Veterans 2nd Amendment, Benefits Expansion, Smithsonian Women's History Museum

Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today the rules committee is convening to consider three measures, H R ten forty-one, H R six zero forty-seven, and H R one three two nine. H R ten forty-one, the veteran's second Amendment Protection Act would institute a sorely overdue correction within the appointment process of fiduciaries for veterans. When the VA appoints fiduciaries to veterans to manage their benefits due to disability, the act of doing so can trigger automatic reporting to the national instant criminal background check system. This in turn would unnecessarily strip the veterans of their right to possess firearms without a court finding of any reasonable or present danger that they present. The brave men and women who have served our nation are afforded the same constitutional rights and due process as every other American. Sadly, the VA process deprives them of that right. Again, this is an issue that must be corrected. H. R. sixty-fourty-seven the Sherry Breiley and Eric Edmondson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of twenty twenty six would increase the monthly benefits rate for catastrophically service-connected disabled veterans with a traumatic brain injury or other severe disabilities that require regular, round the clock, in-home medical care, offering an additional ten thousand dollars annually. it should be more. This legislation also expands the VA home loan program eligibility requirements for National Guard and Reservists from ninety days of active duty service to fourteen days of active duty service with a one percent fee. This would allow more members of the Guard and Reserve, generally younger members, to be able to live the American dream by owning their first home. Further, H. R. sixty-fourty-seven would transform the lives of over five hundred thousand veterans and their families, filling crucial gaps in the delivery of VA benefits that has not changed, that h- that has not changed in decades. And finally, we turn to H. R. thirteen twenty-nine, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act that would designate land on the reserve of the National Mall to establish the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum. This museum was already funded back in the hundred and sixteenth Congress on a bipartisan basis in both the House and the Senate, and this legislation would allow the museum to be built alongside many other pier museums. Smithsonian American Women's History Museum has been years in the making. By moving forward with this legislation and designating the land on the reserve of the National Mall as the site for the museum to be constructed, we are one step closer to realizing the museum's completion. Women's history is one that needs to be told, and the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum will do just that. recognize women's contributions to various fields and throughout different periods of history that have influenced the direction of the united states with that i now yield to the ranking member mr. mcgovern for any comments he wishes to make

well thank you madam chair um and let me begin by offering prayers uh to the families who lost loved ones in the shooting at the san diego islamic center yesterday our thoughts are are with the mosque members and the larger community in the wake of this horrific tragedy. Uh, Madam Chair, um, Republicans are bringing four bills before us today. And not one of them, not one, does a damn thing to lower costs for the American people. The first bill deals with the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum. Uh, let's be clear, Democrats have supported building this museum for years. And there's already a bipartisan bill to get it done. But of course, Republicans had to turn it into a partisan mess. giving Donald Trump unchecked power over the site, stacking the process with political loyalists, and even finding a way to inject their favorite culture war topic, trans people. Then we have a veterans' bill that, believe it or not, makes it harder to prevent veteran suicide. Nearly five thousand veterans die by firearm suicide every single year. Five thousand. This bill dismantles a tool that the VA has used for decades, to help keep at-risk veterans safe. We have another veterans bill that helps uh disabled veterans, but pays for it by taking the money from other veterans. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. These guys always find plenty of money for a ballroom, for new wars, for new tax breaks for billionaires, but when they wanna, when when they want a new benefit for veterans, they pay for it by taking the money away from other veterans. Unbelievable. And finally, My understanding uh was that we were supposed to be marking up the score act today but here we are again with this majority pulling it at the last minute from our agenda. This is the second time that this has happened. Maybe that's because the bill is deeply flawed. This bill is backed by the NCAA uh and opposed by student athletes that it supposedly helps. That tells you everything you need to know. Uh Madam Chair, I feel like I say this every single week uh and every week Republicans prove my point. Your party's agenda is backwards. It's all screwed up. It's not based on what regular people care about. Americans are not sitting around their kitchen table, talking about how to take from some veterans to give to other veterans, or whether we should give Donald Trump a new ballroom, or more power over museum exhibits. They are asking us why the hell gas costs four dollars and fifty cents a gallon. They're asking where the hell the Republican bill is to lower costs. They're asking where the hell is the legislation to make life more affordable, to bring down grocery and housing prices. They wanna know why Republicans won't pass a bill to end the tariffs, and to stop this war that's making everything more expensive. We know Trump's not focused on any of that, um, and and let's and let's look at the priorities for this week. He sued his own IRS, and you can't make this up. He su- he sued his own irs and then he settled with himself to create a one point eight billion dollar secret slush fund that he's going to use to pay off anyone he says has been unfairly quote targeted by government and you know where this is going that means the jr a six rioters you know the people who vicious viciously beat cops uh who sent them to the hospital then got arrested and convicted for their violent crimes and ended up in ended up in jail not only did trump pardon them he's creating a taxpayer funded slush fund to pay off their legal debt i mean that's sick it's obscene but it's just the latest chapter of this corrupt dishonest and morally bankrupt administration's shameful disrespect for our country and for the law enforcement officers who protect us it's disgusting and let's not even get into how you know do trump's stock trading where he buys stock on a Monday and then on Tuesday, you know, uh, boosts up the name of the a company that i- that he's invested in, to try to make more money. You know, I've said many times, uh, in this committee on the House floor, that this administration is the most corrupt administration in recent history. I want to amend that. I want to remove the word " recent". This is the most corrupt administration in our history. And that's just a fact. Um, and history is watching whether or not we, the Congress, are gonna respond or do anything, or whether we're just gonna roll over. And as far as, and as far as I'm concerned, the majority's agenda this week is the exact opposite of what people in this country want. While people pay more at the pump, Donald Trump is profiting off his presidency. While families try to afford food, he's worried about the drapes in his taxpayer-funded ballroom, and shaking the White House upside down, like his own personal piggy bank. And while patients are worried about health care bills, he's golfing at Mar-a-Lago and repainting the ref- reflecting pool. Not a damn thing to lower grocery prices, not a single damn bill to lower inflation, not a solitary thing to bring down health care costs, not one thing to make life easier for working people. But sadly, this is the awful, backwards, billionaire's first agenda that we've come to expect from this radical far-right Republican government. It is time for a change. And I yield back.

Thank you very much, Mister McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Bost and Ranking Member Takano from the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. We ask that you include all legislation within your committee's jurisdiction In your five minutes, Chairman Bost, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the Rules Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I appear before you to support two bills, H R six zero four seven, the Sherry, Briley and Eric Edmondson Veterans Benefit Expansion Act of A- and the H R one zero four one, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act. I respectfully ask the committee to issue an appropriate rule for consideration of these bills. If you choose to make any amendments in order, I ask that they not undermine the purpose of the legislation or increase the its cost or distract from the veterans and families these bills are intended to serve. H R sixty forty seven is led led by my friend and fellow veteran Representative Tom Barrett. Today, I want to speak about the people this bill would benefit. Sergeant Eric Edmondson was just twenty-five years old when his vehicle struck an IED near Syria near the Syrian border in twenty two thousand and five. The blast ruptured his spleen, fractured his spine, destroyed his kneecaps, and his heart stopped beating for thirty minutes. Most people do not survive that. But by the grace of God, Eric did, without the ability to walk or speak. Eric is still here today fighting twenty years later. His wife and his parents became his caregivers, helping him to do what he loves, hunting, painting, being a father, going to church on Sundays. H. R. sixty-forty-seven would increase special monthly compensation for severely disabled veterans like Eric. Roughly seven thousand veterans qualify for these benefits, requiring around-the-clock help for their ben- basic needs. This bill would provide an additional ten thousand dollars annually to help those families with financial cost that come with the injuries. This bill would also be for survivor and spouses like Sherry Bri- Briley. Sherry Briley's husband, Bull Briley, was killed in Somalia during a battle of Mogadishu in nineteen ninety-three. Many of you might understand that he was the pilot in Black Hawk Down that was killed. Their daughter was just five years old when his do- when her her father came home wrapped in an American flag. Sherry, a young widow, was left to raise a child alone. VA dependency And indemnity compensation, or DIC, exists for over five hundred thousand survivors like Sherry. This legislation would offer the first increase to DIC in thirty years and adding one point five percent total over the next two years on top of the annual inflationary increases. This bill would also expand VA's home loan program to make guard and reservist with just fourteen days of active duty service, eligible at a one percent higher rate, that they can that they can then access those home loans. They leave their civilian lives behind when called to serve and deserve access to the economic opportunity and stability that the VA home loan provides. Ranking member Tucano and many of my Democrat colleagues say that their issue with this bill is the offset or complain that the benefits in this bill should be more. This bill contains the committee's bipartisan home loan offset, which has been voted on many times, extending current home loan fees. It also contains our bipartisan extension of current law capping certain veterans' needs-based provi- uh pensions if they are in government-funded long-term nursing care. It also contains a small increase to the home loan fund fee for those uh refinancing, which during the hundred and sixteenth Congress, then Chairman Takano supported and voted in favor of a similar proposal at a lower amount. Most importantly, veteran serve organization veteran most importantly, veteran service organizations support these offsets. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the joint letter from nineteen veterans' organ- veterans' service organizations is included in the record.

Without objection.

In addition, the to this letter, the bill is supported by the Veterans of Foreign War and the American Legion. This bill would be paid for and fully compliant with the House rules that require we do not increase the national debt. If these groups support the bill's offset, why are my colleagues opposed? We should listen to them and stop playing political games. I would also like to highlight the importance of H R one zero four one, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act. Under VA's uh fiduciary program, veterans can be assigned a fiduciary for many reasons, injury, illness, age, or even due to the request of themselves. For decades, VA automatically reported these assignment assigned to fiduciaries to V- the the FBI's next list, prohibiting them from purchasing a firearm or even o- having a firearm. VA reported them not because they committed a crime, were subject to a a they're subject to are subject to a court ruling, or were deemed a danger to themselves or others. They were reported because they could not balance their checkbook. Secretary Collins and uh the Tr- Trump administration have changed that and removed previous reporting reported names from the next list. But H R one zero four one would provide a lasting fix. Veterans' constitutional rights should not depend on who runs the VA. That is why I have long championed my bipartisan provision in the yearly VA appropriation bill, prohibiting VA from reporting veterans with fiduciaries to the next list. Veterans struggling with injuries, peat post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injuries or old age face enormous barriers asking for help. Veterans should not have to choose between receiving support and preserving their constitutional freedoms. Madam Chair, Memorial Day is approaching. Across this country, families will vi- visit cemeteries and join veterans' parades. Surviving spouses will remember husbands and wives they could not grow old with. Several disability disabled veterans will wake up to fight battles most Americans never see. veterans will exercise the freedoms that they fought to protect. These bills would be for those great Americans. I want to thank you for your time, and with that I yield yield back and look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much, Chairman Boss. Ranking Member Takano, you're recognized.

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Fox and Ranking Member McGovern. As we approach Memorial Day and the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of our nation, We should be honoring the service and sacrifice of those who gave all to defend us. Instead, we are unfortunately dishonoring that service and sacrifice by ignoring the full cost of war even in the face of the president's actions in Iran, where service members have lost their lives. Apparently this majority believes that the only way to do things for veterans is to make them pay for it first with their service and now with their own benefits. This, the legislation before us today isn't aimed toward honoring veterans, nor is it about protecting them. H. R. ten forty-one does nothing to promote better mental health among service members and veterans. It, however, injects more risk of harm into the system. H. R. sixty-fourty-seven increases benefits for veterans and survivors, but only at the, uh, expense of deepening the Trump administration's veteran foreclosure crisis. I cannot in good conscience support either of these bills. H. R. ten forty-one isn't about defending the Constitution and the rights it bestows upon us, nor is it about preserving a veteran's right to due process. Rather, this bill is purely about the politics of guns. I believe, and I know that Chairman Boss does too, that we must do everything we can to promote access to mental health services at VA. The stigmas surrounding mental health begin during service and are complex and lead veterans, lead to veterans not seeking help when they can and should seek help. They also contribute greatly to the scourge of veteran suicide. So, it is even more bewildering that Chair Boss continues to champion a bill that will do nothing uh but put more firearms in the hands of the most vulnerable beneficiaries in VA's system. Beneficiaries in the fiduciary program are there because of severe illness or injury. It is not based on a math test, as the majority asserts. It is based on medical evidence documented by a clinician and corroborated by professionals professionals trained to interpret it. Chairman Boss asserts that fear of losing rights serves as a disincentive for veterans to seek mental health care. But one chief contributor to that fear is the very debate we're having now. Republicans continue to perpetuate the false narrative that the Department of Veterans Affairs is violating due process and stealing veterans' guns, because it plays well with their political base. This is a cynical and dangerous posi- position. Now, regarding, uh, HR six O four seven. The goal of increasing the goal of increasing special monthly compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation is noble. Veterans, their families, caregivers and survivors deserve every resource Congress can provide in recognition of their sacrifice and service. And that is why I strongly support uh both the Care the Caring for Survivors Act and the Love Lives On Act. And it's also why I strongly support the Major Research Star Act to finally end the Wounded Warrior Tax. But we're not discussing those bills today because the majority wishes to concern for veterans while hiding behind debt and deficit to avoid doing anything, unless it's veterans themselves that are going to pay for it. Republicans and Rep Barrett sadly have chosen to finance long overdue increases in SMC and DIC by imposing thousands of dollars in new fees on service members and veterans seeking to use their earned VA home loan benefit. This is simply a trade-off I cannot support, and I hope we'll have greater discussion about this. If we are to honor veterans with any sincerity, we must move beyond this paradigm of forcing one group of veterans to pay for the benefits of another group. It is unconscionable that we're spending thirty billion dollars so far on a war of choice, one billion dollars on ballrooms and reflecting pools, a trillion or more on the Department of Defense, tax cuts for the wealthy and whatever else this majority deems worthy, uh, one point seven billion for fire arm silencers, for goodness sake. And yet, when it is time to honor our promise to service members, veterans, and their families, we suddenly hear cries of poverty. For too long Congress has ignored the true cost of war. And if budgets are a true statement, a statement of priorities, then the majority has shown that veterans are not their priority. Republicans and Rep Barrett are harming veterans who are desperately trying to avoid foreclosure and remain in their homes. The Trump administration's actions have already led to an explosion of veteran foreclosures. On top of the rampant affordability crisis Trump has caused, the administration chose to end the Veterans Affairs servicing program, which was one of the primary tools VA used to help veterans avoid foreclosure. The majority's response to that is to heap thousands of dollars, thousands of dollars, not little small little fee, of additional fees on top of skyrocketing hi- housing costs to make it more expensive for veterans in financial distress to access the Interest Rate Reduction Loan program known as EARL which is one of the uh which is one of the last available lifelines to help veterans stay in their homes. Now, I truly wish that we were meeting here today under better circumstances, but the choices Republicans and Representative Barrett have made have left me only with one choice, which is to oppose these bills. I reject the cynicism that permeates this legislation, and I will stand for what is right, just, and fair for our veterans and their families and this nation. Thank you, and I yield back.

Thank you, Mister Takano. Um, Mister Bost, um, I detected, Congressman Bost, I detected perhaps that you're, don't exactly agree with Mister Takano's uh characterization of the um pe- one of the pieces of legislation or maybe all of them would you like to respond

yeah you know i'd i'd I'd like to hold I'd like to hide my um spatial expression,

with the decision

but I've never been good at that um so while ranking a member of tucson claims there is a memorandum uh from congressional research services that shows a study with the the the congressional research service says that that study is for the loss of uh those those veterans who commit suicide. Uh, additionally, this is really that that part of the bill is really about um whether or not our nation's veterans deserve the same rights as those people have haven't served. If you and all of those in this room that have not served if all of a sudden someone makes a the the only way that you could have your second arra- uh amendment right taken away is is if that um someone says you're a danger to yourself or to others and then that is handed off through a certain officer, someone who is a renowned reporter, and then that is taken before a judge, it isn't a bureaucrat that all of a sudden says, well you can't balance your checkbook, so let's take away the rights that you fought for. So that's what it boils down to in a nutshell on that particular bill. Now when we talk about the other bill, um, You know, the the the Eric Edmunds bill, uh, and and and the uh, the Briley bill, the same cost, and I mentioned that in my opening, uh, were off the same things that we're using today were the same offsets that the chairman that that when the ranking member was chairman, he used. So, these are the things that that we are set with as mem as a chairman, and my staff worked very hard to to move forward to provide for these veterans that really the VA was built for in the first place. Those veterans that are disabled to the level of Eric Edmondson and the widows and orphans of our veterans who have lost their lives serving us, these are the offsets we can use. And that's why we're moving forward with this legislation and why I'm happy to carry it. So let's clear it with the politics and let's also say this. If there was a problem with these offsets, do you think there would be in twenty-two veteran service organizations that would have signed off and said, yes, this is what we want to do. I'm a veteran, they're veterans. The people who are saying that we shouldn't do it this way aren't veterans. So with that, I'll yield back to you.

um thank you very much chairman bost mr. mcgovern you're recognized

uh yeah um well first of all i i i was i was just reading the letter that chairman boss put into the record and i if i heard you correctly you said that there are nineteen veterans organizations that support the offsets

mmm

um in this bill

and support the legislation

i i i'm i'm reading this no one says anything about the offsets it's hard for me to believe that a any of these veterans organizations would increase would support raising the fees on veterans But it just says nothing about offsets.

It does say this as boards for legislation, correct?

Yeah, but no no, you said offsets.

The, okay, I didn't say an offset because the legislation includes the offsets.

Yeah. Yeah, and your your bill would increase benefits for disabled,

We all know that.

veterans and survivors, which we all think is important, but it would pay for those benefits by raising fees for veterans who want to refinance their mortgages through the VA. So am I correct that this bill would ma will make it more expensive for veterans to refinance their home? accurate.

Only, only, and this is why it needs to be corrected, the existing bill or charges with a VA home loan, which is one of the best home loans anyone can have, is not increased on their initial home loan. It only when they refinance and they choose to refinance, it will be then increased by eight dollars per month, And also with that is the um the inclusion of the of our uh veterans who have well our our National Guard and Reserve.

Right. Yeah, but the question I ask would would would this bill make it more expensive for veterans to refinance their homes? I mean

No, no, you a- you ask if it would

No, re-

to finance their home.

No, refinance it.

Okay, to refinance it would increase by eight dollars if they're not disabled.

Right. Because, I mean, if

If they're not disabled.

if it so that in fact the tripling of the refinancing fee from zero point five percent to one point four percent means that the average veteran will be paying an additional three thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars in fees uh am i correct in that

that is not correct

i

oh well that's uh that's according uh well i mean

no that is not correct

uh uh go ahead

that that that is that is correct sir the whole point of this pay for that they're seeking to create by increasing uh the fees for refinancing that's the whole point of this legislation are refinancing the fees uh, on, uh, the veteran home loan, um, uh, eh, what's objectionable is that they're doing this in a permanent way. It'll cost us money in order to bring down that fee in the future. But let me tell you something else, um, to this committee, uh, uh, so look, uh, since, uh, uh, for the last year, uh, there have been ten thousand veteran foreclosures.

Right.

Uh, under the veteran home loan. Uh, why? Because this administration chose to rescind and remove the VASC program, which was a big tool in preventing those foreclosures. I worked in a bipartisan way with the chairman to replace that prog- well, wouldn't have totally replaced it with the partial claims program. And, and, uh, Ranking Member McGovern, that program is not due to be implemented for, for several months now. Um, and the effect of increasing the refinance rate is gonna already add it's we're in a distressed mark, we're in a distressed time. Uh veterans are in danger of losing their homes. We're going to now increase the veterans' uh ability, uh the uh the cost to refinance their homes at this moment? This is madness.

And, Mister Chairman, I am I also I mean you you submitted an amendment uh to the bill to increase fees on veterans even further. I I don't quite understand why. I mean why why should the Rules Committee adopt an amendment

It inc- Let let let me explain the so only on refinances it will be eight dollars per month.

Well

And then the other issue was the fact that those by by allowing those veterans who are National Guard and Reserve, allowing them the opportunity to drop down to where if they only had fourteen days of service, then they qualify, then they pay the the amount plus one one percent.

But but you but you but your your amendment if I'm understanding correctly, will cost veterans an additional twenty eight million dollars in terms of offsets.

It costs them eight dollars per month.

Yes. Yes.

Eight dollars per month, if they refinance.

Yes.

Remember that. And not if they're disabled.

Well, sir, I

And the the most important thing here is is that

I I I mean,

as a veteran service organization agreed to this.

why why why why why why are you doing this? Why why are you doing why why are you doing this?

The same thing because we have Pago.

Oh, ok.

And and because of Pago and and let me explain this.

I see. Well, I I, you know, I appreciate that because, um,

Okay.

I'm looking at the reconciliation bill that I'm sure that all of my friends here, all the great fiscal conservatives will end up supporting. Uh, you know, uh, most of it's not offset. The Senate bill that right now, according to CBO, is seventy-one seventy-two billion dollars. You know, the war is not paid for. Nobody is talking about an offset for the war. The the the great big ugly bill that you all supported added three trillion dollars to the debt. uh you know most of it not offset uh none of it in fact it adds to the debt um and so i i just like when it comes to veterans programs i mean we you know we there's there's there's money for these wars there's money for tax cuts for the for millionaires and billionaires uh money for ballrooms but but when it comes to minor benefit increases for disabled veterans i mean you guys think you need to offset the spending by jacking up veterans home loan fees Um, and I I ju I don't I I I I just don't get it. I mean, I don't it why why why you have to rob Peter to pay Paul to help our veterans?

It it We have pay go. As the Chairman of the committee, I will find the offsets necessary under my job as the Chairman. Not only that, as we also deal with if you look at what we provide every year for our veterans, we've increased over for the veterans uh overall budget quite a bit over the last several years and I'm glad to do that.

So

That being said, we still need to be wise in what we are doing and I believe that as whether you you want to say that they agree with the offset or not in the letter, the letter is they support the legislation which has the offset.

Well, you think So you obviously believe the best way to offset veterans' benefits is to raise home loan fees on other veterans, but raking member Dicano is submit an amendment to strike the home loan fee increases on veterans in this bill while protecting the benefit increases. Would you support that amendment or would you

I would not.

would you support this committee making that amendment in order?

I would not, because I think it would be a poison pill for this bill. We have worked very hard to follow the rules of this house on how we do our offsets. We worked very hard, staff search. We actually asked the ranking member and his staff to come forward. What they brought to us as an offset actually increased. the cost. So therefore, we've been working with them, we we are now moving forward. We can sit here and argue over this for many,

We

many years, but we have,

We

always at the cost of those people who need this money most.

We have another We have another amendment to replace increased veterans' fees with a reduction in the estate tax exemption, from fifteen million to fourteen point five million. Um, and um, you know, I mean, let me remind everybody here, the Republicans triple the amount of money the wealthy can pass on to their heirs tax-free from five million to fifteen million in the big ugly bill, this would scale it back slightly to prevent a hike in veterans' home loan fees. So would would you support that amendment or at least

I would not. I b- still belie- I still believe these amendments are trying to trying to stifle this bill.

Would you

See, Mister Mister Renter, I think we just we just delay it. Our proposals are very modest. We just delay the implementation of the

Uh, uh, would would you support this committee making in order that amendment so we could debate it?

I would not. Because I would believe it would be opposed in public.

So are you are you are you asking for a closed rule on these bills?

I'm not. I I'm if you'll notice my opening statement, I asked that it did nothing to hinder the bill, to change the benefits that would be offered, or change the cost. All of these would do that, in one way or another.

Yeah, it's it sounds like I mean, I again, this is this is another problem with the way this place is being run, is we're becoming a an institution where um we har we hardly ever have an amendment on the floor because everything is, like fixed and and closed which is an awful way to do it i just think there's a better way to do this i don't think you need to hurt one group of veterans to help another group of veterans and we have some alternatives here uh you may not like them but i mean i would think we should have a opportunity to debate them and vote on the floor uh but it sounds like the fix is in and i think that that's unfortunate um i i i i'm i'm mr. cano i'll

yeah i i just want to clarify that i have never supported the interest rate reduction um provisions in this bill it's completely completely completely false

right uh that was not required I don't I don't understand what the chairman was talking about

um second uh we have modest proposals uh we just delayed the implementation of uh the inheritance tax relief in the big ugly bill um somewhat

right

uh but we don't believe look uh there are thousands

I don't think we need all of these ever being your offsets

no no there are thousands of veterans right it's not veterans active duty personnel people don't realize that active duty personnel are eligible for their veterans home loan So there are thousands of our servicemen, our service women, sailors in uh in and around uh Iraq who are in service right now, many of whom uh might be under financial distress, in danger of losing their homes. Um what this, what the Republicans propose to do is increase the burden of refinance on our service members right now.

Yeah, and I I appreciate that. Again, I just, the idea that, you know, tens of millions of dollars, um, taken from a particular program will have no impact on that program or the people who benefit from that program it just doesn't pass muster i mean i i'm sorry uh and i yield back madam chair

thank you mr. mcgovern miss fischbach you're recognized

thank you madam chair and um chairman bost i just if if you have anything you did a great job explaining things but if it was anything you wanted to just clear up i appreciate

any questions you might have i'll be glad to answer

uh Well, thank you very much. And and I guess I just I what I would like you to do is reiterate, um, and just repeat some of those, uh, supporters. You talked about the supporters and they support the bill and,

Right.

um, they I think they probably have an idea that they understand what is in the bill, and that's why they signed a letter.

Right.

And so if you just repeat a bit.

Y- yeah, I would I would love to expand on that. As chairman, uh, anyone that's ever been chairman, regardless of which chair of a committee you are, you know you work with the stakeholders, our stakeholders are represented by the veteran service organizations. Of those veteran service organizations, nineteen of them signed a letter and the other two came openly because these other two are the largest, okay, they're the veterans of foreign war and the American legion. They understood and understand the principle that is for set forth in this bill. They also understood the offsets. We worked with them, we brought them in. we had major conversations. We would have liked to expand it more, but they said, okay, this much and no more, and we're good with that. We're gonna still look for other things and hopefully increase these benefits before, or but later on. But what we really need to understand is veterans. I'm a veteran carrying this bill. The main sponsor of the bill for the for is is uh Tom Barrett, also a veteran. The veterans are asking for us to move forward with this bill. Why is that? That's because they understand the surviving spouses and orphans are why it is that we actually are here and what we're trying to help and what they fought for was those freedoms that would allow uh if they fell in battle knowing that their widows and orphans would be taken care of. And they also know those friends the buddies that stood beside them, that they watched them being carried off the field in conditions where they didn't know they were going to make it or not. Not knowing that they were going to spend the rest of their lives with their wife, their mother, their father, maybe if they lived long enough, their children, taking care of them twenty-four hours a day. Why we crea- why Abraham Lincoln created the VA was for situations such as this. For the fact that these have not had an increase in three decades is ridiculous. It's not going to cure all of their problems, but it's going to be a step in the right direction. I don't want to play politics with it. I want to move it forward. When it comes to the other part of the bill, the second amendment, why, yeah, that's as simple as it can be. Why in the world should a person who fought for our Constitution actually have part of their rights in the Constitution removed without due process. So the bill is a very good bill, both of them very good. They're what our veterans have asked for and what our veterans deserved. And I've never been prouder to carry it.

Thank you very much. And and I too am appreciate what is in the legislation, I appreciate those nineteen organizations coming together having those discussions with you understanding the legislation and the fact that they have put their name on the letter supporting this um i am happy to support this legislation so thank you very much and i yield back

thank you

thank you miss fischbach miss ganlick you're recognized

thank you um and i i do have some questions about the legislation got a lot of veterans in my district they have a lot of questions i have veterans in my immediate family so i'm always gonna support

ok ok sure mmm

you know, making sure we have the best benefits we can for those veterans. Um, but I'm hearing some things that that starting with the, uh, the, uh, benefits expansion act, so-called, that it's it's a budgetary bait and switch, that it cuts benefits in one bucket in order to increase them another way, and overall benefits aren't going to increase, they're just shifting around. And, and I am disturbed about this link, um, that the ranking member mentioned, you know, we're giving all this additional credit to the millionaires who have um these the funding, the tax credits, et cetera, that passed with the big ugly bill last summer, but here we have veterans who are gonna have to be paying more for housing um at a time when you know housing is in such short supply and is so expensive and also coming on top of the uh cancellation of the VA program earlier this year that protects veteran homeowners from foreclosure so we knew there was already an issue with veterans facing foreclosure. I mean, Ranking Member Takano, you talked about this as being uh a bill that's hiding uh behind debt and deficit. Can you talk a little bit about the issues with this, and has there been veteran outreach in opposition to this bill?

Yeah, let's let's be clear. We've had ten thousand veteran foreclosures on veteran homes in the past year that did not need to happen, did not need to happen. VA canceled the VASP program. uh we are now in an economic situation uh where people are suffering uh veterans and all americans are suffering from inflation uh they're suffering from higher costs brought on by this war of choice not a necessity um and what this bill does is it increases the costs for veterans to refinance their homes he makes it seem like oh only when they refinance their homes it's not about when they wanna buy a new home but that's that's not great either um it means that If we're already seeing ten thousand veterans losing their homes in the past year, in the next three months we can expect that pace to continue. And we've now, we're now gonna make it harder for those veterans to refinance their homes, uh, because we wanna pay for our catastrophically disabled veterans and their survivors. We need to take care of them. That letter to, um, by the vet- the nineteen veteran service organizations in support of that, I, I'm in line with that. I support increasing their benefits. It's long overdue. But, the, the, the rank and, the, it's deceptive. Those same veteran service organizations are silent on the pay-for. They're silent on the pay-for. I wanna remind everyone that we passed the PACT Act, the Honorary PACT Act, without a pay-for out of this house.

Mm-hmm.

Um, we passed, now, the, the, and the, and that, the, the veteran service organizations are being put in a very, very uh, precarious situation. They desperately want, uh, these catastrophically disabled veterans to be taken care of. Um, yes, veterans will help veterans. Veterans will sac- they will do that. But this Congress, the people sitting around this, this table, should not be asking veterans to do that. Yes, we know veterans are gonna wanna help other veterans. Yes, veterans will sacrifice for them. But we should say, no, no. We should not be asking you, the veterans, to sacrifice one another. You sacrificed enough. We, the Congress, can do better.

Mm-hmm.

The American people want us to do better by veterans. They don't want us to take from one set of veterans to help another set of veterans. And we're talking, you know, what are we talking about here, billions of dollars? Uh, we could be asking uh, uh, multimillionaire families uh, who wanna pass on their uh their legacy and inheritance they we can we can move the implementation of that relief back by a few months or a year in order to pay for this we don't have to ask veterans we have other choices that's what really gets me

sure I mean it it does sound like we're asking veterans to sacrifice again

we are very much

in order to help other veterans but what about some of the folks who maybe can afford to or maybe take some of the money from say a ballroom or a golden arch or um from some other slush fund of things that no americans have asked for

hear hear

um let's also talk about the other bill the the one that would um overturn the va s long-standing policy of reporting to the nics program which which is what gun vendors use to check whether people are eligible to purchase guns so as i understand it the um va reports to nics if there are veterans with mental health issues that might cause them to be a danger to themself or to others. Is that right?

Yeah, you know, um, the VA's reporting of beneficiaries to the next list is a requirement, uh, that was set forth in the Brady-Hunger uh, uh, Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Gun Control Act. Uh, VA w- was following these laws as Congress intended and adhering to the guidelines we affirmed in the next Improvements Act that protected,

Mm-hmm.

uh, the due process rights of of beneficiaries. in the fiduciary process at VA which again is a medical decision, not a math test,

Mm-hmm.

uh there are no less than six points at which a beneficiary may challenge the underlying uh findings and uh reporting to NICS. So their their second amendment rights are protected through

Mm-hmm.

six different situations where they can ask to be taken up. All those points um uh and those points all follow robust communication from VA to the beneficiary about their proposed findings and their appeal rights. This entire process, which again Congress affirmed in the next Improvement Act, passes constitutional matter. But let me also say to you that, um, that that that this group of of individuals that are are appointed fiduciaries, a big, big share, if not a majority of them, suffer some serious mental health issues,

Mm-hmm.

central, so, uh, of severe mental illness.

Mm-hmm.

Um, and that's what puts, um a huge part of this list in danger of self-harm.

Well, we we certainly see it across the country, the rate of veteran suicide is appalling and, you know, we have had some bipartisan success, including with things like this NICS enhancement act, um that required this kind of reporting as well as other things, um to try to reduce veteran suicide by um putting in place hotlines and additional mental health um assistance. some of which has been undermined by cuts by this administration, so it does not feel like a time when we should be, um, pulling back on support for veterans who are at risk.

Yeah, let me say, we all know from academic research that the population of beneficiaries that are assigned a fiduciary suffers from mental health conditions that would preclude most of the general population from owning firearms.

Mm-hmm.

Conditions such as schizophrenia, severe TBI, PTSD, bipolar disorder, dementia, Alzheimer's, and others. Moreover, mental incompetency for fiduciary pur purposes is in fact equivalent to increased suicide risk.

Mm.

Veterans who scored poorly on financial management abilities were about twice as likely to report suicidal ideation and attempts using illicit drugs, engaging in violent behavior, and getting arrested compared to those with good financial management skills.

Mm.

Also, rates of suicidality and violence were found to be significantly elevated in veterans who were identified as needing a fiduciary. And not just among veterans, but the general population as well, the general population as well. Financial stress is one of the chief causes of suicidal ideation. But again, the fiduciary process isn't simply about financial acumen or a math test. It's about protecting veterans who have become more vulnerable because of the injuries and illnesses incurred during their time in service. And we shouldn't undermine that protection, and that's what the chairman is is attempting to codify into law

right well it's it's once again that we're not talking about binary choices here we're not talking about taking away someone's second amendment rights with no due process there is

no

a substantial amount of due process here there are folks there's who have been uh the evidence shows that these folks are at greater risk to themselves and to others but if they are not then they have plenty of opportunity to show it

the current process allows as i said at least six six opportunities uh in an internal appeals process within the VA.

Mm-hmm.

Uh the due process rights of the veteran are respected.

Look, whenever we talk about issues regarding gun safety, we hear from the general public that they want to implement common sense gun safety, consistent with due process, but that, you know, the second amendment is not a suicide pact for all of us. Um and that um the kinds of common sense protections that this NICS act reporting is one of them, are what the public wants. The public wants the police to be able to do their job to enforce um what goes on in the community and we hear time and time again there are certain folks, everybody agrees, shouldn't have easy access to weapons and that includes people who are at serious risk of injuring themselves or others. So um I absolutely will have to oppose this bill and I thank you for your testimony.

Thank you. Thank you.

thank you mr. candleman mr. scott you're recognized

chairman bost i wanna just say this i've talked i've talked to a lot of veterans and um a lot of them that i talk to while they will in a private conversation suggest that maybe they could use a little bit of help they will not go to the va under any circumstances that's correct because they know if they need just a little bit of help, maybe just the ability to talk through some things that happened in combat with someone else who had been in combat, that they're afraid of how their file might be documented, and then the gun grabbers are gonna come take their guns away from them, and then they'll have to hire all kinds of lawyers and everything else to get the constitutional rights back that they fought for. I- is i- is that what you hear from the Veterans of Ch-

Yeah, that's that's how this came up originally.

There's a reluctance to discuss things with the Veterans Affairs Committee because the activists in that organization at least that used to fill that organization will go grab the guns from the veterans.

That is correct. Whenever I first care started working on this issue, it was twelve years ago when I first came to Congress, after meeting with some people in my own my own uh American Legion, where the conversation was, if you think I'm going to go to the VA and have the opportunity, have them take away my rights which I fought for.

Mm-hmm.

Why would I do that? Which is so many things and so many great benefits that they can receive, but instead they choose not do that. And I'd like to comment if I can while while you have the the the the comments before that said if they are a that that that what this does is if they're a danger to themselves, or others, then they can actually have their second amendment rights taken away. That's not what this says.

Sure.

That that that that's not what this says.

Yeah.

That's not what this says. What it says is the n- i- if you receive a fiduciary for any reason, a fiduciary, you can actually ask and say, hey, could you help me with my checkbook? Now your name is turned into the next list. Now you lose your second amendment right,

Yeah.

which you actually stood up and stood for that constitution. How many, see you know what, if if if we go down this path and we should say that, let's say you say something offensive as a member of Congress. Here you are trying to defend the Constitution, but because you said something offensive, you know what, let's take your freedom of speech away.

If i- i- and if you're a veteran and you say, " Yes, my kids are in the business now, I've turned over the operations of the business to my kids", you know,

Right.

um

Then you're not capable either, you don't you don't need you can't go hunting with your grandchildren, you can't all of these things.

It's a

And here's here's an important thing too. They say there's due process, but there's really not. There is an a way that they can actually appeal it.

That's right.

But let me tell you how effective this is. Two hundred and forty thousand two hundred forty thousand veterans, since this has been in effect, have had their second amendment rights removed.

Mm-hmm.

Less than a thousand, from what we can understand,

Mm-hmm.

have ever got them back.

Let me let me go to the uh to the Pago rule.

Yep.

Because there's been a lot of drama and misrepresentation around this,

Yes.

I think. And uh I'll tell you, I was trying to get something passed Purple Art Freedom to Work Act, I think people who are combat injured totally and permanently should be able to go back to work and keep their Social Security benefits. That's mandatory spending to fix that. It's mandatory spending to fix that. And you wanna fix the suicide thing, you let people go back to work and not worry about losing their benefits.

Right.

Uh, I truly believe that. But because it's mandatory spending, when I sit down with the CBO Because the Pago rules has to have an offset. Is that correct?

That is correct.

And so this offset with the mortgages is typical with the other offsets, right?

It is the exact same offset that's been used over years and years of both parties over the years.

Yeah.

That is correct.

Absolutely. The only reason they're opposed to it is because you're proposing it. I mean, they have they have supported these exact same offsets in the past,

I would I would say that would be the case, yes. Yes, they have.

correct?

That is correct.

Yes, sir, that that is that is right. It i it is the standard offset. And and in many cases, uh, are are are these offsets kind of as time goes on maybe pushed aside funded a different way so that the veterans don't actually pay the fees that are in the

but by the time it's said and done and spread out over the long period of time it's eight dollars per month on only refinancing just so you know that and the most and and an important offset here also is including the people who have not been able to access but beg to the ability to have access

that's right

to the veterans home loan because it's so good and that is our reservist

that's right the national guard

national guard members if they've had fourteen days of active duty now they can pursue this

yep

will those fee same fees be on there yes plus one percent yes because these are such beneficial opportunities to get that home loan and remember remember they don't get that eight percent unless it's a refinance

we're we're we're gonna protect the veterans second amendment rights just like they protected our rights,

That's correct.

and I appreciate you doing this. And I just, you know, on the pay-go rules, I I really wish we could get the agreement to rewrite the the the budget acts that led to the pay-go rules. There are certainly things that uh that we could and should do better, and I think it's pretty clear that they haven't worked.

And and you and I would be glad to work on that, but the reality is this is the legislation that's before us today.

That that's right. And this is this is um the veterans organization support this. They understand the intricacies um of this and that's why they back it mister bost you've been a good chairman of the of the veterans affair committee i look veterans affairs committee i look forward to continuing to work with you to support the veterans and with that i yield back

thank you thank you

thank you mister scott miss lester fernandez you're recognized

thank you pan chair and uh welcome chairman bost and uh ranking member you know what's interesting about this conversation is i think every democrat including me agrees on an important aspect and that is that we should increase the benefits for our disabled benefit veterans these are service members who gave their limbs their sight their mobility to our country it's right that we increase those benefits and that we treat their families fair i mean i think we all agree on that we all agree on that What we don't agree on is the idea that you're going to take away from veterans at the same time. Republicans giveth and Republicans taketh away. And that's the problem that you are hearing from us. And it's my understanding that we've never agreed to triple

No.

the cost. I mean, can you just clarify that, because we keep hearing that, we've never agreed to triple the cost for housing fees for veterans.

Yeah, thank you, thank you, uh, Congresswoman. The bottom line is that this legislation is going to increase the cost of refinancing the home loans for veterans at a time when foreclosure rates are rising among veterans, when the economy is really challenging, and we're putting this burden on our active duty service members as well, because they're eligible to refinance their homes. So let me just kind of walk through uh the two times that there was a temporary increase that Democrats supported. This increase is a permanent increase, which will cost us money to bring back down. They're they're wanting to pay permanently for other veterans by by putting the burden on veterans who wanna refinance their homes. So when I was chairman, uh we did pass a bill out of the house in twenty twenty that would have increased the um the interest rate reduction uh uh refinance loan program by one quarter of a percent but it didn't become law when you strip away all the context around the bill you can try to set up a got you oh you democrats did this do, but in reality uh we are in a much different situation now first the proposed increase in twenty twenty returned to the current levels after a few years, it was temporary representative barris and chairman botts replacement um at the current uh we uh replaces the current level with a new fee level, and it's not a temporary change, it's a permanent increase. That's why the VSOs are not jumping up and down, oh yeah we support this. Today's proposed increase is almost three times what it was what it was contemplated in twenty twenty. That translates into twenty five hundred or three thousand to three thousand dollars more in fees that veterans would have to pay under, representative Barrett's plan. And that cost doubles when the veteran has to pay interest on that fee. Also back in twenty twenty, home loan mortgages uh and finance rates were at record lows. That's not the situation today. Fees had much less of an impact on a veteran's ability to lower the housing cost. Today, interest rates are much higher. Many more veterans are facing forced clo- foreclosure. And the Trump administration got rid of VASP, which was the last-ditch program to keep veterans and their families in their homes. And Congressman, as I said, In the last twelve months, ten thousand veterans' homes were foreclosed upon. Uh, it has been a year, uh, and the replacement, the partial claims program, still has not rolled out. Now I'll just mention one more thing. Blue Water Navy. That was negotiated under a Republican-controlled house, but it didn't get done until Democrats took charge. Changing the pay-for, changing the, the, the pay-for once I took the gavel, uh, would have meant that the Agent Orange presumptive would not have uh passed quickly and would have gotten stuck in the senate meeting elderly veterans would not have gotten access to health care and their disability benefits we democrats and republicans together we both in the house and senate made an agreement to allow an increase in the home loan fees for a couple of years but the agreement was that that increase would be the last time congress would use the increased fees to pay for veterans benefits we here in congress were supposed to find alternative ways to pay for the earned benefits besides charging veterans what we're contemplating today is a permanent significant increase in the veteran home loan program and look you can't just dismiss away oh this is just only on those who wanna refinance their homes that's particularly the point refinancing a home is gonna be particularly important for those veterans in danger of losing their homes

right and and right now i think the the issue is right now everything is more expensive

that's right

And and Chairman Boss, he keeps referring to the fact that there are ten thousand who've already been foreclosed on. Do you know how many are likely to be foreclosed on?

I can tell you what we have done, since the

Can you tell me, I asked you a question, do you know what the estimate is of the number of

What is the estimate? What's the estimation?

yeah, uh the number of veterans who are likely to be foreclosed on? There's already fifty thousand.

Can you give me the number?

What's the number?

Can you give me the number?

It's ninety thousand. So that would be a hundred thousand bedrooms?

That's that's why earlier last year we passed and supported the partial claims bill. That's why we did that, so that we could be wise in the way that we were doing our fiduciary duty to back up those loans and help them one time to try to actually cure the problem,

Has it been implemented?

rather than just taking over the loan.

Has it been implemented?

Take your time. Do what?

Has it been implemented?

It is not yet.

This is the problem is that it has not been Fees are gonna go up and you're proposing to have more fees. And I I I have some other questions and want to go on things, but I believe the ranking member wanted.

I I just I just wanted to clarify something because

Listen.

I came in when Mister Scott was speaking, I just wanna make sure I understand it. So he w- listening to him made it sound like all these increases and the and and uh you know were embraced by Democrats. I mean I don't I don't ever recall you proposing tripling the fee to refinance a loan.

Or making them permanent.

Yeah, yeah, or making it permanent. Am I am I correct on that?

Yeah.

So why do they say that why do they keep on saying that this was

Because these are the offsets we've used.

No, uh, I we've we've never made them permanent,

We've tried.

and I and never, uh, do I recall you tripling the fee to refinance a loan. Are you saying that

This still boils down to the fact, do we want to have increases for those people who are truly the VA are wanting to, uh, and and the thing is still, Veteran service organizations have agreed that this is the way we need to get it done under our existing Pago law.

Um, well I I think the issue, going back to what uh Ms. Legere-Fenet said, is that we don't agr we all agree in terms of helping our disabled veterans anywhere we can. We have other offsets. And I don't know and you seem to be married to this offset,

Actually

which is that will triple the fee to refinance a loan, which we're hearing now from people um will cause some hardships on veterans. So

We have we have asked

as you were saying and and And you came out saying, no, you can't even have a vote or a debate on anything that you said.

We have asked for nine months in the committee for offsets from the minority. We have asked for nine months. When they came forward with the proposal that they said would save money, when it came back it actually cost money.

Yes.

So we have worked hard as staff, I have worked hard as a member, and I'm gonna work to make sure these veterans are provided for.

You you don't have to you don't have to

You can play the political games if you want, but the reality is that this bill is vitally important to our veterans, I'm a veteran, the veterans have signed off on it.

You do not have to you do not have to find offsets by increasing the cost for other veterans. That's where our objection is, I think, in general.

I I think I think the issue is that we just heard about a potential offset where we would help millionaires who got a huge tax break on the big beautiful bill help pay for this and you said I don't even want to consider that the other the

Dermainness.

other thing is later on this week we're gonna vote on a bill we're gonna vote on a bill that does not have any offsets. uh it's gonna be your second reconciliation bill do you know how much that bill's likely to cost

i'm just reading the bill that we have before us right now

seventy three billion dollars is what it's established and you know what's in that bill you know how much half of the program cost here half the program cost is a billion dollars right a billion dollars for additional disability compensation is that right

yep

right a billion dollars you know what else is in your republican bill that cost a billion dollars that has no offsets a ballroom chairman a ballroom so republicans are willing to pay for a ballroom without any offset you're willing to pay for a ballroom without any offset but you're not willing to pay for additional disability compensation for veterans that is the those are two votes that we're gonna make this week right

can i respond

Sure.

Okay. Once again, this has to do with our veterans and their benefits. You are bringing things that have nothing to do with that, because it's a great political statement. I'm very passionate about my veterans. I'm a veteran. My grandfather was a veteran. My dad was a veteran. My uncle was a dic- disabled veteran. My son's a veteran. I got two grandsons, one disabled. I know what veterans' needs are. Whatever the politics is on your side of the aisle, let me be very clear. These people have waited thirty years for these increases. I have certain rules I have to follow as a as as the committee chairman. You can say you wanna reach out and you wanna do everything else, but I'm gonna tell you I'm gonna follow the rules of this house. And I'm gonna follow these rules, and I'm gonna deliver for my veterans, and you can kick and scream all you want. But not a one of you setting up there asking questions, or a veteran.

Chairman. Chairman, we all represent veterans. I am I am a daughter of a veteran.

Good.

I am I have four uncles who served and are buried in the National Cemetery. My godchild is a veteran. We all are. And and so I understand in a way that I will never understand because you have served. But I think that we have an obligation to serve our veterans and there are ways of doing that that honor all of our veterans whether they are veterans who need disability payments or whether they are veterans who need uh the gi bill for education or the benefits from housing

yeah

and there are decisions that we will make this week and those decisions reflect our priorities and one of the decisions and votes that republicans will vote on this week is whether to spend a billion dollars for a ballroom and seventy some billion dollars for ice and whether they will make a decision on funding important disability benefits by making it more expensive to buy a home. Those are the points we are making. They are choices, they are choices that your leadership is making and forcing on you. We are suggesting that there are better choices than we made. By the way, do you have on any idea in terms of how we pay for things, how much the debt has gone up under trump this year alone.

no

two point seven trillion dollars. so this is a republican leadership that is willing to pay for tax cuts, is willing to pay for alcatraz, alligator alcatraz, another billion dollars. a billion dollars. a billion dollars that could go to our veterans, and instead of going to our veterans, is going to these other matters and those are the points we are making that these are choices and the american public wants us to make choices that honor our veterans that honor our people

and and the good thing about this bill is it allows the

who serve in this gospel group that want to honor us mister chair

veteran themselves when they're home alone whether it's a veteran or not

that want to honor these things so i am not questioning any of our any of our motivations with regards to the veterans that's why i began my statement of saying we all agreed on this what we don't agree on is how you're gonna pay for it and when you make these decisions that say it's more important to fund a ballroom than to fund veterans and with that i think the chairman would like me to yield back and i have

excuse me i appreciate it thank you now i recognize myself for uh my time of questioning I do find it somewhat interesting that we haven't uh figured out everything we're going to do in reconciliation two point O but uh my colleagues seem to know exactly how much it's gonna be involved in financially and we're still debating those issues, but I understand behind the scenes, but whatever. Uh, I do wanna uh get to the uh the bill related to uh gun rights.

Yep.

Uh, I I read through this and thought this is exactly the answer we needed, cuz we had a discussion in in here related to the appropriations bill and the language that you've gotten inserted in there

mmm right

uh that says you can't enforce what has been done before and i just love this language on pages three and four of your bill starting really around line eighteen but i'm gonna pick it up uh uh probably around line twenty two uh any personal identification of of the beneficiary solely on the basis of a determination by the secretary to pay benefits to a fiduciary for the use and benefit of the beneficiary under section five five zero two of this title without the order or find without the order or finding of a judge magistrate or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such beneficiary is a danger to themselves or others. Now I I should have researched it in the meantime and I have not, but there was some discussion last time that if you voluntarily said, I want to give my son, daughter nephew the ability to take to be my fiduciary of receiving my benefits, because I want to take a trip around the world and sail on the high seas or do whatever, that that triggered the loss of your gun rights. Is that accurate? Because that's what I had understood, but some have said that's not accurate.

That's not accurate.

All right.

That is not accurate.

So it has to be a determination by the

It has it has you have to have a B A has to get actually provide you the fiduciary. That's that's the only time now there used to be an issue

Wow.

Um, apparently with Social Security they cleared that up years ago.

Okay.

But but no, this is this is the only with the VA. That's the only place left. The people who fought for those rights.

Right. And and how do they make that determination?

That's my that's the problem. These these people are just bureaucrats.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they're not

Now No, it's not a bad thing.

Right.

But you any person that is not a veteran and all of a sudden they get a sign of a fiduciary outside well they're not gonna have their gun rights taken away. So the only way they can have their gun rights taken away, and the due process that they receive

You're Now this, uh, you're you're stepping in an area I know as a practicing attorney for many years, I acted as a guardian ad litem in several cases where there were determinations of mental acuity and and and there are a number,

Correct.

and at least in the Commonwealth of Virginia, there are a number of different categories You can have a committee, you can have a fiduciary for just for the finances,

Right.

you can have a fiduciary who doesn't take care of your finances, but make sure that your living arrangements are correct, so you have a a guardian of the person,

Uh

a a a as opposed to a guardian over the financial matters.

correct.

I mean there's all kinds of different levels, and we have in at least in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I can't speak to others, we have special justices who make these decisions.

Right.

Now my question to you on that would be is that if a state has special justices like the Commonwealth or mental health justices, as the case might be,

Yes.

can they reach a memorandum of understanding with the Veterans Administration that if they think somebody needs to have a determination of whether or not they're a danger to themselves or others that they could bring in a special

Yes.

justice who has additional training in in those state provisions,

Yes.

at least in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I didn't practice anywhere else, a guardian ad litem at the very you would be entitled to an attorney that you could pay for but the state would pay for a what is was known as a guardian ad litem and I did some of that work, where the attorney an attorney is appointed by the court to come in and work behind the scenes to read the medical records, to talk to the individual, to determine if they were a substantial risk to themselves or to others.

You said the key words. If they are fina- if they are risk to themselves or others,

That's key.

that it it that's it.

Yeah.

So, it it whether you're a private citizen or whether you're a a vet- you you've been a veteran, The true process is someone who is a reporting that could is considered a reporting agent that can say, or someone goes to a reporting agent and said, I believe my cousin so-and-so is, um, a danger to themselves and others.

Or it can be a doctor. The VA who makes that just re- request of the state.

A doctor. There's a whole list of them. That's correct. And and and therefore, then that goes before what? A judge. Uh, or a or or a they could they they'd be a special justice.

Special justice, you're saying.

But then that is a due process. Not all of a sudden after the fact, after you've taken it away and I'm trying to figure out because that fails, and that fails so much, I gave you those numbers a while ago.

Twenty four thousand to one thousand, I remember that very well.

Yeah.

Or

Twenty four thousand, twenty f- two two hundred and forty thousand

Two hundred and forty thousand to one thousand, right.

to one thousand, yeah.

Which was astounding and shows why it's a problem because you already have somebody who may not have uh, great wealth, and they're struggling on other issues. Maybe they're perfectly safe, but they're having some other issues, and as a result, somebody comes along and and takes away their rights. They don't have the wherewithal financially

Mm-hmm.

or perhaps otherwise to understand how they can note that appeal. And suddenly they're having to go in and go to specially you, you're correct. Nobody but the veteran would have those rights taken away from them without a hearing in advance

Correct.

by a judicial officer of the respective states or territories. Is that not the way to do it?

That is correct. That is correct.

And that's why I have always supported language like this in in the appropriations bills, and why I think you've got it right. And like I said, if there's a memorandum of understanding, those folks can come right to the VA. They can come right onto the I mean, it has to be I understand the VA, they may not it may not be able to show up without uh an agreement, but I will tell you that that I did some of those hearings a long time ago when I was a young lawyer as a, uh, a guardian ad litem for the person at the psychiatric hospital in my hometown. We would go, the special justice would be there, and you'd have an appeal to the circuit court from the special justice's decision if you were going to do process.

It's due process.

But you had a judicial officer appointed by the state, trained extra special in this area, and then a guardian ad litem who comes in to make sure your rights are being protected, and and it can be at any facility where it needs to be, and we would go to the to the psychiatric facility and do the hearing right there in that building. We didn't h they didn't have to come to court, they didn't have to, yeah, and and special times could be set up. It was something that was immed immediate.

That's correct.

I mean, if there was a somebody who was being uh detained because they were a danger to themselves or others, That hearing would take place quickly,

Mm-hmm.

uh,

As i as well it should.

as well it should. That does not happen at the VA from what I understand in your mind.

No, it does not.

And they may have some extra training, but they're not judicial officers of the state, they don't follow the the state,

That's correct.

uh, provisos, and every state can do it differently as they see fit, as long as in the words of your bill, as long as the judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of a competent jurisdiction, that would be the state, that such beneficiary is in danger

That is correct.

And there's all kind like I said there's all kind there's even a finding in Virginia where you may not be a danger to yourself or others but you're substantially incapable of taking care of yourself. And like I said you can have one where you can take care of yourself fine, but you can't take care of your finances. And we found that in a number of cases where people were subject to um scam artists and they

Right.

couldn't tell the difference between a legitimate uh salesperson or somebody that was scamming them,

an scam.

and so they couldn't spend their money, but nobody took away their gun rights just because

No.

they weren't able to take care of their money.

No.

And that happened a lot, and that doesn't happen in the VA from what I understand.

That is correct.

Is that correct?

Mister

All right, I appreciate you clarifying some of these issues for me. I will give you an opportunity. Yes, sir.

So, Mister Chairman, I I think you're bringing up some uh, distinctions which are very important. And um and so I do have an amendment uh, which would restrict uh uh uh making uh i i'd ask if you would make an order an amendment that uh would limit uh the this fiduciary or this referral to the next list only for those with who have been medically diagnosed with serious mental illness i realize that we have to make this distinction between

mmm

those that uh can't handle their finances completely and by the way who who makes this determination at the va it is a it is initially a medical uh, an assessment. Um, and there are built-in, uh, within the administrative, so it's not just a bureaucrat. It, it is a medical diagnosis. You have some very specific, special, uh, uh, you know, knowledge, given your, uh, your experience, uh, your legal experience. And I do think it is worthwhile, uh, for us to work together to try and get this right. Um, because we're left with this choice of of allowing access to weapons to a significant portion of those who constitute this universe of appointees um who are seriously mentally ill. And we need to be able to kind of sort this issue out about those who are able to handle their finances or not able to handle their finances um but who would not pose a danger to themselves. I mean I think that's where we're getting stuck here.

i i can appreciate that here's my problem and i was trying to figure if i could find it really quickly and i couldn't one of the commanders at the battle of waterloo had a serious mental illness

mmm

uh the leader of the prussian army that came to the to the aid of um uh wellington at the very last minute and turned the tide of the battle uh at times thought he was married to an elephant and had a serious mental illness when he was not suffering from the mental illness He was a brilliant uh, tactician and a military leader. He had a serious mental illness, but he was not a danger to himself or to others.

Mm-hmm.

I yield back. And now recognize

Mister Jack.

the gentleman from Georgia, Mister Jack.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. And uh, Chairman Boss, I'd like to focus on HR ten forty one today and um, since I believe I'm the last speaker, would welcome in closing you describing for this committee, I think it's helpful for all of us to think about those two hundred and fifty thousand veterans let's think about just one if you wanna walk us through what it would be like for a veteran who was assigned a fiduciary to frankly be subjected to this demeaning practice to be submitted to the next list. Hel- help us understand what what that is what that veteran's going through.

Okay. Basically, they have went to the VA and they're seeking help. Now, let me tell you another issue that's out there and i i think uh representative scott and i touched on this slightly when you are from flyover country like we are um veterans go to the va and they go to the to to the va they go to the legion and they go to bfw and other clubs and organizations and when all of a sudden one says you know what i'd like to see help from va but i heard that if i get in there and they all of a sudden decide I need something else, they can take my second amendment rights. And so that chases people away from a very good system that is in the VA. But the what they what happens with the ones that don't understand this, they come in and they're seeking help. They're having some financial problems. They're they're they're not handling their finances well. They they they are uh there may be another issue, but they're not a danger to themselves or to others. They come in and they go, " You know, I could use some help." And all of a sudden, someone looks over their case and says, " Look, we're gonna assign someone to you." Cuz that's what a fiduciary is. "Someone that is assigned to you to take care of your finances, not because you have a a situation where you're gonna hurt yourself or others, but because you have trouble with your finances." But automatic, and when this came into effect, and which is, this is how long this has been happening. This was a interpretation by the attorneys from the Department of Justice with, uh, that guided the VA in this, that if you are assigned a fiduciary, automatically you're put on the next list. Automatically, if you're on the next list, you lose your second amendment right, not only to purchase a firearm, but to own, possess, or anything else. Now let me tell you that the vitally important thing to realize is, is that the concerns of everyone of " oh my gosh, a veteran's gonna have a gun." Well, yeah, they do. Yeah, they do. And then add to that that they're - they're saying that but this veteran is seeking help from the VA and they're gonna have a gun. They are not a danger to themselves and they are not a danger to others. If you are not a veteran, the only thing that will take away your second amendment right, if someone has had to file and go to court and put before some form of justice, some form of a judge, okay, depending on the state, that you are a danger to yourself and others. And this is can be done very quickly, once a person reports it. Then, due process is done. Now they will claim that VA has due process, but that's whenever I told you that the twenty-four thousand people who have had since the Brady Bill passed and since that interpretation has been made less than a thousand have received their right to carry back.

And this legislation passage of it will restore the rights for all two hundred and fifty-five?

It w- it it will it will simply say that even that that going to a fiduciary at VA is not going to loo remove your second amendment right. Going to f- going to anywhere in the VA will not. Now, if someone at the VA all of a sudden says, " I believe that this person is a danger to themselves and others." They can then report that through the court system and do exactly what the private - the non-veteran would have to do. Very simple. That is why it's so confusing that we are doing this to the veterans that fought to make sure we can c- have our rights. I understood the argument in this case They, and - and so many people misunderstand that veterans are a naturally bigger danger to themselves or to others. I - I - I don't know that numbers show that. I just know that - And - and - and the argument - l- let's look at this too. Remember, we - we're now into the third year of the budget where we changed the budget to where they couldn't actually do this. in on the budget side this is this is the authorization side so we're gonna straighten it out for from here on out but over those three years we don't know remember we're a a year and a half or two years behind in our number reporting but we don't see our numbers have been have remained the same about those veteran suicides that are out there as far as we can tell i have thought uh to help every veteran out there to make sure to not make that permanent choice that for a temporary problem, to try to help them where they don't commit suicide. But nothing has shown that we've had an increase since we've done this.

Well, I appreciate your testimony today. I think we all um are very grateful for your leadership of this committee. And with that, I will yield to my friend, Mister Griffith from Virginia.

Thank you so much for yielding to me. I just want to get the historical record correct, because I got it wrong. He didn't think he was married to an elephant. He thought a French soldier had impregnated him with an elephant. And, uh, he went in and out of, uh, lucidity, but, uh, it was, um, uh, Bluch- Blucher or Blucher, I may be mispronouncing it. And I yield back.

Thank you for correcting that.

Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you, Mister Jack. Um, gentlemen, I see no further, um, requests for questions, so you are excused. thank you very much for being here

good thanks bert thank you thank you bert

thank you bert

you're welcome

you're welcome

thank you for your time

thank you um i actually went to that one office i think i was like i didn't have the time to get there so i was like i was thinking

good how are you doing good

um or we could just have a uh a lunch or something

yeah

clear out these old waters

yeah that's fine yeah no that's good

yeah

that's good here

it's fine

here ryan here you go

how you doing yeah they do still have a lot of old so i'm sure they're managing that

just a this is a

is it coming oh they were managing the suspension as well

yeah

yeah yeah just to be just to i don't know if the chair goes but you want any water

yes

alright

and now welcome our second

Thank you very much, uh,

Thank you.

Chair Fox, we'll keep it below five minutes, I know the uh the Ranking Member and I have a suspension bill on the floor here shortly. Uh, thank you, uh, Ranking Member, uh, as well. Uh, we're here to testify in H.R. thirteen twenty nine the Smithsonian american women's history museum act as we all know throughout our history american women have played a critical role uh in so many of our nation's crowning achievements in innovation uh and their success is america's success i was proud to support previous legislation authorizing this museum today's bill allows for construction of this at this museum to proceed specifically the bill designates an exact location on the national mall for the museum uh which can be changed by the president within a hundred and eighty days of enactment. Importantly, this puts guardrails in place to ensure this museum does not represent history in a partisan way. This museum will highlight the contributions of American women on the National Mall for citizens and tourists alike. I think it's all the more worthy that Congress advances this legislation this year as we celebrate the two hundred and fifty f- anniversary of the American of American independence. I thank you for having me here and I look forward to your questions. I yield back.

Thank you, Mister Stile. Mister Morelli, you're recognized.

Thank you, uh, Chairw- Madam Chair, and to the ranking member and the members of the committee. It's always a privilege to be back here at the Rules Committee. Let me, uh, start by stating the obvious, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum is long overdue and deserves a prominent place on the National Mall, period. The National Mall is where our nation tells its story, its triumphs and its struggles, and American women have shaped every chapter of that story, which is why I support the bipartisan version of H. R. thirteen twenty-nine introduced by my colleague and friend from New York, Representative Nicole Meliotakis. It's why I supported her companion bill, H. R. thirteen thirty, which would also make the same technical fix for the National Museum of the American Latino. Together these bills would resolve a statutory anomaly that has stalled both museums and allow them to move forward on them all as Congress explicitly intended. But that's not what we are considering today, and I am deeply saddened and disappointed the majority has abandoned a bill that is a result of years-long bipartisan process in favor of an unserious, hyper-partisan substitute designed to fail. There was no hearing on the substitute bill before you now. We didn't hear from Smithsonian witnesses about its consequences. We didn't hear from museum professionals about what happens when politicians, rather than curators, start making curatorial decisions. And we certainly didn't hear from legal experts about the extraordinary authorities this bill grants the President. The substitute text was offered at the mark-up and reported out on a party-line vote on the same morning. It fundamentally alters Representative Malia Takis's legislation in four key ways. And let me just, uh, quickly go through them. First, it omits the National Museum of the American Latino, which has been paired with the Women's History Museum since they were authorized together in twenty twenty. Second, it grants the President unprecedented unilateral authority to disregard the Smithsonian's recommended site and pick his own, which is extraordinary since this bill is intended to site it on the National Mall. Third, it hands control over design and construction. The board's stacked with party loyalists who have already shown they will rubber-stamp whatever the President wants, and you need to look no further than the pile of rubble that used to be the East Wing of the White House for evidence of that. And fourth, It inserts an ideological poison pill intended to dictate what the museum can and cannot say about women's history. Colleagues, we deal with a lot of complicated issues around here that require complex solutions. This is not one of them. For half a decade this was a bipartisan process. It has changed suddenly, as have so many things, with the election of Donald Trump back to the White House. We could pass the Republican-led bipartisan bill with a hundred and four Republican cosponsors, today on suspension, if not by unanimous consent. The American people would find it baffling that you chose this route instead. Perhaps it would have been clearer had the majority held a hearing. The whole exercise is especially unfortunate, given the bill's history. Two thousand nineteen, Democrats accepted a Republican amendment requiring the museum to reflect, quote, "the diversity of the political viewpoints held by women in the United States", virtually the same language appeared in this bill until it was amended again, or looks for another amendment, in the corresponding Latino museum bill. But we're considering today makes clear what viewpoints diversity really meant, only viewpoints Republicans agree with. How much more cynical can you get than that? If the goal were truly to move the museum forward, we would not be abandoning the years-long bipartisan process that brought us to the brink of construction. We would not be considering a bill without a hateful ideological poison pill, and we would not exclude the Latino museum. And we would certainly, certainly not be giving Donald Trump, of all people, the authority to pick a location and design for the Women's History Museum. And I would just, um, say this bill fundamentally misunderstands the role of museums, the prominent status of the Smithsonian. Who should decide what appears in the Smithsonian museum, where it goes and what it looks like? Should it be the historian, scholars, and curators for a hundred and eighty years, have made the Smithsonian the premier museum complex in the world, or a politician seeking to reshape history to fit his pervert narrative. Um, I think the path forward is obvious. The House should pass the clean parti- partisan bill with its two hundred and thirty-plus co-sponsors, pair it with the Latino museum as we've done for years, and I, uh, look forward to that happening. If it doesn't happen today and it doesn't happen in the intervening months, I guarantee it's gonna happen on the hundred and twentieth congress and with that i'll yield back

uh thank you mr. morelli this is fischbach you're recognized

thank you madam chair and and you know originally i wasn't gonna ask questions now i have comments and maybe a question but um i think it's important that uh uh i understand that mr. morelli thinks that this is horrible and that we're doing this uh and it's gonna be biased but you also need to understand that this is balanced so it is important that it is balanced because so much of the time and and i'll be real honest so much of the time conservative women are forgotten and the ones that are highlighted are are the um are what i guess would be considered the more liberal and uh and so i think that i think it's important for all women that this is balanced and so i just wanted to ask

and and may i just suggest i mean that's why i think we agreed to two thousand nineteen the language that was included it reflects a diversity of opinion. I understand there will be an amendment today which removes that, um, and I guess it's a little like the first amendment. You can agree with it as long as you agree with what I'm saying, uh, but truly I agree with you, let's have diversity and let's have the bill reflect that.

Well, and and I I prefer the word balanced as opposed to diversity. I think that balanced makes more sense, so that we are that we are representing all women. And I just wanted to ask Mister Stile, um, how how was the language written to ensure that that balance is achieved

uh with it i think there's there's two things at play here one uh the the the amendment that my colleague is referencing uh does have a word change and i think in general we felt the word range uh more accurately reflects the variety of viewpoints that will be on display uh at the museum um i think it's also worth noting uh per some of the commentary the language in the bill doesn't change the current process for deciding uh what is put into smithsonian museums i think that's important to get on the record just so that that is not lost and if you go back and look at page eight of the bill it's almost worth just reading it's incredibly short of two sentences uh the scope of the mission so in general the museum shall be dedicated to preserving researching and presenting the history achievements and lived experiences of biological women in the united states and then sub two prohibition the museum will not identify present describe or otherwise depict any biological male as a female uh if my colleagues uh disagree with that they can have that opinion i suppose uh but i wouldn't uh wouldn't stand without the record being corrected that the process for what is put in the museum uh is unchanged and will continue to be as operated as the smithsonian does

thank you and i yield back madam chair

thank you mr. fishbaugh mr. mcgovern you're recognized

yeah j- chairman stahl i just i'm just trying to i wanna be clear on this uh so as the ranking member pointed out representative malia takis original hr thirteen twenty nine i understand had two hundred and thirty one cosponsors including a hundred and four members of your own conference so can you identify a single substantive deficiency in the in that bill that required replacing it with the miller amendment that we're considering now

sure uh i

i i guess for the why would why would you just bring the bill up on the suspension cause you had so many um and and so many cosponsors

i i'd go back and and look at the specific text on page eight uh as i just read that is gonna be dedicated to uh the the experiences of biological women uh in the united states the prohibition that the um museum will not identify prescribe present describe or otherwise depict uh biological male uh as a female uh in further uh the language we presented regarding the range of uh viewpoints uh that uh represented fischbach references being important aspect of the museum

i you know i just uh i wish you guys was obsessed about gas prices as you are about trans-individuals but that's a whole another debate and i'm just looking at the amendment that you're you offered here um can you explain your manager's amendment like i mean i'm i'm just tryna like what is the whole point of this amendment

what is the point it it shifts the word diversity to change

and is diversity

we just thought the word range more accurately reflects the variety of viewpoints

that part of uh

you may dislike the word fine

no i i i don't understand why why do you dislike the word diversity i mean what is the

i just thought that the word it's a belief that the word range more accurately describes what we're trying to achieve

is it a well what's the difference between diversity and range i'm just curious like why

i thought the word range more accurately describes the objective

no it's just it's just like you've you just felt

if you if you'd like to define a difference from it i'd be happy to hear your opinion

no i'm i'm i'm i'm i just i mean you go to a a lot of lengths here one two three four f five references they eliminate the word diversity like

not a lot of lengths

like oh yeah I mean is that did did did Trump tell you to do that or what's the he doesn't I know he doesn't like the word diversity

we we we may disagree on what a lot of length says this might be one of the shortest amendments I've ever seen in the United States House of Representatives

yeah I know but

fits on one page and has I believe four sentences all of which are the same which we can define pretty easily

right yeah which is really which is really curious I think you guys just spoke best with

I don't know that's a lot of length

with eliminating any reference to diversity in this I I just it's it's chilling quite frankly why why was the why was the Latino museum dropped

using a word

I this is the easiest problem to solve. This is like a two-inch putt, and instead we're whacking the ball with a driver, hit it off a tree against a a a, you know, a stone monument, and then somehow get it back to the hole. It's crazy. I mean, this was really simple. There is a, um, contradictory phrase in the original language about where the museum should be placed. Representative Maliotakis saw it appropriately. to assure that it was on the National Mall, where it should be. That was it. Um, I I don't know why the Latino Museum has been uncoupled. It was, it done in the authorizing language uh back in twenty twenty. It should be easy to solve this. Um, and so again, we're we're adding complexity and, I mean, even eliminating the word diversity. I th- I assume that's because Donald Trump doesn't allow the word diversity anymore.

Why why did why why is it the Latino why was it l- dropped?

Uh, I I wouldn't say that it was dropped. I would say that we're moving this one

OK, that's that's curious.

Sometimes bills don't but don't all come up at the exact same time.

And And and and can I just and and why why did you think it's appropriate that Donald Trump ultimately gets to decide where the museum gets located?

Uh, I think I think presidential discretion uh is appropriate, I think the um the hundred and eighty days uh gives the the president and the team a chance to review and analyze that, uh we've made significant

Is isn't this unprecedented?

but I I mean, I think putting there there's so few data points of buildings that have been built on the mall. I the most recent of course being the African American History Museum. From from that point uh to today inside the reserve, this might be the second, so unprecedented off of this being the second data point, I I struggle to to utilize the term unprecedented.

Great, great, and number, Worley, maybe you have something.

Well, I would say this is pretty simple.

Yeah.

Congress authorizes, Congress puts it on the mall. This bill would go to the President. If he disagrees with having it on the National Mall, he could veto the bill and Congress would then get to make a judgment on whether to override that veto or pass a different bill with a different location. This is congressionally authorized. That's how this is supposed to work, in giving the President yet again unilateral power to do things that are congressional prerogatives and the will of the American people are expressed through the House and through the Senate. This is just not the way, but in the modern world I think the Republican majority just refuses to do anything without the president's

and and it's not just on this issue but it's on a whole range of issues that one of the real sad realities of republican leadership has been their ceding

signature

absolute power and authority to the executive branch and even on something like this it just i i don't know whether it's cause you're all afraid of him or or what but uh it just it just it's it's just not the right way to do things and anyway you're in charge you can do whatever the hell you wanna do i yield back

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Uh, Mr. Jack, you're recognized.

No questions, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Um, Chairman Stile, is there anything else that you would like to say about the museum that hasn't been said or um, expand upon how it's important that the museum gets built in our nation's capital?

i i think this is really our opportunity on two hundred fiftieth anniversary of the united states of america to move forward on this important legislation uh we have uh finessed and perfected the text uh and i think we're prepared to to have it passed

thank you miss ganlin you're recognized

thank you um yeah as the ranking member indicated over two hundred and thirty members of congress um signed on to this original bill so this should have been a suspension Um, for years we've seen a strong bipartisan effort to get the, uh, Women's History Museum on the mall, but at the eleventh hour, we've seen our Republican colleagues decide to politicize the effort and change the bill, first by including a hateful anti-trans writer, and second by giving the Trump administration unilateral authority to control the museum, its construction and its content. So once again we see Republican leadership trying to suppress facts, and reshape history that it doesn't like. Women's history is not zero sum, including trans women in the museum's content does not in any way come at the cost of providing the nation with an educational monument to the important role of all women in our national history. Uh, we believe our Republican colleagues need to stop playing games and bring up the original bipartisan bill to move ahead with the creation of the Women's History Museum. Unfortunately, uh, Republican leadership never misses an to ruin a good thing with their unending preoccupation with their culture wars, and their relentless attempts to divide Americans against each other. I just wish they brought the same energy to fighting corruption that they do to starting culture wars. And speaking of corruption, it does seem really inopportune to bring up this bill which would give the administration yet another opportunity to misspend American taxpayers' dollars when the White House and the Department of Justice just announced that they're creating a new one point eight billion dollar slush fund filled with American taxpayer dollars to give handouts to Trump's buddies. I mean, it it's primary day in Pennsylvania and I stopped by some of our polling places at seven o'clock this morning, and got an earful, an earful from outraged constituents about this new slush fund. And staff in my office say that the phones and email in DC and the district have been blowing up all day. Basically, the American people want to know what right this president, any president, has to give taxpayer dollars to his political friends and to violent criminals who've been convicted of assaulting uh, police officers. How can any president give taxpayer dollars to those folks with no congressional authorization and no oversight? And no one seems able to answer that. And in fact, even White House appointees seem to recognize they have a problem here. The, uh, Treasury Department attorney who was charged with overseeing this slush fund resigned. I mean, you don't see a lot of that in this Trump White House, so it must be really, really bad. Um, look, I am hearing from constituents that they are having problems filling up their gas tanks, eighty bucks for a pickup truck, They're having trouble feeding their kids, paying their bills because of this disastrous war in Iran, the failure to focus on what the American people need. And instead, this corrupts pr- president's priority is to line the pockets of insurrectionists and fraudsters who do his political bidding. So I think, uh, House Admin, I think this body should be bringing a lot more attention to the corruption that we're seeing from this White House and that would serve all Americans well. So, I, is there anything you want to add, Mister Morelle?

Completely agree. I appreciate your comments. I mean, this is so simple. We have two important museums that have been authorized by Congress, overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion. The fact that there was contradictory language that needs to be clarified to ensure that both the women's and Latino museums end up on the National Mall is simple to do. To your point, two hundred and thirty-one sponsors. Uh, i- i- this couldn't be easier and only this Congress would find ways to make sure that it doesn't happen. Because this is not going to happen. And I think they know it's not going to happen. So if this is a poison pill intended to stop the museums from moving forward, okay, congratulations. You've managed to figure out how to stop something else that Americans would enjoy from happening. The Smithsonian is, I think we'd all agree, one of the in my view, the most magnificent museum in all of the world. People come here by the millions, Americans. And you know what's funny? I've never had a single person stop me in my eight years that I've been privileged to serve in the house never once has a person said, gee, I went to the Smithsonian. It was awful. Has anybody ever had that experience? It's the most it's amazing. It's it and then there's no entrance fee, the people can come, the Americans can come. What a perfect place to put in the hands of an institution, this institution, the story of American women and their amazing contributions to this republic, as well as the Latino community, and yet we're gonna mess it up because we can't help ourselves.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I mean, we do appreciate the efforts to continue the project of making this a more perfect union, and recognizing the contributions of everybody who makes up this country, whether it's with the Women's Museum, the Latino Museum, um, the amazing African-American Museum that just went online about eight years ago, um we should be continuing that work as opposed to trying to reap right or suppress history so thank you for your work on this I yield back

thank you miss Ganler mister scott you're recognized

mmm

madam chair i don't have any questions i would uh like to give mister stahl a opportunity to respond to any of the questions if he would like to but other than that

i i thank uh the gentleman uh it maybe just a couple of quick points of clarification cause i just wouldn't want the record to to go unchecked uh and part of this may be the reason uh that people get so many phone calls there's so much misinformation out there so let's just tick off a couple topics here one is this legislation is is not a spending bill so there's no appropriation inside this uh there there may or may not be in the future that will be up to our appropriations committee there was an authorization uh in the original text uh but there's no spending of taxpayer dollars in the legislation before this period full stop that they may or may not occur in the future we could have that debate, it'll probably come before this committee, you guys will have your opportunity to have your say there. Um, second, um, I think it's important to, to note, I think there's a reference uh that the president would have some sort of control over what is or what is not displayed in the museum, that would be an incorrect representation in my opinion. The language of the bill does not change the current process for deciding what is put into Smithsonian museums. Uh, again you can reference back to page eight, again simple. one page, two sentences total topic of the adjustments that we think are appropriate to make sure that we're properly presenting to the American people uh the success in history of of women, in particular biological women. Uh and so if people dislike page eight they c- they could say that as such, but that is there would be a far stretch to say that that alters uh the president's uh or any uh president's control um over what is or what is not in the museum. And so with that I'll I'll yield back. Appreciate the gentleman's time.

Ma- Madam Chair, with regard to the attacks on President Trump, I would just remind my colleagues that he got three hundred and twelve electoral votes versus uh their candidate Kamala Harris is uh a besmal two twenty-six and while they might not like him he is the President of United States and uh certainly a much much better candidate in the in the choice of the American citizens than the person they selected in Kamala Harris and with that I yield back.

thank you minister scott miss ledger fernandez you're recognized

thank you madam chair um you know since trump was mentioned you know i would point out uh whether or not he's a better president uh would be an interesting fact cause a lot of the american people don't think he was a better president or a better choice uh there is that regret that's going in but i think it's more of a betrayal you know trump has spent his first eighteen months in office not reducing costs or ending foreign wars in fact didn't what did he just recently say he doesn't think about americans financial situation quote unquote cause the reality is the american people have never been his priority his priority has always been trump and look at what he's done here in d. c. he destroyed the and now he is trying to build a ballroom that was gonna be paid for by others but now republicans are suggesting that we pay a billion dollars of taxpayer funds he wants to have his name on our money he slapped his name on the kennedy center he slapped his name on the institute of peace he is putting his name and likeness on visas chairman style do you know of any other president who has used his time in office to put his name on federal buildings or on our currency

do i know of other presidents that i'm not a presidential historian i think president trump's done a great job

has any but has there is no there is no other president who's ever done that because it's really kind of insulting when a living elected official spends his time putting his name on buildings

will the general woman yield

sure

does she carry the same view of the pelosi caucus room

well i think that this is the difference of when a president is putting his name on buildings and what he has done with this bill what he has done with this bill is he himself is making these decisions about what he should be i mean who else i mean have we been to the kennedy center trump now can you guarantee me can you guarantee me uh are you i you find it quite delightful you find it quite let me ask you this can you guarantee me that he won't put his name on the women's museum

uh i just find it interesting i i i i don't think there is authority in this text to to alter the name of that

well we have his authority his people his ballroom committee his ballroom committee under the changes that your committee authorize his ballroom committee has the authority to construct and design the women's museum isn't that correct

has the authority to construct and design and have a say on that yes under the under the executive branch authority

yeah yeah so and and that's basically his ball boom committee they're the same people who designed and uh approved his ball boom committee that's right

the the same positions that have been in place under previous administrations as well the biden administration had a similar committee you may or may not have liked the appointees of the biden administration i may or may not like the appointees

oh this is

of the biden administration as well

ballroom committee and this was a change that was made in house admin who actually directed that as it's pointed out this was a fairly bipartisan bill it was moving through not fairly like overwhelmingly bipartisan bill it was moving through uh it was supported by everybody who directed that it be changed in house admin

we always are working to finesse language of legislative text um all the way through the process

who sent the who sent the suggestions over

i received suggestions from numerous people

from the white house

the white house provided technical assistance nicole uh provided uh her advice in counsel we reached out

the the white house directed the white house directed that these changes be made

to other colleagues as well i i wouldn't i don't think that that would be a correct description white house provided technical assistance on the bills we often

the white house suggested these changes then these changes came from the white house did these changes come from the white house chairman steele

um The the changes were suggested by multiple people, including the original author of the bill.

The White House. Can you not just not just interrupt one of these changes?

The the author of the bill is Nicole Malia-Tankins. We I I I made it explicit that we we

Remind me, remember, do you have a do you have an idea of where these suggested changes came from?

No. I would say I would say it's the

Think it's unlikely that members of Congress came up with the idea of giving unilateral control over a bill that's supposed to cite this on the mall. giving the ability for the President to unilaterally veto and change it. And as I said, all bills that come I mean, I I learned this, I think, from watching PBS, uh, how a bill becomes a lot was at Schoolhouse Rock, you know, passes the House, passes the Senate, the Pres- So the President would always have the ability to veto. But now we're just saying our Article I responsibility is, you know, at the end of the day, how about this, every bill we pass, Let's just say that the President, uh, once we authorize it, that he could still do anything he wants anyway. The whole point of this is to locate the bill on the Mall. So, only here would you say, we're going to locate the bill on the Mall unless the President says it needs to go in a different place. And by God, the President should be able to decide, what's the point of even gathering here? Why didn't he even take up the bill? He's going to do it, I mean, the the East Wing of the White House, I'm surprised he hasn't started building the National Museum without congressional authorization. It wouldn't surpri would it surprise you?

No, cuz he'd already started doing that, and that's the problem with what these changes are, is this is an opportunity, they stopped the ballroom because it hadn't gotten congressional authority, but here Congress is acting to give him this, and that's why there were uh what was it, a hundred uh twenty-six uh Democrats were cosponsors of this bill? I have a letter written by a hundred and forty signed on by a hundred and forty six members of congress who are now opposing the republican version of the women's history museum madam chair i'd like unanimous consent to enter into the record the letter dated april sixteenth twenty twenty six sent to uh speaker johnson

without objection

signed by a hundred and forty six members who say let's have the bill in its original form why are we changing this bill at this last minute as you pointed out without the kind of input that would have made sense i sat in a natural uh in a natural resources committee hearing um madam chair about this bill and it was a great hearing uh we had uh representatives from the smithsonian uh from the foundations who were raising the money for the bill and it was one of those incredibly wonderful hearings that everybody is supportive uh there were couple of tough questions asked is there space for it could we raise the money yes yes yes uh and we talked about how important it is to tell the story of women's history how important it is to tell the story about both the republican the the the the republican who first served in congress it was a woman who first served in congress who was a republican before we even had the right to vote isn't that a marvelous story to be told that would be diversity maybe or balance you guys don't like the word diversity so balance or no it's not even balance range range that uh do you know that there was a cross dresser who served in the revolutionary art chairman steele

i'm not a student of of that area of history i'll take your word for it

yeah there was It would be interesting to tell that story. In fact, right now the Women's History uh in the the the section of the Women's History Museum tells that story about the cluster. So it tells a story about the women spies. It tells a story about how hard women fought to get the right to vote. We marched, we protested, we starved, we were beaten to get the right to vote. You're aware of that part of the story, right Chairman Steele?

yeah that wisconsin was the first state to ratify the amendment to give women the right to vote

yeah and it took a lot of effort and this museum that's supposed to be about women that women have fought for that we have championed should be decided by women you should not have president trump deciding where the museum should go what it should look like or whether he's gonna put his name on it or maybe he'll put melania trump's name on it We don't know, but you're giving him this authority in the changes that you have brought. And those are the problems that we have with this bill. That's why you have a hundred and forty-six members saying, do not bring it to the floor in its present form. There are not a lot of bipartisan things around Congress these days. But this was one of them. This was one of them. And in your committee, you destroyed it. And the Natural Resources Committee, it was great. Cuz we talked about what was supposed to be in that museum, how it could look, why it was important for us. You guys destroyed it. How sad. Uh, ranking member, uh, Morali, is there anything else, uh, you'd like to add? I'm the last Democrat who will speak on this.

No, I, uh, I do appreciate your comments. In eighteen seventy-two, a Rochesterian by the name of Susan B. Anthony voted and was arrested for voting for President of the United States. So, uh, we think women have a a long and distinguished role to play in American history. It needs to be that story needs to be told. And this bill, to your point, was so simple to get to that we're we're like literally the ball, sorry to use a football analogy for non-football fans, but this ball is at the goal line and we've managed to make a mess of it. This this is not going to pass both houses. It will not get to the President's desk and we'll have to come back next January hopefully and pass the bill that has broad bipartisan support.

Well I look forward to continue to working on this, because I think the uh the story of the history of women in America, and all of its controversy, its controversy, it's complicated, and we shouldn't be afraid of the complexity and the controversy. We should be willing to tell it. Let people take from those lessons what they will. Uh but we should be willing to tell it and tell it honestly, by women directed by women looked looked like what women want that museum to look like not by a man who happens to be president because he was elected we don't deny elections i mean his cabinet nominees can't even admit that he that that he lost the the last election to biden but we're he got elected but he doesn't get to control our history uh and with that madam chair i yield back

thank you miss leger fernandez mister griffiths you're recognized

thank you madam chair um as as you know chairman style i'm big on additive history and the more that we can do to educate uh everybody on historical issues uh even when there's controversy uh even when there's disagreement i'm a big big fan of that uh i will tell you finding locations and fighting over locations on the mall can be difficult uh serving on uh the adams uh commission to recognize the uh adam's family not the one from the cartoon series but the one that helped found this country uh i have we we have looked at number of spots and so i understand that but i did want to give you the opportunity to make any comments that you might wanna make that uh you felt like you had not had yet had the opportunity to address

uh appreciate it uh representative griffith appreciate your work on the house administration committee on this legislation as well um you guys in this committee spent a lot of time uh listening to the democrat's view on the president of the united states uh so i commend all you guys's time and effort here um this bill does not again i just think it's worth just hitting the the the points where there's misinformation trying to be tossed around it doesn't alter what the process for which information is placed into the Smithsonian. It doesn't give unilateral control to any one individual. It remains as it is with the additions of page eight of the bill, which simply says that this is going to be about the history of biological women. Uh, we've seen how extreme some people on the left have become, determined that that language was necessary, provides a range of viewpoints. That may be triggering to some to use the word range, to me I think it's actually the best way uh to describe this. um the the fear mongering of naming something is just beyond um uh something special to listen to from a group uh who is more than happy to allow uh the cannon caucus room named after speaker cannon after he had after he had left the house uh to be renamed the pelosi caucus room while the speaker pelosi was in office

for a second isn't it true that was done by a congressional

i i don't you

vote

no actually that's actually really that that's actually a great topic

i i

It's actu- we actually spent a lot of time in research on this. It's actually not. It was actually just a sign that was put up that can be removed. Uh, it actually doesn't take an act of Congress, uh, from that. There

But there was one.

No, but, but that is actually not what controls that sign, believe it or not.

Well, H res one four nine five says differently, that's what changed it.

Y- yeah, and it actually doesn't control, because there's, there's underlying, we, we, we could agree on the, on the technical side of this. Um, I, actually don't, don't think that's accurate. Uh, but if it was, uh, congress put forward and decided to name it after the the sitting speaker it we i just find it fascinating that the the energy that's spent and the hatred against uh the president by some of our colleagues but to to suffice it to say we we have a real opportunity here uh to to to site uh meaning to place on our nation's mall the women's history museum in the two hundred and fiftieth year of our nation's capital uh this is a great opportunity to tell the women's story uh that was just referenced um we have an opportunity to tell it And we have uh this this committee will decide uh the nature of how that building was forwarded to the floor. And the members will be able to stand and be on the record. Do do they want a museum on on the nation's mall? Uh, celebrating the history and the role that women have played in our history? Uh, or do they not? And uh the chips will fall where they may. I'm voting yes. I encourage my colleagues too. Uh, I think this is a great opportunity for us to uh to celebrate that on the two hundred and fiftieth year, our nation's birth. And appreciate the gentleman giving me uh the courtesy of his time and I yield back.

absolutely and i uh i too want to see us uh have this museum built and every month that's delayed is another month that it doesn't get started uh you're back madam chair

thank you mister griffith mister langworth you're recognized

well thank you very much madam chair uh i was a very early cosponsor of this bill due to the persistence uh of my colleague from new york uh nicole maliatakis who uh worked very hard to make sure other new yorkers uh signed on to this uh incredible legislation you can't tell america's story without telling the story of the women that shaped this country and the fact that this has been hijacked in a in a partisan way um is just asinine at this point i mean yes we are going to talk about biological women because it's the women's history museum uh and everyone's uh so petrified about president trump's involvement i mean everyone on this dais has been part of government projects right do we really think that this thing's gonna be fully operational by the time president trump leaves office

mmm

and all of this venom being spewed because you he's the president you gotta get over it and it takes three uh legs of this tool to to make this place run he's gonna have to sign this into law uh they they have a simple ability to review the site i mean this is much ado about nothing but you found a way to politicize it maybe maybe the anger is because of the biological um you know women set aside uh i think that's something that america's women deserve to really truly be honored at their own museum without they're being hijacked as well um mr. stile you have anything you'd like to add that

i'm very involved in this one

further ok i yield back madam chair thank you i strongly support this one

thank you mr. leigworth

madam chair i just i just wanna say for the record um

mr.

you lamented about the fact that republicans have to listen to democrats there are nine republicans that we have to listen to um who regularly not only praise but genuflect to the president and yeah there is some angst over here about this president a man who has a long record of abusing women uh overseeing all of this and let me just say one final thing and that is as someone from massachusetts uh where uh president john f. kennedy came from the idea that the Kennedy Center was desecrated with the name of this president. I look forward to the day when we have the votes to b- Well, I don't even need the votes, because he had no authority to to put his name up there. But I look forward to the day where I can go with a crowbar and remove his name, uh, from that monument, uh, because it does a great disservice and disrespect to a president that I greatly admire, President John F. Kennedy.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Miss Halchen, you're recognized.

Uh, I have no questions, Madam Chair. Just if there's anything additional that Mister Stile would like to add.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Houchen. Um, I just want, I'm gonna change the subject completely for a second. I was over at the Library of Congress today with some staff and family, and there is a fabulous exhibit over there called The Two Georges. It's gonna be leaving on the fourth of July. It's about uh King George and George Washington. I didn't have nearly enough time to spend in there. but i would encourage you to go um i'm never tired of going to the library of congress most beautiful building in congress last one that came in under budget and under time and i always want to point that out maybe the most beautiful building so if you have a chance i would encourage you to go over they've extended the exhibit they said several times they won't extend it again the british want their documents back they said but uh it it is a wonderful exhibit if you get a chance to go i would encourage you to do so thank you gentlemen i see no further people wishing to ask you questions and you are excused

thank you thank you

Is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Georgia, Mister Jack.

Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H R ten four one, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, a close rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Veterans Affairs now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H R six zero four seven, the Shari Brille and Eric Edmondson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of twenty twenty-six under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Veterans Affairs now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in Part A of the Rules Committee Report shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs or the respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H R one three two nine, the Smithsonian American Women's History and Museum Act under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on house administration now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part B of the rules committee report, shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions and the bill is amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. Finally, the rule provides that the requirement of clause six A of rule thirteen for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House as waived with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day on May twenty-fourth, twenty-twenty-six. Relating to a measure providing for reconciliation pursuant to title two of es con res thirty three

thank you very much mr. jack

mmm

you have now heard the motion is there any discussion or amendment to the rule

yep madam chair i have an amendment to the rule i move the committee add a new section to the rule providing immediate consideration of hr seven seven one one the no rewards for january sixth riotous act under a closed rule debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee and judiciary with a self-executing amendment that would require the disclosure to congress within fifteen days of any settlements or other payments made out to the so-called anti-we uh uh uh weaponization fund so this bill would prohibit the use of federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the united states capitol on january sixth twenty twenty one additionally my motion would self execute an amendment that would require the attorney general of the united states disclose any payments made by the so called anti-weaponization fund which was created by the uh corrupt settlement agreement between donald trump and his own administration this secret slush fund should be an outrage to every american no matter your politics and at least the majority leader of the senate a republican seems reluctant to go along with this he said today that he is quote not a big fan end quote and that he quote does not see a purpose end quote for it but will he and other republicans do anything about it i know that my colleagues uh i my colleague congressman scott has expressed concern with trump's pardons of over fifteen hundred individuals who attacked the capitol on january sixth including the many who were convicted of violent felonies like recall representative griffith say that he had quote mixed feelings about the pardons So how do you feel about secret slush fund money going to these violent offenders? I would urge a yes vote on my motion and a yield back.

Thank you, Mister McGovern. Um, any further discussion on the amendment? Miss Scanlon, you recognize.

Yes, ma'am. Yes, I I really appreciate the gentleman's amendment because it does uh shine what? The disinfectant of sunshine on this really corrupt slush fund that has been created by the White House. Um, if there is no problem with it then there should be no hesitation to make public who is being paid the money and why so i think it's a really necessary transparent um move by congress to assert its authority over the power of the purse which uh this administration has usurped by uh entering into this settlement fund with itself and i i i agree with the ranking members that every american

should be uh in favor of this amendment so I wholeheartedly support it

Thank you Miss Ganlam any further discussion on the amendment Miss Legere Fernandez you're recognized

Madam Chair Madam Chair I also support the amendment and I think that this goes back to the fact that this uh committee uh and this house will vote on various matters this week uh and they're various matters that cost money uh so when you decide that you're not willing to pay for uh disability benefits for veterans unless you get a pay for you can also decide that you're not gonna pay for one point six one point six one point eight billion dollars

eight

one point eight billion dollar slush fund and you have the power in this committee to say no so what ranking member uh has done with this amendment is allow you to vote to put some brakes on the slush fund to bring some sunshine to the slush fund this is a power that you have that you can choose to do something about the slush fund and say no now i doubt that any of you will vote for this amendment but i am very proud that the democrats are willing to say no because our constituents are saying there should not be a slush fund created and we should do something about it this is the moment when you can say no to this slush fund for those who have brutally attacked the police officers that you walk by every day brutally attacked them sent a hundred and forty hundred and forty law enforcement officers to the hospital on january sixth and and and this is a moment where you get to say no i'm gonna say no to this last one cause we have the power because the constitution gave us this power so don't say that we don't have the authority to do it cause we have the authority we are the rules committee and i yield some time to the r

yeah i i just wanna save the record so we're not making all this stuff up here i mean the acting attorney general um you know uh uh did not rule out uh anti-weaponization payouts for people who assaulted law enforcement officers during the january sixth twenty twenty one breach of the capitol he said quote anybody can apply uh and uh that was in response to a question today from senator chris coons uh that's for me uh that's not not for me to said that's for the commissioners and whether an individual an oath keeper as you mentioned applies for compensation anybody in this country can apply end quote Again, this is this is coming from uh the acting attorney general and so we need to be proactive here and that's what this is about so I thank the general and I yield back.

I yield time to uh representative Scanlon.

I I endorse my colleague's remarks but I I just would go a little bit further than representative Ledger Fernandez I don't think this is an opportunity for our republican colleagues to say no to the slush fund, I think it's their duty to say no to this slush fund. it is a misappropriation by someone who does not have the power to appropriate, uh, of taxpayer dollars for his own purposes. With no congressional authorization, no congressional oversight, I think it is the duty of every member of Congress to say no, not just to this overstepping of authority, but in this moment, absolutely, to this misuse of taxpayer dollars and misuse of power. i yield back to the rink to

right and i think that this also gets to not only is it a slush fund that could potentially and has been uh not ruled out could be used to pay claims of those who attacked the law enforcement officers who were protecting us uh it's also think about the precedent think about what you are now allowing to happen anytime a president wants to get around the constitution and the authority of congress to appropriate funds, they could just sort of file a lawsuit and then enter into a settlement and say it's all coming from the judgment fund. Well, it's not coming from the judgment fund, the judgment fund is not some sort of open-ended, anytime you want anything just go file a lawsuit, enter into a settlement. The judgment fund is paid for by taxpayers. and you have an you have a responsibility thank you for using that word you have an obligation you have a responsibility to your constituents to not create a system where a president can file a lawsuit settle negotiate that lawsuit and then create this fund of money that can be used for whatever they want so that's what you are setting up if you allow this to go forward and with that uh madam chair yield back

thank you miss lesher fernandez any further discussion on the amendment hearing none the question is on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

those opposed say no no in the opinion chair of the no's have it the amendment's not a the the uh mr. mcgovern has requested a roll call the clerk will call the roll

Mrs. Fischbach Mrs. Fischbach Mrs. Fischbach and i'm mr. orman mr. roy mrs. houchin mrs. houchin no mr. langworthy mr. langworthy no mr. scott

no no no

mr. scott no mr. griffith

no

mr. griffith no mr. jack

no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

aye

mr. mcgovern i am miss ganlin

aye

miss ganlin i am mr. neguse miss leger fernandez

aye

miss leger fernandez aye madam chair

no

madam chair no

the clerk will report the total

three a's seven a's

ok the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to is there further discussion

madam chair i have an amendment to the rule that move the committee make an order remember number four to hr sixty forty seven offered by ranking member to cano which would strike sections three and four of the underlying bill the sections that would raise home loan financing fees for veterans as i said earlier under this republican controlled government there's always money to spend when it comes to giving tax cuts to the rich in funding illegal wars or forking over billions for the trump ballroom republicans spent four point seven trillion dollars on tax cuts that were not offset in their big ugly bill that's uh you know one thousand one hundred and seventy five times larger than the bill before us today which adds four billion dollars in benefits uh for veterans but when it comes to this veterans bills republicans say we have to pay for it by jacking up fees on veterans who wanna refinance their va home loans is gonna be a better way to do this and i urge a uh a yes vote on my motion

um you've heard mr. McGovern's amendment is there any further discussion on the amendment hearing none the questions on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

aye

those opposed say no

no no

in the opinion sure the no's have it the emma is not a good

as for roll call

mr. mcgovern requests a roll call the clerk will call the roll

miss fishbach miss fishbuck no mr. orman mr. roy miss houten miss houten no mr. langworthy

no no

mr. langworthy no mr. scott

no

mr. scott no mr. griffith mr. griffith no mr. jack

no no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

aye

mr. mcgovern i'm miss ganlin

aye

miss ganlin i'm mr. neguse miss ledger fernandez miss ledger fernandez aye madam chair

aye

no

madam chair no

The clerk will report the total.

Three ace, seven ace.

Those have it, the amendments not agreed to.

Uh, jerry, I have another amendment to the rule, I move the committee make an order amendment number five to HR sixty forty seven offered by ranking member Takano which would strike sections three and four of the underlying bill and replace them with a reduction in the estate tax exemption from fifteen million to fourteen point five million. Republicans triple the estate tax exemption from five million to fifteen million in the big ugly bill. uh that one that one move cost taxpayers two hundred and eleven billion dollars uh that's more than fifty times the size of this veterans bill scaling that exemption back by five hundred thousand dollars isn't gonna make a huge difference to wealthy heirs but that alone could fund the benefit increases for disabled veterans and survivors in this bill without penalizing veterans who are trying to afford their mortgages so let's make this country a bit more fair for once and i urge a yes vote on my amendment

any further discussion on the amendment hearing none the questions on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye aye

those opposed say no

no

in the opinion that share the no's have it the amendment's not agreed to

yes for a roll call ma'am

mister mcgovern requests a roll call the clerk will call the roll

miss fishbuck

no

missus fishbuck no mr. Norman mister roy missus Houchin missus Houchin no mr. langworthy mr. langworthy no mr. scott

no no

mr. scott no mr. griffith

no

mr. griffith no mr. jack

no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

aye

mr. mcgovern i'm miss galen

aye

miss galen i'm mr. neguse Ms. Lester-fernandez

aye

Ms. Lester-fernandez aye Madam chair

no

madam chair no

the clerk will report the total

three yeas seven nays

the uh amendment is not agreed to the no's have it

madam chair i have one final amendment to the rule i move the committee make an order on amendment number two to hr fort uh ten forty one offered by representative takano which would carve out several serious mental illnesses from the reporting prohibitions in the underlying bill um i understand that my republican colleagues are concerned about the second amendment rights of veterans but it is simply irresponsible to block the va from reporting people to next the database that gun dealers use to run background checks uh for people who have been diagnosed with severe mental illnesses and who are already banned under current law from buying or possessing a firearm this amendment specifically lists conditions like schizophrenia psychosis and dementia and i urge a yes vote on my motion and i yield back

you've heard the motion from mister mcgovern is there further debate on his motion hearing none the question is on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

those opposed say no

no

no in the opinion share the nose have it the amendment's not a creature

that's for roll call manager

mr. mcgovern requests a roll call the clerk will call the roll

mrs. fishbach mrs. fishbach no mr. norman mr. roy mrs. houchin mrs. houchin no mr. langworthy mr. langworthy no mr. scott

no

mister scott no mister griffith mister griffith no mister jack

no no

mister jack no mister mcgovern

aye

mister mcgovern i am miss canlon miss canlon aye mister neguse miss ledger fernandez miss miss ledger fernandez aye madam chair

no

madam chair no

clerk will report the total

three a's seven a's

uh the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to further discussion

madam chair

miss ledger fernandez

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule, I move the committee make an order, amendment number two to H R one three two nine offered by representative Chiu and myself which reverts the amended bill back to its original bipartisan-based text, and includes the text of H R thirteen thirty, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Latino Act. For years the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum has been a bipartisan effort. Now, Republicans suddenly blew up the decades of bipartisan work to grant President Trump authority to unilaterally select the women's museum site. The Republican amended bill now hands control over design and construction to boards stacked with Trump's political loyalists, the ballroom board basically, and dictates what the museum can and cannot say about women's history. republicans needlessly added an anti-transgender provision uh poison pill i think they think it's good for political ads or something there was no reason to add any of these provisions which were dictated by the white house the bill also omits the national museum of the latino history the latino history museum the uh women's history museum have always been considered advocated and advanced together they both have had bipartisan support as noted earlier based on the republicans the republicans amendments to this bill in house administration we now have a letter signed by a hundred and forty six members in congress opposing the women's history museum now that's a really hard thing to do because we want a museum that showcases the complex, complicated, uh, diversity, balanced range of issues that women in America have faced. But we cannot agree to have a museum where we are putting such authority in the hands of this man. Especially considering his history of slapping his name on the kennedy center and i think it's really different when you are dealing with a president who unilaterally without consultation without congressional authority decides to name buildings after himself not because there was a vote but because he wanted his name up on the kennedy center and any other building he could find we don't want his name on the women's history museum and there's nothing guaranteeing that it will stay off if we allow this version to move forward so uh the amendment will simply take us back to that bipartisan supported bill uh that had no bipartisan opposition uh that i knew of uh and i urge a yes vote on my amendment and i yield back

is there any further discussion on the amendment from miss leger fernandez hearing none the question is on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

those opposed no

no

no independent chair the no's have it

no

miss leger fernandez's request are recorded both the clerk will call the roll

miss fishbach

no

miss fishbach no mr. Norman mr. Roy mrs. Howchin mrs. Howchin no mr. Langworthy mr. Langworthy no mr. Scott mr. scott no mr. griffith mr. griffith no mr. jack

no no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern mr. mcgovern i'm a scantlin mscallin i'm mr. neguse mr. fernandez mr. fernandez aye madam chair

no

madam chair no

clerical report to total

three yeas seven nays

the uh no's have it the amendment is not agreed to is there any other amendment or discussion on the motion from the gentleman from georgia hearing no further discussion the question is on the motion from the gentleman from georgia all those in favor signify by saying aye aye

aye

those opposed say no

no no

then the opinion is sure the ayes have it the motion is agreed to mister mccartan requests a roll call the clerk will call the roll

ok

mrs. fishbach

yes

mrs. fishbach aye mr. norman mr. roy mrs. Howchin

yes

mrs. Howchin aye mr. Langworthy

yes

mr. Langworthy aye mr. Scott

yeah

mr. scott aye mr. griffith mr. griffith aye mr. jack

aye

mr. jack aye mr. mcgovern mr. mcgovern no miss ganland miss ganland no mr. neguse miss ledger fernandez miss ledger fernandez no madam chair

aye

madam chair aye

the clerk will report the total

seven yeas three nays

the ayes have it the motion to report is agreed to representative jack will be managing the rule for the majority

and representative ledger fernandez for the democrats

uh, ledger Fernandez for the democrats, without objection, the committee is adjourned.

I like you, man.