pharmacist, entrepreneur, mentor, and devoted family man whose remarkable 59-year career exemplified public service, leadership, and excellence.

Following his honorable service in the United States Army during the Korean Conflict, Mr. Stephens earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Pharmacy from Texas Southern University in 1959.

Soon after, he relocated his family to Riverside, California to establish his career--becoming the city's first African American retail pharmacist when he opened Perris Valley Medical Pharmacy in 1964. His professional leadership included service as President of the Riverside County Pharmaceutical Association, Western Zone Director of the National Pharmaceutical Association, and an active member of the Central Los Angeles Pharmaceutical Association.

Beyond his accomplishments in pharmacy, Mr. Stephens dedicated himself to mentoring young people through Career Day programs hosted by local school districts, encouraging countless students to pursue higher education and careers in healthcare.

He was also an established, lifelong member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc., committing his time to various roles within their Riverside Alumni Chapter.

Above all his many achievements, Alvin Stephens was a devoted husband to Mrs. Ola Faye Stephens, his wife of 66 years, and a loving father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. His enduring legacy of compassion, integrity, and service to our community will continue to inspire generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the conclusion of Pride Month.

Pride is, and always has been, a protest. From the Stonewall Uprising to the neighborhood parades, Pride is about both standing up for equality and celebrating our authentic selves.

When we celebrate Pride, we make a demand. We demand the right to live and love openly. We demand to be treated equally and fairly under the law. We demand dignity. First and foremost, we demand equality.

This Congress, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has taken more than 20 votes to attack the rights of LGBTQI+ Americans and particularly the rights of transgender Americans. Even after all those votes, not one major anti-LGBTQI+ piece of legislation has become law.

Members of the Congressional Equality Caucus have fought hard to fight back against all these attacks. Thanks to our work, we were able to remove every new anti-LGBTQI+ rider from the government funding bills for fiscal year 2026. House Republicans tried to add dozens of these new riders, and we were able to defeat every one. We plan to do it again for fiscal year 2027, but the Trump administration's relentlessness has still had countless terrible impacts on our community.

Under Donald Trump, transgender Americans' access to healthcare is under direct attack. The arms of the Federal Government tasked with enforcing America's rights, like the EEOC, are being sabotaged and forced to target the rights of the very Americans they are meant to protect.

Transgender servicemembers are being carelessly kicked out of the military without regard for their merits and accomplishments or the military's operational security. Critical funding and research to combat the HIV and AIDS epidemics are being recklessly cut, and so much more.

Mr. Speaker, to the LGBTQI+ people watching right now, know that we are still fighting for you. As chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, I assure the American people that my colleagues and I are fighting back against these attacks at every turn in Congress.

We are conducting oversight of Trump administration officials and demanding accountability from those who violate LGBTQI+ Americans' rights.

As we close out Pride Month, I stand with our allies across the country in reminding LGBTQI+ people that we are fighting for you. We will not give up until every person is fully free to be themselves without fear of discrimination, harassment, or violence.

I wish all of you a happy Pride.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall), my colleague and co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), vice chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congresswoman from Florida for her wonderful remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Congresswoman Gwen Moore, thank you and happy Pride to you.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Tonko. Happy pride.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury), my colleague from the Land of Enchantment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Stansbury. Happy pride.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bell), my colleague from the Show Me State and my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Bell. Happy pride.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank a group of people who have been on the front lines of the fight for LGBTQI+ equality: the litigators who are challenging this administration's antiLGBTQI+ policies and, more broadly, fighting to protect our rights, the rights of all Americans.

Over the past 1.5 years, these litigators have filed dozens of lawsuits to both protect LGBTQI+ rights and block the Trump administration's antiequality efforts.

When President Trump reinstituted the trans military ban, litigators jumped into action and fought for our Nation's transgender servicemembers.

When the Department of Health and Human Services wiped critical public health data from Federal websites for simply mentioning LGBTQI+ people, a lawsuit forced the Department to restore these web pages.

As the administration has targeted trans people's access to medically necessary care, litigators have filed lawsuit after lawsuit responding to each attack.

Litigators are standing up for our community--from local district courts to the Supreme Court. Pride is a protest, and there are few forms of protest that are more powerful or with more direct impact than challenging discriminatory policies in court. Many of these organizations leading these efforts are operating with less resources than the last Trump administration, yet dealing with an even higher volume of attacks.

Behind every complaint filed and every win, our teams of litigators and support staff are working countless hours to defend our rights. I must say, when I say, ``our rights,'' I mean our rights as Americans, because LGBTQI+ rights are American rights.

As I stand before this body, I extend my gratitude and the gratitude of the entire Congressional Equality Caucus to the teams of litigators who are fighting so hard to defend our community in courts across this Nation. To all of those litigators and their support staffs, I say to them on this final day of Pride Month, happy pride. I thank them for their great work.

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Adelita Grijalva for her remarks and wish a happy Pride to her and all the people of the great State of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to send a message directly to the transgender community in America, and here is what I have to say: You are not alone.

I know it is easy to feel like there is no one left in Washington who is willing to stand up for you, but that is not

true. Every day, my colleagues and I in the Congressional Equality Caucus, which is over 190 strong, are fighting for you.

I know it is hard right now, but you are not alone. Even with all the antitrans attacks coming from this Chamber, my colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I have been successful in blocking the worst of the worst from becoming law.

We successfully blocked every antitransgender rider in the fiscal year 2026 government funding bills from becoming law. Not a single bill exclusively focused on attacking our rights has made it to the President's desk in this Congress.

We are still fighting for a brighter tomorrow, and I hope you are, too.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it has been my profound honor to celebrate the LGBTQI+ community and honor the conclusion of Pride Month with my colleagues here tonight.

Pride began as a protest, as a demand--a demand for equal dignity, equal treatment, and equal justice for LGBTQI+ people. As we continue our fight for the rights of LGBTQI+ people here and in the Halls of Congress, that spirit is what drives us.

To every American watching tonight, I want you to know that we will never give up. We will never stop fighting for equality.

To you all, to every American across this country, from Maine to Hawaii to the territories, I say happy Pride.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kathy Eiler's nearly 30 years of service to the University of California system as she retires as Senior Director of Federal Relations at the University of California, Riverside.

Kathy's connection to the University of California has been a career- defining commitment. Over nearly three decades, she has served as a tireless advocate, a skilled navigator of the complex landscape of federal po]icy, and a trusted voice for the University of California's students, faculty, researchers, and staff.

Since joining UC Riverside in November 2018 as Senior Director of Federal Relations, she has brought her wealth of experience and institutional knowledge to advocate on behalf of one of the most diverse research universities in the Nation.

Her work has helped UC Riverside remain the number one school for social mobility in the country and placed the Inland Empire at the center of innovation in medicine, sustainability, and agriculture.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and congratulating Kathy Eiler for her exceptional service and in wishing her all the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and honor David Stacy's service to the LGBTQI+ community as he marks the end of his current chapter as Vice President of Government Affairs at the Human Rights Campaign.

David has been instrumental in the fight for LGBTQI+ equality for decades, helping found Fair Wisconsin, Wisconsin's statewide LGBTQI+ civil rights organization, and working in this chamber for then- Representative Tammy Baldwin as a Legislative Assistant for seven years. In his role for then-Rep. Baldwin, David worked on a range of LGBTQI+ issues, including marriage equality and hate crimes.

After leaving the Hill, David joined HRC where over the course of two decades, he has played a role in every major LGBTQI+ bill to become law, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act. He also played a key role in adding sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination protections to the Violence Against Women Act and has helped lead organizations in opposing dozens of anti-LGBTQI+ bills and amendments--including the Federal Marriage Amendment--over the last twenty years.

David was also instrumental in the introduction of the Equality Act of 2015 and has continued to lead the coalition of organizations advocating for its passage since then. It is my honor to now be the lead sponsor of the Equality Act, and I am grateful for David's tireless work to build support for this critical and historic legislation.

I have had the privilege of getting to know and work with David since coming to Congress in 2013. I have appreciated his knowledge, wisdom, and counsel. I know countless staff on the Hill and advocates in the LGBTQI+ movement have similarly appreciated his advice and mentorship over the years.

Most of the people who have benefited from David's advocacy will never know his name, but I have seen up close the impact he has had and how he has helped push equality forward. Our movement for equality is better off because of David's decades of service to it.

I wish David the best of luck on this next chapter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two award-winning actors who have proudly and relentlessly advocated for the LGBTQ+ community--Lisa Rinna and Harry Hamlin.

Lisa Rinna built a career in television, notably on the soap opera Days of Our Lives and the reality series The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. Harry Hamlin gained fame through L.A. Law and the fantasy film Clash of the Titans. Together, these Hollywood legends exemplify allyship at its finest.

Spanning decades of groundbreaking work on screen, they have not only helped shape culture, but consistently used their voices to affirm the dignity, humanity, and rights of LGBTQ+ people. Their support has been proud, unwavering, and deeply meaningful to a community that continues to fight for full equality.

They have used their platform to champion diversity and inclusion, by participating in events and conversations that elevate and promote LGTBQ+ voices. Through both their public advocacy and their steadfast support, they have helped foster greater visibility, understanding, and acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.

Lisa Rinna and Harry Hamlin's unwavering commitment to full equality reflects the highest ideals of humanity.

As we celebrate this Pride Month, I rise to honor them in their accomplishments both as actors and activists.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jacob Tierney for his significant contributions to the LGBTQ+ community.

Throughout his career, he has helped bring diverse LGBTQ+ stories and characters to audiences, contributing to greater awareness, empathy, and representation. His storytelling explores themes of identity, belonging, and human connection, offering nuanced portrayals that move beyond stereotypes. More than simply entertaining, his work invites reflection, expands perspectives, and helps foster a richer and more inclusive cultural conversation.

Jacob Tierney has helped illuminate LGBTQ+ experiences for viewers and audiences worldwide.

His most recent work, Heated Rivalry, has received widespread acclaim, earning both a Peabody Award and the GLAAD Award for Outstanding New Television Series. Further accolades include 18 Canadian Screen Award nominations, including Best Writing, Best Direction, and Best Drama Series.

His creative vision has invited audiences to engage with diverse experiences and perspectives. His wit, humor, and artistic contributions have helped promote greater awareness and have pushed forward meaningful change.

I thank him for inspiring countless individuals to approach the world with greater compassion and acceptance.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I proudly voted to pass an Iran War Powers Resolution to rein in this unraveling President. This was the fourth attempt by Democrats to assert our authority as a coequal branch of government and to say: No more to this war of choice.

Every Democrat in this House Chamber heard the cries of Americans saying no more to the billions spent on war instead of investing here at home.

Mr. Speaker, why did it take us this long? This war has gone on for more than 90 days. The price tag continues to rise by the billions every week, and every American feels the economic pain of this war at the gas pump.

Let me be clear: This is the first step toward stopping this war. Republicans in the Senate and the President still stand in the way of ending it. It is time for them to listen to the American people, just as Democrats did this week.

I thank Congressman Jackson for yielding. I thank him for that wonderful introduction. I won't claim to be the first Japanese American in Congress. There were many that came before me, such as Senator Inouye, Senator Spark Matsunaga, and many others such as Bob Matsui in the House of Representatives. But all of what you said about my family having been interned or incarcerated during World War II, that is the burden of history that I do carry and it is something that I think is very important and relevant to today.

I want to focus on the Voting Rights Act, which is the topic of this Special Order presented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus tonight.

In 1965, when I was probably 4 years old, President Lyndon B. Johnson gave a historic address to the Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday, you will recall, is that moment in Selma when John Lewis, among others, crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge and were met with State troopers and the local police and they were bludgeoned and whipped and were charged by officers on horseback because they were marching to Montgomery to demand voting rights.

What America saw shocked their conscience, and what they saw was what shocked the conscience of America. It led President Johnson to address Congress, and he said these words before in this very Chamber to a joint session. He said: ``The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders.'' A few months after that speech, the Voting Rights Act was the law of the land. And that is our topic today.

The voting rights protections, the Voting Rights Act protections were historic and gave rise to what historians consider the second Reconstruction era because for the first time in history the government ensured that minority Americans, Americans of color, could elect their own preferred candidate. The practice of gerrymandering to dilute the ability for communities of interest, communities of color to be able to elect their preferred candidate was the norm.

So one of the people who benefited from that first redistricting after the 1965 Voting Rights Act was put into law was Barbara Jordan from Houston, Texas, the first Black woman to represent the South and a personal hero of mine.

She was elected to Congress in a newly drawn Houston, Texas, district in 1972. I remember watching Barbara Jordan on television as a 13- or 14-year-old. She was famously a member of the House Judiciary Committee that was considering Articles of Impeachment against then-President Richard Nixon.

She famously called herself on the dais an inquisitor, and she recounted how improbable it was that she was an inquisitor sitting on the House Judiciary Committee.

She was there in great part because of the Voting Rights Act. If you just learned the history about this remarkable Member of Congress, she said on the House Judiciary Committee: ``My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total.'' That declaration made a huge impact on me. To see an African-American woman who talked about how improbable it would be for her to be a Member of Congress, it made me, a very young boy, believe that some day I could be a Member of this body.

Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, this Congress is the most diverse Congress in history. With 26 percent of its

Members being people of color, our legislative body is the most reflective of the country's population than it ever has been.

The Supreme Court has taken a wrecking ball to that progress in its decision in Louisiana v. Callais. Now Republican Governors and State legislatures have canceled primaries to ram through maps, oftentimes in a matter of days, that suppress the voting power of Black and Hispanic Americans.

Mr. Speaker, instead of the Republican Party passing bills to lower the cost of living, they have seen fit to rig maps to try and keep the Republicans in power.

The Republicans would rather shred the single most transformative piece of legislation in the history of our democracy that has ever been, and they will do it if it means that the President can continue to build his ballroom, continue his insane war, and enrich himself and his family.

The President knows that if congressional maps were fair there would be enough of us here in Congress who would demand accountability for the grift he is running out of the White House. There would be enough voices demanding that he get the help he urgently needs as he continues to unravel in front of the world.

However, Mr. Speaker, my faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, and it is total. I know that while the Supreme Court may have dismantled the Voting Rights Act, Congress is not powerless, and the American people, in spite of the efforts to rig the maps and to draw districts to keep Republicans in power, we can and will prevail in the coming months. We will have the votes. If we have the votes, then we can put an end to gerrymandering and restore and strengthen protections against racial discrimination in voting so that every voice counts.

There is no question that this Supreme Court is facing a crisis of credibility. Americans are questioning the Court's legitimacy to make decisions based on the law and the history of this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is also time to put a check on the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that has taken a wrecking ball to the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today during AANHPI Heritage Month to honor the contributions of Dr. Tai-Heng Cheng, particularly his work with the National Museum of Asian Art. In 2022, a gift from Dr. Cheng established the museum's first paid graduate internship program.

Since its inception, twenty-two energetic students have benefited from Dr. Cheng's generosity, working on museum exhibitions, research, and public programs. These young people come from diverse backgrounds, each bringing a unique perspective not only to the National Museum of Asian Art, but also to the cultural institutions they will shape throughout their careers. This pipeline of diverse, intelligent, and passionate talent in the museum and curatorial field is essential and will undoubtedly lead to collections that present a more complete history for all to enjoy and learn from. Dr. Cheng's contributions have helped ensure that AANHPI history is preserved, curated, and presented with humanity and dignity. During this AANHPI Heritage Month, I congratulate him, the National Museum of Asian Art, and all the students who have benefited from this program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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