H.R. 6047, the “Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026”

[Gavel sounds.] Committee will come to order. Good morning. We're going to do our openings while waiting on a quorum so at least we can get it on the record. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs will come to order. Without objection, the chair will declare recess at any point. I'm glad to be here today to consider five bills. I'm going to keep my remarks short to leave plenty of time for discussion on each of these important bills and the amendments being offered. A number of the bills before us today are a product of bipartisan negotiation feedback from veterans, survivors, their families, and their advocates. Now among those bills is H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026. Last December, Sharri Briley and Edgar Edmundson testified about the impact this bill would have not only on them but on hundreds of thousands of families like them. Their message to us is simple: our veterans community has earned this, put politics aside, and get the bill done. This bill honors the sacrifices of our most severely wounded veterans and loved ones who those heroes who died because of their services. It helps families that sacrifice so much for us and their financial stability. It is a promise that we have got their back. And I am hopeful that the committee will be able to report out a bill today that delivers for thousands of great Americans like Sharri and Eric. Also before us today, bills that would help VA make important strides to improve community care scheduling, ensuring policies for our elderly veterans is informed by the best experts, and provide families with the options for lodging when their service members or veterans is to receive treatment far from home. I want to thank the members of our community that play an important role in improving the lives of veterans and their families. And I'd like now to yield to the ranking member for his opening remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you. I'm glad that we're finally holding this markup, which has been delayed since December. And I'm particularly pleased that Mr. Morelle's bill is on today's agenda as it will provide meaningful support to veteran caregivers and their families. That said, I will note that we have only one Democratic bill on today's mark of agenda, continuing this Congress's downward trend away from bipartisanship and this committee's long-standing tradition of advancing both Democratic and Republican bills. And I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that good ideas are not partisan. And I know you know that, but it's not being reflected in the bills we're advancing from this committee. So before we begin, I want to address H.R. 6047. Now I'm very glad and I'm happy that the chairman has decided to act on increasing special monthly compensation, or SMC, for severely disabled service-connected veterans and dependency and indemnity compensation, or DIC, for surviving family members. Both very worthy, worthy policies. However, I am disappointed that Mr. Barrett and Chairman Bost have reduced the DIC increases for the third time in their latest draft. We should be working toward full equality between DIC recipients and the rest of the federal workforce, which would mean an increase of about $430 a month. What is before us today is a measly, measly $24 increase. It's something, but not nearly enough. What I cannot support is using money out of veterans' pockets as the only solution to pay for these increases. As introduced, Mr. Barrett's bill would impose tens of thousands of dollars in new fees on disabled veterans seeking to use the VA home loan benefit they've already earned through their service. After strong pushback from VSOs and Democrats at the legislative hearing, the chairman's January proposal shifted to increasing VA home loan fees by thousands of dollars on active duty service members and non-disabled veterans. We're talking people who are on aircraft carriers off the coast of Iran being asked to foot the bill. I object to that as well. And yet today, the chairman has a new proposal before us that shifts again, raising the fee by several thousand dollars on active duty service members and veterans trying to refinance their home loans to stave off foreclosure. From the beginning, the only path majority has been willing to consider for paying for this bill is reaching into veterans' pockets. The category of veterans paying has shifted, but the constant remains: veterans foot the bill. Active duty service members foot the bill. These benefits are earned. They are promises made by the entire country to those who served. The entire country should pay for them, not the veterans themselves, not our service members that are on the front lines. Claiming that we have to pay for the increases from within this committee's jurisdiction is using congressional process as an excuse. But that doesn't make sense to the veterans at home who feel you picking their pockets. They don't care about PAYGO, CUTGO, or the supposed rules of Washington. They care about your priorities. And they see right through your excuses. Your excuses not to honestly pay for this bill and much-deserving benefit increases. We have seen tax cuts for large corporations and millionaires and billionaires move through this Congress with all of your votes, without hesitation. You moved that through the Congress. So why are we now going to take from one group of veterans to pay for another? Why are you taking money away from our active duty who are on the front lines right now? This is not a question of whether we can pay for these increases without harming veterans or harming our active duty service members. It is a question of political will and doing the right thing. Committee Democrats are offering alternatives to fund these benefits today. If any one of our amendments is adopted, we will gladly support moving H.R. 6047 forward, even while continuing to press for more meaningful DIC increase. But we will not support the bill as written. We will not tax veterans trying to stay in their homes during an affordability crisis because the chairman refuses to pursue a different funding path. Our choices define our priorities. And today, we will see what the majority chooses to do. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the ranking member for yielding back and I should note that the quorum is present. I now ask unanimous consent to consider en bloc H.R. 785 and H.R. 3726. Is there any objection to considering either of these bills in en bloc? Hearing no objection, so ordered. The clerk shall report the bills.

En bloc amendment in the nature...

The bills were circulated in advance pursuant to the committee rules and I ask that the reading of the bills be dispensed with and without objection, so ordered. Both of these bills has amendments has an amendment in the nature of a substitute which is which I ask unanimous consent to consider as base text. Without objection, so ordered. Does any member wish to speak on any of the bills included in the en bloc? The question now occurs on agreeing to both of the amendments in the nature of a substitute included in the en bloc. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed no. In opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute are agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. I now recognize Ranking Member Takano for a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the bills considered en bloc with amendments H.R. 785 as amended and H.R. 3726 as amended be reported favorably to the House of Representatives.

There is a motion to favorably report the bill as amended included in the en bloc and the House of Representatives. All those in favor say or say aye. All opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the bill as amended are favorably reported to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to Rule 11, Clause 2, I give notice of intent to file minority supplemental additional or dissenting views on the amended bills H.R. 785 as amended and H.R. 3726 as amended.

Without objection. I now call up H.R. 3482, the Veterans Community Care Scheduling Improvement Act. The clerk shall report the bill.

H.R. 3482.

The bill was circulated in advance pursuant to committee rules. Without objection, the first reading of the is dispensed with and the bill is open to amendments at any point. I now recognize Representative Budzinski for the purposes of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall report the the amendment.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3482.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment on the nature of a substitute be dispensed with and I ask it that it be considered as a base text for the purpose of this markup and without objection, so ordered. I now recognize Representative Budzinski for five minutes to speak in the support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Chairman Bost, and thank you to Chairman Barrett for working with me on this ANS. This next text, this new text takes steps to ensure that if we're going to authorize a program at the Department of Veterans Affairs, that it represents meaningful improvement for veterans and VA employees. I truly appreciate our collaboration. Ensuring that veterans have timely access to healthcare is a primary focus of this committee. Since the 2014 Phoenix waitlist scandal, it has become apparent that getting an appointment scheduled either at the VA or community care continues to be a major hurdle for veterans. I'm not convinced that VA has made much progress. I'm still I still hear from veterans about how long it takes to schedule an appointment almost daily. My ANS builds on the on the groundwork Chairman Barrett laid with his external provider scheduling bill to assess the challenges in VA's scheduling process processes. It takes critical steps toward an integrated scheduling solution, a one-stop shop for veterans to get their appointments in the quickest time possible. Through this program, schedulers can view in real time the availability of both VA and community providers. This ability will ensure that veterans can make make fully informed decisions about their healthcare. My amendment also expands data collaboration collection to help VA and Congress get a better understanding of gaps in veterans' access to care both in community care and VA direct care, as well as by location and category of care. Additionally, it requires the department to establish guidelines and benchmarks for how the system will be used. Measurements that I feel should have been a part of the program from the very beginning. It also requires that that employees are trained to those guidelines to ensure that every veteran gets the same access. Finally, this ANS requires that VA submit a plan within 90 days to integrate scheduling for VA-provided healthcare into the electronic system, including a timeline, cost estimates, and necessary policy changes. We owe it to veterans to simplify the appointment scheduling process. And this amendment seeks to do just that. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Barrett for working with me on this. And I urge my colleagues to support my amendment in the nature of a substitute and I yield back. Thank you.

The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize myself in support of the amendment. Representative Budzinski's amendment would include new measures that hold the VA accountable for achieving real results to deliver better healthcare. It makes community care work better for veterans. Passing this bill would let veterans across the entire country schedule many of their community care appointments in minutes instead of waiting days on end. This this advanced external provider schedule partnership between my Marion VA and Deaconess Illinois health systems was just rolled out in Illinois. And I look forward to the good work Representative Barrett's bill will do to take this tool nationwide for millions of veterans. And I thank Representative Budzinski and Chairman Barrett for working to get so hard to get this vitally important bill across the finish line. And I'm proud to support this truly bipartisan amendment. Does any other member wish to have comment? Ranking member, you're recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I support Representative Budzinski's amendment in the nature of a substitute. I appreciate her work and that of Representative Barrett to improve this bill. I do urge my colleagues to support it and I and I thank you and I yield back.

Are there any other amendments to the amendment any other person seeking recognition?

I do have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chair, but I can wait to...

Are there any other amendments? Okay. I now recognize Representative Barrett to clerk. Do you hold on? Do it. Okay. I now recognize Representative Barrett to offer the amendment to nature and the amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 3482. The clerk shall report the amendment.

Barrett amendment number one.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment is dispensed with. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my amendment in the nature of a substitute, my amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute would provide an offset to my bill H.R. 3482, the Veterans Community Care Scheduling Improvement Act. I'm proud to have worked closely with Ranking Member Budzinski on this bill. Thank you very much and appreciate her and her team's working with me to find a bipartisan pathway forward to this necessary legislation. You heard from her her about the vital reasons why this is so important and I'm excited to have her join as a co-sponsor of the bill when we advance this out of committee today. This amendment will provide an offset to make the bill cost neutral and fiscally responsible, while Representative Budzinski's amendment will include important measures to hold the VA accountable. Veterans Community Care Scheduling Improvement Act is intended to solve a basic but serious problem: that veterans are waiting too long to get care that they need in the community care program because the VA hasn't had an efficient way to book those appointments. I actually went through this personally going through community care scheduling and had a very roundabout, circuitous path to get that done and there are far more simple ways to do that. This bill makes needed improvements to VA's scheduling process by requiring VA to include real-time appointment availability of community care providers nationwide. This bill will allow VA staff to book appointments quicker than ever before for veterans at VA facilities and medical facilities in the community, which will result in cutting down the frustrating wait times that veterans face while seeking care. Too often VA appointments are scheduled too far out, too far away, or don't provide the specialized care that veterans need. Improving community care scheduling helps ensure veterans can get timely, appropriate care without the unnecessary delays or red tape. This bill will also require VA schedulers to inform veterans of all of their appointment opportunities, putting a stop to a bias against community care. The VA's mission is to take care of our nation's veterans through any means necessary and this bill will help them fulfill that mission. Veterans are tired of the delays and confusion that come with scheduling care outside the VA. It's time we created a single, easy-to-use scheduling interface so veterans can get care more quickly with less hassle. Finally, this bill includes a provision that requires VA to assess the impact of expanding the use of this technology to all scheduling within the VA. I'm delighted to see the VA make real progress on integrating scheduling, but as I have seen in the Digital GI Bill and the EHRM programs, too often Congress is kept in the dark as to the true cost of implementation and sustainment of technology and modernization programs. I do not intend for integrated scheduling to be another one of these programs with these types of concerns. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3482 as amended and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. I recognize myself to speak on the amendment. I would like to thank the my colleague from Michigan for his amendment which fully offsets the legislation. Does any other member wish to comment on the amendment? Seeing none, the question now occurs on agreeing to the Barrett amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3482. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3482 as amended? Hearing none, the question occurs on agreeing to the amendment in the nature of a substitute on H.R. 3482 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the nature of the substitute the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended is agreed to. The motion is to reconsider is laid upon the table. I now recognize Ranking Member Takano for a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move that H.R. 3482 as amended be reported favorably to the House.

The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 3482 as amended to the full House. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 3482 as amended is reported favorably to the House.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Rule 11, Clause 2, I give notice of intent to file minority supplemental additional or dissenting views on H.R. 34 as amended. 3482 as amended.

Without objection. I already said that. I said yeah, the motion to reconsider laid on table if I did not say that. All right. I now call up H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefit Expansion Act of 2026. The clerk shall report the bill.

H.R. 6047.

The bill was circulated in advance and pursuant to committee rules. Without objection, the first reading of the is dispensed with and the bill is open for amendment in at any point. I recognize myself for the purposes of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk shall report the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment with nature of the substitute is dispensed with. I ask that it be considered base text for the purposes of the markup and without objection, so ordered. I now recognize myself for five minutes to speak in support of the amendment in the nature of the substitute. In December, this committee heard from Ms. Sharri Briley about her experiences raising her daughter after her husband's death in Somalia during Operation Gothic Serpent. We also heard from Sergeant Eric Edmundson's father, Ed Edmundson, about the seen and unseen challenges of handling Eric's everyday care. What we heard that day from members across the aisle was a desire to ensure that hundreds of thousands of families like the Briley's and the Edmundson's have what they need to face the challenges resulting from their loved one's service. Over 500,000 survivors receive DIC, VA's largest surviving benefit. Just over 7,000 severely disabled veterans receive some form of SMC, short for special monthly compensation, at a rate of R1, R2, or T. My ANS would deliver on the promise our nation has made to this forgotten group of disabled veterans with the strong backing of their veteran and surviving surviving community to signify this significantly increase their benefits. Rather than the original pay-for, my new ANS would deliver this increase in benefits by extending the small fees that veterans pay to be included in the VA home loan program. This committee has used these fees for many years to pay for important legislation. Additionally, this ANS would adjust the fees that non-disabled veterans who have built equity in their home and choose to refinance. This increase equates to about $9 more a month on average on the refinancing. This is still a better deal for the homeowner than refinancing with VHA or a conventional loan. This ANS would also allow a new borrower to assume over an existing VA home loan. This ANS does not, I repeat does not, require disabled veterans to pay additional fees while using the VA home loan. Let me repeat that again: my ANS would not change current law that provides a waiver of the VA home loan fee for disabled veterans. I still believe that the other offset was reasonable, but understanding the concerns by the ranking member and a few VSOs, so I am already coming in the direction of what the ranking member requested at the legislative hearing on this bill. To accommodate this new pay-for, my ANS would alter the DIC increase to 1 percent of the first year and .5 percent of the second year and increase the annual rate of the SMC R1, R2, and T by $10,000. These increases would be the first in decades to either benefit and are vitally important to our severely disabled veterans and the survivor community. I would have preferred to kept the proposed increase for the DIC to 5 percent, but when the offsets are taken off the table, we have little choice but to try to work something out. I see the the increase in DIC as only a down payment and I would like to see further increases made in the future legislation when more offsets come available. It is my understanding that we have several surviving spouses in the room with us today and I want to thank you for being here. The following VSOs have voiced their support for this bill: Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the USA, the American Legion, Disabled Veterans of America, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, Vietnam Veterans of America, the Elizabeth Dole Foundation, Wounded Warrior Project, AMVETS, Gold Star Spouses of America, Gold Star Wives of America, Fleet Reserve Association, Marine Corps League, Military Officers Association of America, Armed Forces Retiree Association, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Commissioned Officers Association of the USPHS, Blinded Veterans Association, Quality of Life Foundation, and the Independence Fund. These organizations represent over 4.9 million veterans and their families. So if we are not going to listen to those who have served in in the veteran and survivor community, then who are we going to listen to? At our December legislative hearing, Mr. Ed Edmundson asked us to put politics aside and get this done. I hope this ANS demonstrates the House Republicans' commitment to deliver for thousands of great Americans like Eric and Sharri, who have served and sacrificed and would never ask for more, but deserve to know that the our nation has got their back. I thank Representative Tom Barrett for introducing this bill and championing the fight for folks like Sharri and Eric. Do any other members wish to comment on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6047?

Mr. Chairman. Ranking member. Mr. Chairman, you know, I'm not surprised that you've been able to line up some VSO statements saying they support the bill moving forward. We're talking about organizations that represent men and women who once volunteered to give their entire lives to this country. And of course they're willing to shoulder more of it if it means helping their fellow veterans. That is who they are. But their willingness to sacrifice again does not absolve Congress of its responsibility. The fact that veterans may be willing to pick up the tab for one another does not mean that this Congress should ask them to. After everything they've gone after everything they have given. It is shameful that the only funding path the majority has offered is the one that requires veterans and service members to pay for their own benefits. I I just don't understand that. That's a that's an outrageous thing to contemplate. The generosity of veterans is not a justification for congressional abdication. Veterans will always step up. They always have. And the question is today whether Congress will. This should be easy, Mr. Chairman. If SMC benefits for catastrophically injured veterans and DIC pensions for a veteran's surviving families aren't worth spending taxpayer dollars on, what is? And if we polled the American people, I'm sure they'd be willing to pay for this. So I ask, why are we here in Congress contemplating tripling the fee on our service members and veterans when they try to get a lower monthly payment on their mortgage by refinancing? Why does what does what does it mean for the average veteran, I want to ask you? Well, they'll be paying nearly $4,000 in additional fees and over $4,500 in interest on those fees when they refinance their loans. There's probably a service member floating on an aircraft carrier in the Middle East right now or deployed to the Caribbean or working in the Indo-Pacific who is trying to lower their mortgage rate. Why would we triple the fee that they have to pay? I don't know any veteran or any American who needs an extra $8.5 thousand tacked on top of their home loan right now. And I don't think anybody in this room thinks that this is a good way to pay for the bill. I understand your argument to be that there is no other way to do this. But I'm going to tell you, that is ob- that is objectively not true. As I have said, Congress has done it in the past for other major veterans legislation, including some of our most landmark achievements like the original GI Bill, the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and the PACT Act. House Republicans were happy to spend $3 trillion in taxpayer money without cutting programs to fund tax cuts for big businesses and billionaires in the big ugly bill last year. But now y'all want to pretend that they that you care about fiscal responsibility. Mr. Chairman, you can't find enough money to pay for $24 a month in benefits for surviving spouses and family members, so we need to nickel and dime our veterans? You're telling us that veterans need to cough up $3 billion because Republicans can't find that money elsewhere in the government? I I don't understand. That's a that's an outrageous that's an outrageous thing to contemplate. I have talked to Minority Leader Jeffries, the Ways and Means Committee ranking member, and the Appropriations Committee ranking member. They're all on board to help us solve this problem. Mr. Chairman, I want to just ask you right now, have you asked Speaker Johnson to help us with this?

We have spoken with the leader and we actually are staying within the rules of the House.

So you're you're not going to find some other way to pay for this is what I hear you saying. So you're not willing to find another way to pay for it. So you want to tax veterans is what I hear. The only solution the only solution the only solution is to tax veterans and service members. Okay, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, there are other ways to pay for this and you know it. We're going to give several examples in our amendments, but if we don't want to have veterans pay for this bill or service members pay for this bill, we have to go outside this committee and that requires the desire and political will to do so. And again, if the majority takes... ...any of our ideas and amendments, we will support this bill. But I have been clear for months that I will not raise taxes or fees on veterans or service members and take money out of their pockets. I'd like to draw attention to this letter from the Mortgage Bankers Association and enter it into the record. It was provided to every member.

Without objection.

Thank you very much. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition? Mr. Self.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, this is not offered by the majority. This is the law of the land and it's the way we have to have a pay-for. I want to make sure that none of my comments mean that we need to go deeper into debt. We're $38 trillion in debt today. A lot of the examples that the ranking member gave were monstrously expensive and drove the debt down. Committees do it. This is a noble program. There is no doubt about it. This is a noble program. But I would like to address the general pattern that we use that actually the ranking member has been talking about. Plain terms, this offset forces veterans to pay or refinance their home to pay for other veterans' programs. It takes one earned benefit and uses it as a funding mechanism for another. We are effectively telling one group of veterans they will be responsible for paying for the benefits of another group. It's not how the veterans' benefits were designed. It's not the promise this made. But I guarantee you that 330 million people do not understand that veterans only pay for veterans' mandatory spending today. Our country does not understand that. When we have a noble program, which this is, people don't understand that veterans are paying for veterans' benefits. We are normalizing the idea as we go down this path, and I think we ought to find another way to do it without driving our debt further down. But as long as we normalize the idea that veterans must continually pay for their own care, we are eroding the value of the benefits themselves. If we're serious about honoring our obligation to veterans, then we also need to take seriously how we pay for every new benefit. It's time to draw a line, I believe. We must find, we must commit to finding better, more responsible offsets. I was in the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee yesterday working on this, and it will take hard work, Mr. Chairman. There is no doubt about it. It will take hard work. We talk a lot about fraud, waste, and abuse today. I think that should be the first stop. But increasing taxes or cutting vital programs are not viable options. If we can find less noble programs to that have run their course or are no longer viable, then we should do that for a more noble program. And this is about the most noble program we're going to find in the VA Committee. Once again, I want to say we cannot continue to drive our debt down. I am not for simply adding debt to our national debt crisis that we have today. But on the other hand, any means necessary is not the right way to go, Mr. Chairman. I recommend that over time we continue to work on this because I think this is vital that our country realize what we're doing to veterans' benefits, eroding their value. With that, I yield back.

Any other members seek recognition? Representative Van Orden.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just have to say that my colleague, Mr. Self, is a bit too modest. Just so you know who you just heard from, he is a retired Army Special Forces Colonel with decades of service to this country. And so when he is speaking, he is speaking from a position of knowledge, experience, and authority. So I would encourage you guys to really listen. How many people in this committee consider it a privilege to raise fees for veterans for anything? Anybody? There's one. I'll read the quote. "As Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, it was my privilege to write and lead the passage of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019 and see it signed into law by Republican President Trump. Last Congress, I led the effort to finally pass the Blue Water Navy Veterans Act." That was a quote from the now ranking member, former chairman of this committee, Mr. Takano, which raised fees for a very similar program. So we need to be honest with each other. We need to understand the difference between policy and politics. And I'm an enlisted guy, so I don't have the big fancy poster boards and stuff, but here's what's really taking place. If a veteran chooses to refinance their home, they're going to pay an additional $9 a month. Okay? If they want to extend the VA home loan fee, it's $8 a month. If they're going to assume a loan, $5 a month. So for a caramel macchiato or whatever you Gen Z people drink now, I don't know what it is. So one cup of coffee a month is what we're talking about. That's the practical application. For FHA loans, it's $13 a month. So the veteran, which I am, and I've used this program repeatedly, it's still a better deal for a veteran to refinance their home than it is for a civilian. And I absolutely concur with my colleague, Mr. Self, we have to find a way, but we can't do it in this compressed timeline where the 360 million folks or whatever it is out there, they need to understand the burdens that veterans bear. The other thing that is really disconcerting to me personally, and it should be to everybody here that actually cares about the United States of America and has compassion as a human being, because of this political squabbling and because of political posturing and because of putting politics over policy and people, we are unable to provide more money to our Gold Star spouses. Okay? So a Gold Star family, it's not a mortgage like we're discussing here. It's not a 30-year commitment. It's a lifetime commitment that we owe as American citizens because their husband or wife is never going to come back. And Morgan and I have more time at funerals, crying with kids whose father's never going to come home. You know, and hanging out with them. It's terrible. And because of this political posturing, which is absolutely unbelievably crystal clear because the ranking member was proud of raising these fees previously, we can't give them more support. And that is shameful. You know who else we can't give more support to? The veterans that are grievously injured, that need 24-hour care because they can't take care of themselves. They've lost limbs, they've lost the ability to reproduce, they can't see, they can't think, they can't mentate. We can't give them more support because of politics. And the time for that is over. I know every single member of this committee on that side and this side cares deeply, deeply about our veterans. Mr. Pappas and I, we don't run a bipartisan committee. We run a nonpartisan subcommittee. And I'm very thankful, Chris, for your help. So I just encourage you all to really put aside this stuff. Think about our Gold Star spouses. Think about the veteran that right now is intubated sitting in a bed and they're fighting doctor, they're fighting bedsores, decubitus ulcers because they can't move. And for, I am willing to pay $9 a month or $8 a month or $5 a month. And those are real numbers. These are the real numbers. Not any of this other stuff. And I think it's abhorrent that we have fallen into this mire of politics. So Mr. Chairman, everyone on this committee, I encourage you very strongly to vote for this. And with that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Are there any other people? Congressman McGarvey.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by echoing the comments by my colleague, Colonel Self. This is a noble program. And let's begin with recognizing the families whose names are on this bill. The service, the sacrifice of Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson and their families. We honor them by getting this right. And I think let's talk about where we are right now. We're increasing the special monthly compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation, DIC. This is long overdue. There's no disagreement here. This is long overdue. Survivors of federal employees, they receive 55 percent of their loved one's pension. Survivors of veterans receive 43 percent. That disparity has been baked into our law since 1993. So we talk about compressed timelines. I'm not pointing any fingers in this committee at anybody. This has been the way it's been since 1993. It is wrong. And it has shortchanged veteran families for more than three decades. Fixing that gap is not generosity. It is fairness. It is justice. It is respect for the men and women who put on this uniform willing to sacrifice everything to keep us safe and free. But I think in this very moment, we are squandering an opportunity. We are squandering the opportunity to get this right because let's be honest, this bill doesn't go far enough. And if we talk to most people individually on this committee, I think there's agreement on that point. This is a one and a half percent increase over the cost of living adjustments spread over two years. It's not enough. It doesn't even come close to closing the gap that we talked about from 43 percent to 55 percent. It doesn't even stop the gap from growing. So every year we don't act, we don't get this right, the disparity grows in spite of what we are doing here today. If we don't do this right, we're going to be back here. Not five years from now, not 10 years from now, next year, with more families talking about how difficult it is for them to make ends meet. Now what I can't get my head around too is what we're talking about in the offsets. My colleague Mr. Van Orden said he's more than happy to pay more for this particular program. Thank you. But that's not the point. The point is that we shouldn't be causing our veterans, our veterans who when they put on that uniform we make them a promise. We make them a promise that if they serve us, we will be there for them. This is not generosity. This is a legal obligation and a moral obligation.

Will the gentleman yield?

Not right now. I'm on a roll, Derrick. [Laughter.] And that promise we make to them is that they earn these benefits. And they shouldn't have to choose between getting one earned benefit for a group of veterans and them having to give it to another for their sacrifice as well. They shouldn't have to subsidize each other's care. We can fix this. I know we can. I know we can work together because I've had conversations with several of you offline about our agreement on this very subject. And we can do this without asking disabled veterans to pay the benefits they were promised, earned, and deserve to someone else. We can do it in a way that honors the service and the sacrifice of the families like the ones whose names are on this bill. But we have to choose to do it. We have to choose to do it on this committee because we know we can. We have to choose to act with urgency, not half measures. We have to choose to stop from kicking this can down the road even further. Our survivors, our veterans, the families that they've left behind. This is recognizing them with more than a check. This is recognizing them with the respect that they deserve and they have earned. And they deserve more than incrementalism from this committee. They deserve parity. They deserve fairness. And they deserve for us to get this right. I know we can do it. I know we can do it quickly. And we just haven't gotten there in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Any other members seek recognition? I'll get Representative Barrett first.

I was just going to yield my time to Mr. Van Orden.

Okay. Thank you, Tom. I think we're getting to the spot where we need to be. We're violently agreeing. I would just like to remove the violence part. To correct the record, this does not apply to disabled veterans. And I would just note that every single contentious provision that was brought up by my Democrat colleagues has been removed. And the veteran service organizations that formerly did not concur with this now do because they have. So Morgan, where I would disagree with you about incrementalism, we've been here the same amount of time, right? Like three years. Yeah, we all came in together. Keith too. When we hear what I've learned in three years in Congress is that you've got to take every single win that you can get. You have to take every win that you can get. And what this body does normally is we just sit and talk and talk and talk. It's Groundhog Day constantly. And I believe, Morgan, that this is a solid win for our veterans and that we should take it. And then we should take what Mr. Self was saying, what Keith was saying about reforming the entire system because it is not just. This is a noble program. The program that Mr. Takano was privileged to introduce, the Blue Water Navy thing, that's a noble program. It recognized the fact that sailors on ships off the coast of Vietnam were exposed to Agent Orange and it allowed them to get treatment for these horrible diseases that were a consequence of their service. So I actually applaud Mr. Takano for doing this. But I also have to point out the fact that it is disingenuous to say that one thing is right and then another thing that's equivalent is wrong for political purposes. So here's what I would like to do, and if you're receptive, I'd like to get with you and Mr. Self and whoever else in this subcommittee, Chris, I'm sure you'd like to join us, and really get down and do the nuts and bolts enlisted block and tackling of solving this problem for the long term. And then, you know, let's get this done here. Let's take the win today for the veterans and then let's work tomorrow for our children that are in the service now. And if we take the long-term view as opposed to, you know, just the five-meter target, that's all we do in Congress, you know, putting out fires. Why don't we clear the underbrush in the forest so it doesn't catch on fire anymore? And I believe that's what you're trying to work towards. I know that's exactly what Keith is trying to work towards. And I'm 100 percent willing to do that with you guys and anyone else. I'll spend an infinite amount of time to make sure that our Gold Star spouses get exactly what they need. And that veteran that is, you know, horribly, horribly injured that did that for our freedom has the ability to get all the care that they need, including the respite care for their families. I mean, it's terribly trying to take care of somebody who is completely dependent on other people for medical purposes. So I'm right now, I'm committing publicly to you, Mr. McGarvey, and to Mr. Self to work this problem set to solve the solution for the next generation. Without, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Pappas. Mr. Self, thank you. Thank you for your service. And I know we can work together to find a solution. I believe we can. And Mr. Van Orden, I want you to know that Blue Water Navy was a bipartisan negotiated bill. I negotiated it with the Republican ranking member Phil Roe. The increase on fees was temporary. It was not permanent like we're talking about today. And I believe that's part of what's got people concerned is this normalization of all of this. The VSOs then said never again will we ever do even a temporary increase and that we needed to do, we needed a better way to do this. And that's what I think we need to do today, not take the temporary win. We need to do the hard work of finding the better way. But Mr. Van Orden, I just want to point out that your numbers don't include, your numbers that come out to $9 a month, they don't include the interest or capitalization of about what is the average of a $9,000 average of a refinance, which comes out to more like $25 a month. And you prove my point about you yourself being a veteran, putting service above self and being very willing to pay that extra. But I'm saying we shouldn't be asking you, we shouldn't be asking the veterans. And of course, the VSOs, many of them are going to say, yeah, we support this. But that doesn't make it right. That doesn't absolve us as members of Congress to do the right thing, which is we shouldn't be asking one group of disabled veterans or one group of service members to be paying for the benefits of another. We need to honor the contract that we all made with our service members. We're going to have your back. We will pay for your benefits because of who you are. Thank you and I yield back my time back to Mr. Pappas.

Thank you. Any others? Mr. Luttrell.

I yield to Mr. Van Orden.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to correct the record. This is not a permanent increase either. So the Blue Water Navy was not permanent. This is not permanent either. So they are reflective of each other. So essentially what I said earlier is accurate. Clearly, this is being done for political purposes, not for policy purposes. And on a final note, I don't know a single veteran, this is how we approach life. We will take care of our own first. And we do know that if we don't take care of ourselves, no one's going to take care of us. And we're not begging for anything. Every one of my veterans, disabled and not, has earned everything. We're not begging. And we're not going to go around, you know, shuffling nickels. So that's not what this is about. We are not children. We have served our country willingly. Many of us have sacrificed more time than you can ever know. Our friends have been killed. And we're not beggars. We are adults. We understand that we will take care of our own. And the assistance that we get from the Veterans' Affairs Committee is awesome. And I love the VA, but it needs improvement. And we're working constantly to make it better. We are Americans. We are American-cans, not American-can'ts. And so this type of program is a solid win for our veterans. And I want everybody here to take this today and then we work for a better future for the next generation of veterans. And with that, I yield back.

Anybody else seeking recognition? Then we'll move on. Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 6047?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6047 at the desk.

I now recognize Representative Dr. Morrison to offer the amendment number six in the amendment of a substitute. The clerk will report the amendment.

Morrison amendment number...

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and without objection, so ordered. The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is simple. It eliminates this legislation's proposed offsets and instead redirects $5 billion from ICE's budget to pay for the bill. As I shared during the legislative hearing in December, I agree with most of my colleagues on this committee that we need to increase special monthly compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation benefits. We owe it to our veterans and their families who have given so much to our country. However, I oppose the pay-for in this legislation which would increase certain fees associated with VA home loans. I cannot for the life of me understand why my Republican colleagues insist on using this offset when just months ago every single one of them voted for their cruelly named One Big Beautiful Bill. Which will blow up the deficit by $4 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest and fund ICE's lawless operations across the country. That's why I'm proposing this amendment, which will direct just $5 billion from the exorbitant $75 billion Republicans gave to ICE in reconciliation. ICE is using this funding to terrorize our neighbors and sow chaos in our streets. And I must remind my colleagues that these resources are being used to fund the reckless operation in Minnesota that got Renee Good and Alex Preddy killed by federal agents. If we can afford to fund Donald Trump and Kristi Noem's campaign of lawlessness and terror in Minnesota, then surely we can find the money to increase these benefits for our veterans and their families. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentlewoman yields back. I recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The amendment to the ANS proposes that we take $5 billion away from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to fund this bill. I'm disappointed to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use this opportunity to not help disabled veterans and surviving spouses to try to score political points by trying to defund federal agencies. This amendment to the ANS proposes that we use discretionary funds that are not within the jurisdiction of this committee to pay for this bill. This is unrealistic, ridiculous, likely not in our jurisdiction, and would prevent this good bill from moving forward today. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. This bill would also use appropriated funds which we cannot use to pay for the mandatory expansion of benefits. Veterans' benefits should not be used to play politics. But that's exactly what the Democrats are trying to do with this amendment. For me, I'm here to pass this landmark legislation to help severely disabled veterans and surviving spouses who have not had a benefit increase in 30 years. This amendment to the ANS takes us away from the work we are sent here to do for these families. They deserve better. For this reason, I strongly oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. And is there any other members seeking recognition on the amendment?

Chairman Bost?

Yes.

I seek recognition to speak on the amendment. Thank you. Representative Morrison's amendment would claw back $5 billion from ICE's slush fund and use those funds to provide our veterans with increased compensation benefits. Let me repeat that: increased compensation benefits. Her amendment acknowledges that at a time when our communities, including our veterans, are facing a crushing crisis of affordability, we must take our resources, those that fund war and violations of civil rights and human dignity, and redirect them towards every single thing that the American people need, especially our veterans, so that they can thrive. Our constituents are demanding that we get our priorities straight. Every single member of Congress that is saying that it is unacceptable that DHS keeps terrorizing our communities has to call for more than just training that was already put in according to them, or the bare minimum policy guardrails. Yes, I'll tell you, as I've said in other committees, Noem has to resign. There has to be oversight. The mask must come off. But Americans are past reform of a department that has used taxpayer dollars to execute people who serve our veterans in broad daylight. We have to be clear that we must cut and claw back DHS funding, and that is exactly what Representative Morrison's amendment would do. Contrast to the administration, who would still expand DHS budget and ICE capacity to enact a mass deportation agenda. Let me talk to you a little bit about how this is hurting our veterans, because this is the Veteran Affairs Committee. In January 2026, a U.S. Army combat veteran was detained for eight hours by ICE in Minnesota. Similarly in July 2025, Army veteran George Retz was arrested in California during a raid. He was held for three days without being able to contact his own family. And friends, he was subjected to physical force, including being pepper sprayed and held in solitary confinement. A veteran. On January 23rd, ICE agents raided Ocean Seafood Depot in Newark, New Jersey, and they detained the facility's warehouse manager. A U.S. military veteran who was born in Puerto Rico, who had been working there for a number of years. The business co-owner told the reporters that the ICE agents only appeared to be targeting Hispanic-looking people. And Newark Mayor Ras Baraka said after the raid that the warehouse manager had suffered the indignity of having his legitimacy of his military documentation questioned. Friends, these examples are just proof that reform is not enough. An agency established to violate their rights under the pretense of ensuring security cannot be reformed. So those of us who are clear that our tax dollars must not be used to terrorize our communities and violate our rights, including our veterans, deport our own veterans, we should use every opportunity to be able to ensure that they have what they need and not at the expense of them. It's why Congresswoman Morrison's amendment to me in this committee is so important and why I encourage every one of my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment to give our veterans more resources, to not make it at the expense of them, and to really say what we often say in this place: that we stand up for every single veteran, not just some. Thank you and I yield back.

Gentlewoman yields back. Anyone else seeking recognition? Mr. Chairman.

Representative Van Orden. Thank you. I appear to have wandered into the wrong committee room. I thought this was the Veterans' Affairs Committee room, not the Homeland Security Committee room. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Exactly what I'm talking about. We're trying to help severely disabled veterans and our Gold Star spouses. It has absolutely nothing to do with Homeland Security or ICE. And so I don't fall into the perpetually offended people, but we're kind of getting to that point right now by dragging in these issues that are very serious. They are. I mean, we've spent decades defending American citizens and to see American citizens killed, it's a tragedy across the board.

Would the gentleman yield?

No, I will not. And so the issue is for a different group of people who are subject matter experts to focus on and work that problem set. It's my understanding that this committee's responsibility is to take care of our veterans. And so by bringing in issues that have truly nothing to do with the subject today, I think is paying a great disservice to our veterans. And we need to just stop doing this. We need to focus on the task ahead. ...today with this to get this done and then as I was discussing with Mr. McGarvey, do the long-term solution. But when we use this microphone for a platform to discuss issues that have again nothing to do with the subject matter at hand, it is being disingenuous and we are playing politics as opposed to working on policy. And this committee of all committees in Congress should not do that. That's for Oversight and Judiciary and let those guys jump in front of the cameras all day long. That's not why we came here. That's not why I volunteered to be on this committee. It's not why we volunteered to be chairmen of subcommittees. So I would encourage my colleagues to really focus on what we're trying to do here and that's help our veterans. With that, I yield back.

Ranking member.

So you know, one way we can solve this problem as Mrs. Self recommended is we definitely stand behind the idea that SMC and DIC are noble programs, noble purposes. And we have to look for maybe less noble programs of the country to cut and much less question the level to which we've funded them. Now look, we may not agree among us about what those less noble programs might be. But those of us on this side of the aisle, many of us think that ICE is way overfunded and I'll get more into that comment. But it is not disingenuous to suggest that we take a look at other parts of other jurisdictions to see what else, how else can we find the $6 or $7 billion that it would take to fund this particular proposal. So Mr. Chairman, it's no secret that many that I and others on my side of the aisle have a strong and deep-seated problem with the work of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement department and what it is doing around the country right now. And we should all be shocked and dismayed that we have a masked armed federal force roaming the country, abducting our friends and neighbors and families without due process, in some cases even killing them as was the case with VA employee Alex Breedy. And it should be even more shocking that this Congress has provided ICE with $30 billion, a $30 billion slush fund with which to continue terrorizing our communities. $30 billion of deficit spending at that, deficit spending. All the while nickeling and diming our veterans and survivors and claiming poverty when it's time to provide them with the care and benefits they need and deserve. So Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Dr. Morrison's very simple amendment. What this amendment would do is take $5 billion out of the $30 billion slush fund, hardly defunding the agency, hardly. There's $25 billion left in that slush fund, money that ICE won't even need to touch for years and redirect it to a more fitting need, that of our veterans, caregivers, and survivors. A very noble project indeed. And Mr. Chairman, if spending is a statement of priorities, then I proudly say that my priority is to spend on those most deserving of assistance, catastrophically injured veterans, caregivers, and survivors in this case. And I reject spending on the masked armed thugs who are destroying lives around this country and I urge my colleagues to do the same. And I yield time to my colleague from Illinois, Ms. Ramirez.

Thank you. Thank you, Ranker. Look, I have had an opportunity to work with you the last three years. And as you probably have heard me say a number of times, I ran a homeless shelter for nine years of which I had the honor and the privilege to be able to shelter and help a number of veterans. I do want to say to you that I find it to be some dissonance when we talk about the politics and we talk about bringing politics into this conversation when I just talked about three veterans. Three veterans that fought for this country with so much love and have been targeted. And the fact that the other side of the aisle is unwilling to have real conversation about veterans who are being impacted every single day by that agency, that agency that has more money than it could ever spend, feels like a disrespect to these veterans. Feels like we are not really honoring this idea that we care deeply about all of them. And I also want to acknowledge because we've been in this committee now for three years and two months together, that last Congress we talked about border in this committee more in some cases than we actually talked about veterans. So I just don't want us to have a short memory of the things that have happened in the past Congresses when you're accusing us to be political about talking about deported veterans or veterans who've been targeted here. Lastly, I also want to say I was just looking at a recent poll here. And folks, I don't think this is a surprise. In the last poll from February 6 through the 9th of Americans across the country, across ideology, 70 percent of them said, I need Congress to spend more money on veterans. Only 14 percent of them said, I want you to spend more money on ICE. So when we're having this conversation of clawing back $5 billion and putting it directly to veterans, it's not a political conversation. It's actually what the American people, not just veterans, but the American people want and expect from us here. Whether they're an Army combat veteran who was detained or if it was someone who is a manager at a warehouse in Newark, New Jersey. But the point is, let's spend more on our veterans. They deserve it. It is our responsibility. And stop gaslighting each other in this moment because I really do believe, and I think you said this at some point today, that we all here are committed to our veterans. This is an opportunity to show it. Gentleman's time has expired.

Does any other wish to make comments on the amendment? Mr. Luttrell.

I yield to Mr. Van Orden.

Thank you, Mr. Luttrell and Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure having you on our subcommittee. It is. And I know exactly where your heart is. And I do and I appreciate it tremendously. I would ask you this, do you know if any of the three veterans that you mentioned are applying to refinance their VA home loan?

Would the gentleman yield?

I yield.

I have not had the opportunity to have that conversation with them at this precise moment. I've heard that at least two of them are still dealing with the PTSD of what has just happened to them recently.

Okay. Well, thank you, ma'am. The point being, if the three veterans that you mentioned are not applying to refinance their VA home loan, then it's not germane to this conversation. And we need to get back on target. Ma'am, so this hearing is about this particular bill, H.R. 6047. And so what we need to do is focus, take care of this issue, and then a parallel track, ma'am, of what you're discussing should be done and you should bring this up, you should wave onto Homeland Security. Mr. Luttrell is on Homeland Security. You are, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that. And then I would say that that would be the appropriate venue for what you're talking about. And I don't want to see our veterans detained. I don't want to see American citizens being killed. I don't. You know, and I put the boots on for almost 30 years. You know, I have a proven track record of this. I would just ask that we really focus on the subject matter today, which is trying to make sure that we can take care of our grievously injured veterans to the highest capacity, which we can't because of this political stuff, and our Gold Star spouses. I yield.

Thank you. My remarks are germane to the amendment that has been presented to us under Congresswoman Morrison. And while I gave you three highlights of three veterans, when we're talking about $5 billion, we're talking about many hundreds of veterans that are not here today, that are watching, who would be able to have more funding available because we would take that money to make it possible for them to be able to get these loans so they can actually have that American dream of that home. So I just want to make sure that I clarify that. And lastly, folks, these conversations, look, I counted at some point the number of times that we talked about border in this committee because I was really confused by it because the border in Texas is a little further from the general conversation of VA. But look, let me just wrap up. I don't want to go back and forth. This is germane to this amendment. And I think it's really important because I've been very proud, Chairman Bost and Ranking Member Takano, to tell people that of all the committees, I serve in Homeland Security, but of all the committees, this is the committee that we do the most bipartisan work. I think we can do that and acknowledge that there are a number of veterans who are asking us to do more for them. And I think this is an opportunity through the Congresswoman's amendment to be able to demonstrate that we are taking money that is causing terror of veterans and putting it so that we can actually have more resources for what you want to do. With that, I yield back to you.

Thank you, ma'am. Again, the subject of this, the time we're spending together here is H.R. 6047. And I would encourage everybody to focus on that and make sure that we can do the best we can for our veterans without politicizing these matters, which I think we again we've devolved into, which is exceedingly unfortunate. With that, I yield back.

Representative Self. I'd like to read this amendment for everybody because we've had a very interesting conversation here, but it has nothing to do with the VA committee. This is the Appropriations Committee. Section 3, reduction in appropriations for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The unobligated balance of the amount appropriated in section 100052 of Public Law 119-21 is reduced by $5 billion. Mr. Chairman, I submit that I'm not even sure why this is an amendment in the VA committee. It reads as an Appropriations Committee. I don't understand why it is even on our agenda today. And I yield back. Let me say, well, first off, does anybody else seek recognition? Then let me go back to, if I can, to my original statement. This bill uses appropriated funds which we cannot pay for because it's mandatory expense benefits. Regardless of whether we want to play politics and talk about issues that happen to be hot for the day, what I need you to understand is what we're dealing with here, whether you like it or not, we have rules of this House and that is the rules of what the appropriators can do and what we can do and these two can't mix. And the only reason this amendment was being carried is for political purposes and making political statements. And with that, Ranking Member, do you want to comment? I thought you did.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Self, for pointing that out. But this is just a great example of how we could proceed. We don't have to designate the pay-fors that we are designating here. We could pass this out of committee without a designated pay-for with an agreement that we find a solution such as this. Now we may not agree that we take $5 to $6 billion out of the Homeland Security or the ICE budget, but it is something that we get, it's an example of what we could work with appropriators on to find the pay-for. We can find, I just had a discussion with Debbie Wasserman Schultz last night and she said we can find $6 to $7 billion, that we could find it. So we're not, I'm just pointing out we do have rules of the House and we don't, and I'm not suggesting we go outside those rules, but there are ways that we can work around and you know and I, we can do that together like I did with Ranking Member Roe.

We tried to do that. We offered your committee that and then you gave us some offsets that didn't work, matter of fact, actually cost more. But we still have the rules that the offsets must be found in a way. Now going forward with this bill is one thing, but right now we have people that we've made commitments to that need this right now. They don't want to have us argue back and forth. This actually follows the rules of the House that we can move this bill, we can go through all these amendments and we can discuss them and everything like that because that's the rules that we have here and we're going to do that. But let me explain to you this, this will get the bill to the floor with the offsets that we have as fast, we've put these people off for decades, for decades. So we're going to move on. We'll move on. Thank you. Okay. Does any other member wish to have an, does any other member wish to comment on the amendment? Seeing none. The question occurs on the agreement of the Morrison amendment number six, amended to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.

A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rules. This vote will be postponed and without objection the motion, nope, that's, I got ahead there. Okay. [Laughter.] Okay. I now recognize Representative Conaway to offer an amendment number seven to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Can I interrupt for just a second if the member will suspend? They are calling votes right now. We are not going to adjourn the committee because it's one and done. So if members would not all run at once but come, go vote and come back so we can continue with the debate here if you're not in the middle of the debate, if that's all right with the committee and we have leave to do that. Is everybody okay? We're good. We're good. Okay. The gentleman will continue.

Thank you, Chairman Bost. As I have...

Clerk, I'm sorry, the clerk shall report the amendment.

Conaway amendment number seven, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment is dispensed with and without objection so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes now.

Again, thank you, Chairman Bost. As we've listened to the debate on the bill this morning within this committee, it's clear that all members believe that we should be increasing the special monthly compensation and increasing the dependency and indemnity compensation, SMC and DIC. But there is a, and there is I think a lot of agreement that increasing fees on other veterans to pay for this benefit is at least, and I'll put it mildly, problematic. And it's my sense on this committee that most people think that we can find a better way to meet our commitments as a nation without and to the many veterans who deserve the compensation that they are receiving and should receive and that those compensations ought to be increased, that we can find perhaps a better way in order to do that. At a time when veterans and service members are already struggling with home affordability and rising prices across the board, it is disconcerting, to put it mildly, that we're discussing raising fees on veterans with respect to their housing. My amendment would make funding fee rate increases only apply to service members that join either active or reserve components after the date of enactment of the bill. Let me be more clear. It would only apply to service members that have joined the service or the reserves after the date of enactment of this bill. Many men and women who put on the uniform to serve this country were promised a certain benefit when they signed up to serve. We must honor that promise and not go back on our word as a nation. We simply should not change the terms and conditions of the benefits that service members were promised. For this reason, I'm offering this amendment to honor our commitment as a nation to our many veterans who, by grandfathering any service member to whom the promise has been made. I hope all my colleagues can join me in supporting this amendment. While it doesn't go as far as many of us would like, I do think it at least allows us to keep our promise as a nation to those who have served. I thank you and I yield back.

Thank the gentleman for yielding back. I recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate that Dr. Conaway has recognized that our proposed offset is not unreasonable. This is because his amendment includes identical offsets for IRRLs, home loan extensions and assumptions to the pay-for in my ANS. However, unfortunately, the offset won't work because we have heard from CBO that this amendment would not generate enough savings to pay for these benefits expansions. It would be preliminary 10 to 15 percent short. This amendment to the ANS would make veterans pay the increase on IRRLs, extending the home loan fund fees and increasing the assumption. The only difference is the fees would only apply to service members who joined after an enactment of Sharri Briley and the Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefit Extension Expansion Act. This amendment would require significant changes to VA home loan program, create an entirely new population that VA would have to apply different rates to. They would need to change their IT systems, rules, and regulations. This ANS has not been socialized with the mortgage industry to see how they would be able to implement these changes. If we adopt this amendment, we would essentially kill the bill as it can't move off the floor. And I don't want to wait to pay for these benefits to those who need and I ask my colleagues since they seem to appreciate this offset that they have used in their own amendment to consider my ANS. Let's get this done and stop playing politics again on behalf of and with half measures. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote no with me on this amendment. Does any other members seek recognition? Ranking member.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. Conaway for offering this common sense amendment. I strongly support it and urge its adoption. As a veteran, Dr. Conaway knows as do other veterans on this committee that when you swear an oath upon joining the military, you are signing a contract. That contract is both literal and metaphorical and outlines your duties, rights, and responsibilities. But it also explicitly and implicitly outlines the benefits that come with that service. For example, we say often on this committee and I, we all firmly believe it, that when service members swear an oath, we promise to take care of them when their service is over. So Mr. Chairman, it's imperative that we on behalf of a grateful American public uphold our end of the bargain and not change midstream the contract service members agreed to when joining. Dr. Conaway's amendment prevents just that. It would simply state that the increased home loan rates contemplated by the bill would only apply to those who joined the service on or after the date of enactment of the bill. It is a simple fairness matter of fairness for those who are already in the service or who have already served. We cannot in good conscience break the contract we have made with service members and veterans, so I support this amendment and urge its adoption and I yield back.

Thank the gentleman for yielding back. Does anybody else seek recognition? The question, seeing none, the question is now on agreeing to Conaway amendment, the amendment in the nature of substitute. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed no. No. If in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

Ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rules. Vote is postponed. Ladies and gentlemen, the trying to go individual is not working, so we're going to have to go ahead and we're going to have a 10-minute recess. Everybody go vote and please get back here as fast as you can so that we can move on with the amount of bills we have to deal with. [Gavel sounds.] [Gavel sounds.] Committee will come to order. I now recognize the representative Representative Dexter to offer an amendment number 12 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk shall report the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.

The clerk shall report the amendment.

Dexter amendment 12.

I ask unanimous consent that all further reading of the amendment is dispensed with and without objection so ordered. The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is unacceptable that dependency and indemnity compensation and special monthly compensation for the families of our service members and veterans have fallen behind the economic realities they face every day. We've been discussing that extensively this morning. Surviving spouses and families are navigating rising costs, raising children, paying mortgages, and rebuilding their lives after unimaginable loss. These benefits must reflect that reality. They cannot be pushed off to another Congress. We have the responsibility and we have the ability to act now. When this body has wanted to fund its priorities, it has found the resources. That same urgency should apply here. We can provide surviving veteran families the increase they have long been owed, and we can do it without taking a dollar from other veterans or service members. My amendment makes clear that supporting military families is a priority, and it is a cost that is borne by those who have benefited most from recent tax policy. In H.R. 1, Congress raised the estate tax exemption from $5 million to $15 million, delivering a massive tax break to the wealthiest families in this country. My amendment takes a modest step by adjusting that threshold to $14.5 million for the next six years. We generate approximately $5 billion, fully offsetting the increase in dependency and indemnity compensation. This is a straightforward choice about values. Our budget reflects who we stand with. We can continue shielding multimillion-dollar wealth transfers from taxation, or we can ensure surviving military families receive the compensation they have earned through sacrifice. Fallen service members gave everything for this country. Their families live with that sacrifice every day. Asking the wealthiest among us to contribute slightly more so that these families are cared for is reasonable, responsible, and aligned with our values. I recognize that identifying offsets outside of this committee jurisdiction requires work. That work is worthwhile when it means delivering long-overdue relief to military families. There are many ways to responsibly fund these increases. This amendment provides one clear path forward, and it demonstrates that this Congress can meet its obligations with integrity. Surviving members deserve action. They deserve fairness. And they deserve a Congress willing to prioritize them, as we all, I think, agree. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.

Gentlewoman yields back. I recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The amendment to the ANS would insert a new section that would amend the tax code, lowering the estimated tax credit by $500,000. The estimated tax credit is outside the jurisdiction of this committee. I would like to begin by stating that I appreciate that the minority recognizes our bills must be offset. However, I proudly vote for one big beautiful bill which secured these tax exemptions for families. In the same way, we want to help survivors and our most injured veterans. It would not be right to make it harder for Americans to do their end-of-life planning. This proposal would get into another committee's jurisdiction, which will stall and endanger the passage of this bill. We have identified an offset within our jurisdiction, and I am confident it will allow us to deliver for these families now. For these reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment. And I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. Does any other member seek recognition? Ranking member.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I strongly associate myself with the words of Dr. Dexter in support of her amendment. I appreciate her offering it and urge its adoption. Furthermore, this her amendment would direct just a fraction of that wealth to pay for benefits for the catastrophically injured veterans, their caregivers, and survivors that we are discussing today. No one on this committee or in this Congress can say with a straight face that there is a material difference in someone inheriting $14.5 million in property tax-free and $15 million in property tax-free. The change contemplated in this amendment would not appreciably affect the quality of life of a single individual. But using that money instead to achieve the benefits increase in H.R. 6047 most definitely will, and in a very positive way. So I strongly support the amendment offered by Dr. Dexter and urge my colleagues to do the same. Let's not hide behind procedure and jurisdiction to do what we know is the right thing. And let us instead demonstrate to the American people that this committee's priorities are not misplaced and that they lie with the nation's veterans and survivors. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Anyone else seeking recognition? [Silence.] Seeing none, the question now occurs on agreeing to the Dexter number 12 amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

Recorded vote is requested. A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rules. This vote will be postponed. I now recognize Ranking Member Takano to offer amendment number 13 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall report the amendment.

Takano amendment 13.

I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and without objection so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, several months ago when we gathered for a legislative hearing on this bill, there was unanimous agreement that catastrophically injured veterans, caregivers, and survivors need and deserve the benefits increases in this bill. I said then and I will say it again now that this bill needs to move and move immediately so that we get more money in the hands of those who need it. I meant it then and I meant it now. But Mr. Chairman, what I have also said then is that helping one group of veterans, and in this case survivors as well, cannot come at the expense of another group of veterans. I meant that too. Unfortunately, this majority seems intent on doing just that. This bill began by raising costs on disabled veterans and continues with a tax on struggling homeowners, service members, and veterans who are simply trying to keep their home from foreclosure. And that is unconscionable and unacceptable to me. That's why I've offered this amendment today to do what we should have done from the beginning and move this bill through committee without an offset. Mr. Chairman, there's absolutely nothing in the rules of this committee, and I repeat, nothing in the rules of this committee, and there's absolutely nothing in the rules of the House that requires this bill to be offset right now at this phase in the process. For example, we presumably will be adopting an amendment from Mr. Barrett today that expands access to home loan guarantees for Guard and Reserves that isn't fully offset. Now my staff was told by yours that we'll simply fix how we're paying for the bill before we move it to the floor. So I know it can be done. It's being done in Mr. Barrett's amendment's case. The majority is simply choosing not to do so for the base bill. And for no other reason than apparently the chairman is unwilling to ask the speaker to help severely disabled veterans and surviving spouses. Mr. Chairman, I've asked you before if you've gone to the speaker to ask for a waiver from PAYGO for this bill. And I'm not going to get into a back and forth. I know that time is ticking off today and people are wanting to get out of town. But I'm going to tell you that I've spoken to my side of the aisle. I've spoken to Leader Jeffries. I've spoken to Ranking Member DeLauro, Ranking Member Neal, and Ranking Member Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And we all agree that the cost of this bill should be borne by the American people at large, not vulnerable veteran homeowners. All four sides of us agree that there are numerous other places outside of the veterans' benefits that we can find funding for this. But we must have the political will to do so. The majority had the political will to use deficit spending for millionaires and billionaires for private planes, to support an armed police state, for firearm silencers, and for God's sake, all these other things. But apparently not for veterans. What a revealing statement of the majority's values. Show me your budget and I'll show you your values. Mr. Chairman, join me in supporting this amendment. You and I can walk down right now to the speaker's office together and find a better bipartisan path for this bill. We'll have the support of the entire Democratic caucus in doing so. And I suspect we'll also have the support of a majority of your caucus as well. We just have to have the courage to do it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. I recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The amendment in the nature of substitute strikes not only the home loan offset but additional modifications of fees, which means the my Democrat colleagues would rather put this bill on a credit card than pay for it. We have also heard arguments suggesting that using the home loan funding fee as an offset is unnecessary and inappropriate. That argument ignores the basic reality of legislating. Finding a way to pay for expanding benefits is not an option. It is a requirement. When Congress extends benefits, we have an obligation to account for the cost. The committee has long understood that fiscal responsibility is not separated from caring for our veterans and their survivors. It is part of that responsibility. The House has repeatedly relied on adjustments to the VA home loan funding fee to pay for veterans' benefits expansion. Members on both sides of the aisle have voted for that approach many times. As chairman, I don't just pay lip service to the veterans and survivors we serve. I get things done for them. Using this responsible proposed offset helps us do exactly that. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the amendment and I encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Does any other member seek recognition? [Silence.] Seeing none, the question now occurs on agreeing to the Takano amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute. Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and it is not agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

Recorded vote is requested. According to a record vote has been requested pursuant to committee rules. The vote will be postponed. I now recognize Representative Dexter for amendment number 14 to amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall report the amendment.

Dexter amendment 14.

I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendment in the nature of the amendment be dispensed with without objection so ordered. The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's no question that this committee must come together to raise dependency and indemnity compensation and special monthly compensation. Our veterans and their families have carried the weight of service and sacrifice for this nation. They deserve benefits that reflect that sacrifice and allow them to not just survive, but live with dignity. In my district and in this committee room, I continue to hear the same message. We are not doing enough. Disabled veterans, caregivers, and surviving families are struggling to keep up with rising costs. Many are making impossible choices just to get by. That is entirely unacceptable. I strongly support meaningful increases to these benefits, and I am committed to working with my colleagues to identify a responsible and sustainable way to fund them. The VA home loan program represents a promise. It is a commitment that when the veteran returns home, this country will ensure they have access to safe, stable, and affordable places to call home. My amendment strikes the proposed fee increases on the interest rate reduction refinance loan, the IRRRL or Earl, and on loan assumptions as offsets in this proposal. When a veteran seeks to refinance their mortgage through the Earl program, it is often because they need economic relief. Increasing that fee raises housing costs at the very moment they are trying to lower them. For veterans already at risk of foreclosure, that added burden can be devastating. Similarly, increasing the fee on loan assumptions makes it harder for service members and veterans to relocate when duty calls or when life circumstances change. It limits flexibility and traps families in financial situations that may no longer serve them. For veterans who have already signed their home loans, changing the rules midstream undermines trust. It shifts the terms after the promise has been made. That is not how we should treat the men and women who have served this country. When veterans answered the call to serve, this nation made a promise in return. The VA home loan program is part of that promise. It provides stability, security, and a foundation for economic opportunity. We have a moral obligation to honor their service. We also have a practical obligation to ensure that in our effort to increase benefits, we do not create new financial strain that pushes veterans farther behind. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to find a better path to fund these urgently needed increases. One that strengthens support for veterans without undermining the programs they rely on. I urge support for this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.

Gentlewoman yields back. I recognize myself in opposition to the amendment, this amendment to the ANS, which would strike all the offsets in the bill except for the offset to extend home loan fund fees. I appreciate that the minority trying to include a pay-for for this bill, but unfortunately, this proposal pay-for does not cover the cost necessary to provide these critical benefits increases to survivors and severely disabled veterans. In 2019, Congress enacted the Blue Water Navy Veterans Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019, extending the presumption of the Agent Orange exposure for veterans who served in the offshore waters of Vietnam. I proudly supported this bill. As did Ranking Member Takano. In that bill, we increased the fees to deliver benefits to deserving groups of veterans. The exact same thing we're trying to do today. On November 11, 2022, the ranking member stated, and it's been said here before, as chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, it was my privilege to write and lead the passage of the Blue Water Veterans Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019 and see it signed into law by Republican President Trump. As the author of this landmark bill, I would expect the ranking member to remember the pay-for decision that had been had to be made at the time. To get that bill to President Trump's desk, it relied in part on adjustments to the VA home loan funding fee to cover the cost. This was a major VA benefit expansion. It was debated. It was scored. It was paid for. And it was a bipartisan because it was going to accomplish a good thing for veterans and their families. That is how responsible legislation works. The VA home loan program remains strong today because funding fee adjustments have been made deliberately and carefully. Millions of veterans continue to use the program to achieve the American dream of homeownership. Using the home loan fee as an offset is not extreme. It is not unprecedented. And it is not irresponsible. It reflects a recognition that expanding benefits requires making hard choices. Choices that ensure VA programs remain sustainable. This committee does not exist to pretend costs don't matter. We exist to deliver for the veterans in a way that is honest and durable. The Blue Water Navy was supported by all of the same VSOs that are supporting Mr. Barrett's bill today. The ranking member also shepherded it through the House of H.R. 7105 in the 116th Congress. This was a bill that increased the Earl rates for veterans. The exact offset was that we are proposing today. My question to the ranking member and my other Democrat colleagues is why are you trying to undercut advancing this bill that would help over 500,000 survivors and severely disabled veterans? We have listened to veterans to meet them where they are. We made significant changes to the bill by working with VSOs and the mortgage industry to find the pay-for and deliver. We needed to put good policy over politics and we need to do what's right for the families that we're trying to help here. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Does any other member wish to ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment from Representative Dexter and I urge its adoption. The majority frames the benefits increases in the underlying bill as addressing the affordability crisis. I'm glad you disagree with the president and feel that affordability is more than just a purported Democratic hoax. And I agree with the majority that in that more money in the hands of catastrophically injured veterans, their caregivers, and survivors, irrespective of how much, is a good thing and helps with affordability. But Mr. Chairman, if we are sincerely concerned about affordability, and I believe we all are, why on earth would we choose to help one side of the equation and then do harm to the other, as this bill does? It doesn't make dollars and it doesn't make sense either. This amendment does a very simple thing. It removes the portion of the bill that risks real harm to struggling homeowners. The interest rate reduction and refinancing loan is used by service members and veterans to help them stay in their homes when they are having trouble making ends meet. And the majority's bill proposes to raise finance rates on those loans. This amendment would correct that poor choice. In the last six months, the department has failed to implement a partial claims program to help struggling service members and veterans stay in their homes. As such, the Earl program is just the first and last lifeline for many trying to lower their monthly mortgage payment and avoid foreclosure. Why has the majority then chosen to make things more costly for these particular borrowers? Borrowers need to use the Earl program. Similarly, this program would also remove the portion of the bill that makes loan assumptions more costly. Mr. Chairman, the loan assumption process is used by active duty service members who know, who we know must often move as a function of their service. So raising rates on loan assumptions makes it more difficult and costly for those service members to sell their homes when they are forced to change duty stations. And again, in a bill that is about addressing the affordability crisis in America, we should not at all, we should not at the same time also be making these things more expensive for others. So Mr. Chairman, I actually have five additional amendments here that I could offer. Three would fully pay for the immediate full carrying for survivors' DIC increase of $430 a month. Two would cover the chairman's current bill's increase of $24 a month. But all of them would come from outside the committee. Now the first one would pay for the full Caring for Survivors Act, the full $430 a month DIC increase by delaying the bonus depreciation tax break given to businesses in the big beautiful bill for somewhere between 15 and 20 months. It would raise more than $40 billion. Easy. The bill, our bill, the bill, our bill, ...bill today would be fully paid for. The second would take $40 billion from the money set aside to plus up ICE detention facilities in the big beautiful bill to pay for the full DIC increase. ICE would still have $5 billion to pay for detention facility expansion in the near term. The $40 billion is money that isn't scheduled to be used for a couple of years and appropriators could come back and refill it before then if Congress thinks it's still needed. And what's more important, getting survivors these benefits now or more ICE prisons in 2028? Which is more important, getting survivors these benefits now or more ICE prisons in 2028 or 2032? Third, we could fund IRS enforcement actions which would raise over $40 billion in mandatory money that again would pay for the full $430 a month to pay for caring for survivors. Fourth, earlier we talked about slightly decreasing the bump in the estate tax exemption that we got in the big beautiful bill. If instead we delayed the increase from the big beautiful bill for three years but allowed continued adjustments for inflation in the meantime, we could pay for the majority of this current bill. The fifth option is to take $5 billion out of the COWTEF fund to pay for this immediate increase and then have appropriators backfill the money and repay the Toxic Exposure Fund. The other night I was speaking with Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz on the floor and she told me that appropriators could find the $5 billion for an important cause. Now, I don't know if any of this will change your mind but I can't look at what's happening in my district and across the country and say that service members, veterans, and their families should pay more. This is a genuine offer. If any of these five options will appeal to any of my Republican colleagues, I will work with you on them. I will give you the amendment and it can be your bill. But seeing as how, but Mr. Chairman, I'm running out of time. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is anyone else seeking recognition? The question is now occurs on the Dexter amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

I request a recorded vote.

A recorded vote is requested. A recorded vote has been requested and pursuant to committee rules, this vote will be postponed. Representative Barrett, amendment number one. All right. I now recognize Representative Barrett to offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute to H.R. 6447.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall report the amendment.

Barrett amendment number one.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment is dispensed with. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of this committee. We've all been here quite a long time this morning. My amendment would expand benefits for Guard and Reserve members by allowing them to use the VA home loan program earlier than they otherwise would qualify. Currently, they would have to either serve an active duty period of time or they would have to fulfill their initial six-year enlistment in order to qualify for the VA home loan program. This amendment is identical to my bill, H.R. 7009, the Home Affordability for Guard and Reserve Act, with one change that allows the Secretary of Defense to be made aware of individuals who are now eligible for this benefit expansion. My amendment would make every day spent in uniform count for earning this important housing benefit, as I said, allowing them to qualify far earlier than they otherwise would. By accessing this benefit earlier, they would pay an additional premium on top of the VA home loan funding fee because they are qualifying separately than the fully vested benefit that members otherwise would. This will allow over 1,000 Guard and Reserve members each year to use the VA home loan while generating additional revenue that we can use for the offset in this particular bill. It lowers the cost of homeownership for Guard and Reserve members by expanding access to the VA home loan, helping younger military families become first-time homeowners while encouraging them to plant roots and keep their skills in the communities that they serve. I personally served a number of decades in the Michigan National Guard and I know that these are generally speaking hometown local veterans or service members who serve and live in their communities and work full-time in other capacities outside the military. In addition, I also want to speak quickly on my bill that we are considering, H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veteran Expansion Act. I'm not going to fatigue and belabor the point but I will just say as Mr. McGarvey pointed out, we have not significantly or in any meaningful way expanded this benefit since 1993. And I would remind members of this committee that was in the very first year of President Bill Clinton's term of office. We have had Republican presidents, we've had Democrat presidents since then. We've had Republican majorities and Democrat majorities in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate since then. This problem has persisted continuously since that time. And as I pointed out on the day we brought up this bill for a committee hearing, the status quo continues to belabor and fatigue the point where inaction becomes the only other option. And I didn't come here to do inaction. I came here because I was dissatisfied with the status quo in our country and I wanted to contribute to changing that. I spent a great deal of time with Sharri Briley and Tamara Sipes when they came here to testify on this bill, in addition to the Edmundson family. And the night before we took testimony, I took Sharri and Tamara through our United States Capitol building and showed them really the wonderful history that we have in our United States Capitol that stands as a monument to our country and our republic. And I told them that I would commit to doing everything we could to get this done on their behalf but that this would not be the last and final step. This is a down payment on the benefits that they deserve and any uncomfortability anybody has on voting on this bill pales in comparison to the life sentence that these surviving spouses face every single day. I know we have some of them here today and I deeply appreciate their willingness to participate in this committee. I urge my colleagues to make this a bipartisan effort to get this done and to not let this be the final step in the process. I thank all of the committee members who have participated in this. I've had a number of conversations with Republican and Democrat colleagues to try and make this the best product that we can within the limits in which we have to operate. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.

Gentleman yields back. I now recognize myself to speak on the amendment. Representative Barrett's amendment would expand the VA home loan to a new population of veterans. House Republicans and the Trump administration are fighting hard to expand economic opportunities and end the disastrous economic policies left over from the Biden administration. It is time, it is more important than ever to promote the benefits of service that make homeownership a reality for millions of service members and veterans. The VA home loan is the benefit with the 0 percent PMI and lower interest rates. Representative Barrett's amendment would ensure homeownership is more attainable for our National Guard and Reserve who play an important role defending our nation. When we need our guardsmen, they step up and serve. This bill would allow guardsmen and Reserve with 14 days of active service to access VA home loan at rates 1 percent higher than active duty service members. This includes training, those 14 days include training. I support the common sense change and applaud Congressman Barrett for championing the effort to expand the economic opportunity. Does any other member seek recognition? Ranking Member.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Barrett's amendment and fully support providing parity in benefits between active duty and Reserve component benefits. Every day in uniform should count whether duty status, whatever duty status DOD has you in. However, what I don't like is creating a lower tier of benefits for National Guardsmen and reservists, especially when it is to charge them a higher fee and make money off of them to pay for other veterans' benefits. If the principle is parity, the same benefits for the same work, then everyone should be paying the same fee. Congress and this committee purposely went to one fee for everyone in 2019 when we passed the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act. I don't see why we would go away from what we did then. Luckily, this amendment inadvertently makes almost all National Guard and reservist service members eligible for the VA home loan at the current rates without an additional fee after they complete basic and individual skills training, which I fully support. In doing so though, this amendment creates a fiscal hole in the majority's bill. This bill will not be fully paid for based on the practices the majority has forced upon every other piece of legislation. They're making an exception for this one. But by supporting this amendment and continuing to move the legislation, the Chairman is admitting that this committee can move this bill without a completed pay-for. We can vote to send this bill forward without taking money out of veterans' pockets. It is a choice to include this tax increase on active duty troops and veterans trying to use their earned VA home loan benefit. This is what committee Democrats have been asking for since August. Instead, Mr. Barrett and the Chairman have insisted on and proposed different ways to put thousands of dollars or more fees on veterans in the midst of an affordability crisis. I will vote in support of the amendment, this amendment, and look forward to the Chairman equally applying to both Republican and Democrat legislation his newfound position that completed pay-fors are not required to send bills to the full House. And I will continue to oppose H.R. 6047 as long as it's taking money out of veterans' pockets and reducing their earned benefits. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Anyone else seeking recognition? Seeing none. The question now occurs on the Barrett amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute for H.R. 6047. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

I request a recorded vote.

A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to the committee rules. This vote will be postponed. Members are needed to make your way back because we've got one, because there are postponed votes pending, we will now move to consider the last bill and members need to make their way back for votes. I now call up H.R. 2148, the Veteran Caregiver Reeducation, Reemployment, and Retirement Act. The clerk shall report the bill.

H.R. 2148.

The text was circulated in advance and pursuant to committee rules, without objection, the first reading is dispensed with and the bill is now open for amendment at any point. I now recognize Ranking Member Takano to propose offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment to that.

The clerk shall report the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment in the nature of substitute be dispensed with. I ask that it be considered as base text and for the purpose of this markup. Without objection, so ordered. I now recognize Ranking Member Takano for five minutes to speak on support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very pleased to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute for H.R. 2148, the Veteran Caregiver Reeducation, Reemployment, and Retirement Act, led by my colleague Congressman Morelle. The sacrifices that family caregivers make for veterans, including their own earning potential and financial security, are immense. Often full-time caregivers are not able to be in the workforce while they are providing care to their veteran loved ones. After the veteran loved one dies and their caregiving duties are complete, these caregivers have lost out on years of workforce experience, earning potential, contributions to retirement accounts, and enrollment in employer-sponsored health insurance programs. We must support veteran caregivers after their loved ones have passed on by ensuring that they have the tools and resources they need to transition back into the workforce or other support systems. This legislation will provide VA and other agencies additional authorities to support veteran caregivers as they transition out of VA's program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers. Now, these supports include bereavement counseling, funds to renew professional certifications, employment assistance programs, and extending CHAMPVA health insurance. My amendment in the nature of substitute makes technical edits to address feedback from VA and other stakeholders and to match our bill to the version passed by the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee in late July 2025. Caregivers give so much for their loved ones and we must make sure that in return they have the resources they need to rejoin the workforce and support themselves after providing so much support for others. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 2148. And with that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. And I now recognize myself in support of the amendment. The Veterans Caregiver Reeducation, Reemployment, and Retirement Act by Representative Morelle would expand certain medical employment and transition benefits for individuals serving as family caregivers for eligible veterans. Family caregivers often pause or leave the workforce to provide full-time care. This can create challenges when that caregiver role ends. This bill would provide extended medical coverage, employment assistance, studies on workforce reentry, and retirement options for former caregivers. I thank Representative Morelle for his proposal and efforts to help our veteran caregivers. Do any other members wish to comment on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2148? Seeing none. Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of substitute to H.R. 2148? I now recognize Ranking Member.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of substitute at the desk for 2148.

The clerk shall report the amendment.

Takano amendment number one, amendment to the amendment in the nature...

I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'll thank you. I'll keep this very brief. This amendment to my ANS revises the pay-for language of this legislation to reflect CBO's new budget baseline projection, which came out yesterday. This is just a small technical edit and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I now recognize myself to speak on the amendment. I'd like to thank my colleague from California for this amendment which is fully offset in legislation. Does any other member wish to speak, comment on this amendment? Seeing none. The question now occurs on agreeing to the Takano amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute to H.R. 2148. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of the substitute for H.R. 2148? Hearing none. The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment in the nature of substitute to H.R. 2148. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment of the nature of substitute is agreed to. The motion to reconsider is laid on the table and now I recognize Ranking Member Takano for a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move that H.R. 2148 as amended be reported favorably to the House.

The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 2148 as amended to the full House. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. H.R. 2148 as amended is reported favorably to the House.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Rule 11 clause 2, I give notice of intent to file minority supplemental additional or dissenting views on 2148 as amended.

Without objection. There are a number of other committees meeting at this time. This is such an important vote that I want members' voices to be heard. In an effort to get all the committee members here to vote, I'm going to take a brief recess and the committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. Committee will be back in order. As soon as I get staff... Okay, we're because we're using our system here, we are going to do a test vote as soon as all members return from the hallway. All right, while we're waiting on one more member I know to return, let's set it up for the test vote, please. And your test vote is going to be on the following question. Have you bought your Valentine present for your significant other? Have you bought your Valentine present for your significant other? Oh, we're having trouble. That's why we do test votes. There, the clerk's back. Open the vote and vote. Mr. Barrett, is your button not working? Is it on? Point towards the clerk. Well, according to the vote, it looks like 13 of you need to get busy. 14 need to get busy. And is Bergman here? He's walking in right now. Okay. No. You did... Check your button to make sure it works first though. Okay. Well, they've been pressed this week. Number seven. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The Chairman will be voting nay.

Ranking Member Takano votes yes on the Morris amendment to transfer $5 billion from ICE to pay for the cost of increase in compensation for catastrophically disabled veterans and survivors.

Mr. Clerk, are you ready to proceed? There we go. Now we can, the voting is open. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change your vote? On this vote, the yeses are 11, the noes are 12. The amendment is not adopted. Okay, we're going on to... The question now occurs on agreeing to amendment number seven to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative Dr. Conaway to H.R. 6047. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The chair will be voting nay.

Ranking Member Takano votes aye on the Conaway amendment which will ensure that the increased home loan rates from this bill will only apply to those who joined the armed services after the date of enactment.

Clerk will open the vote. The voting is now open. Have all members voted? Does anyone wish to change their vote? On this vote, the yeses are 11, the noes are 12. The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment number 12 to the amendment in the nature of substitute offered by Representative Dexter to H.R. 6047. Members will record their vote using electronic voting system. The chair intends to vote nay.

Ranking Member Takano will vote aye on the Dexter amendment which will take some of the estate tax cuts for millionaires passed in one big beautiful bill to pay for disabled veteran and survivor benefits.

The voting is now open. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change your vote? On this vote, the yeses are 11, the noes are 12. The amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment number 13 to the amendment in the nature of substitute offered by Representative Takano to H.R. 6047. Members will record their vote using electronic system. The chair intends to vote nay.

Ranking Member Takano votes, will vote aye on his amendment to move this bill forward while working on finding a bipartisan pay-for and stripping the tax increase on troops and veterans.

Clerk will open the vote. Voting is now open. ...on agreeing to the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative Barrett to H.R. 6047. Members will record their vote by using electronic voting systems. The chair intends to vote aye.

Ranking Member Takano votes aye. I will vote aye on Mr. Barrett's amendment to expand VA home loan benefits to Guard and Reserve service members.

I'm going to ask if does any member wish to change their vote? Yes. Yes. On this vote, there are 23 ayes, zero noes. The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6047 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature...

Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

A recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The chair intends to vote aye.

The ranking member intends to vote no on the amendment in the nature of the substitute that will raise mortgage fees on American service members and veterans.

Has every person voted? Does anyone wish to change their vote? On this vote, there are 13 yes, 10 noes. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6047 as amended is agreed to. And without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. I now recognize General Bergman for a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee forward H.R. 6047 as amended favorably to the House of Representatives.

All those in favor say aye. All those opposed no.

No. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

A recorded vote has been requested. We will use the electronic... A recorded vote has been requested. The question occurs on a motion to favorably report H.R. 6047 as amended. Members will record their vote by using electronic voting system. The chair intends to vote yes.

Ranking Member Takano intends to vote no on forwarding this version of H.R. 6047 that steals benefits from one group of veterans to pay for another to the full House.

Have all voted who wish? Does anyone wish to change their vote? On this vote, there are 13 yes, 10 no. H.R. 6047 as amended is favorably reported and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Do you have a closing statement?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to House Rule 11, Clause 2, I give notice of intent to file minority supplemental, additional, or dissenting views on H.R. 6047 as amended.

Without objection. No closing?

No closing.

Okay. This concludes our markup. The committee has voted to report favorably five bills to the full House. I ask unanimous consent that the committee staff be authorized making technical, clerical, and conforming changes to the bill favorably reported today. Without objection. But before we wrap up, I know everybody's leaving, I think I need to put this in the record. Look, from today's markup, this leaves a kind of a dark stain on the good work of the committee that we were created to do. The people who voted no on this that we just reported out, the bill to increase VA benefits for severely disabled paralyzed veterans as well as survivors of service members who were killed in action. As a veteran, it is beyond pale to me that our ranking member has led many of his members in this bill of gotcha. I don't believe a hidden agenda on this bill should be used for politics. The point of this bill is to reaffirm a promise to hundreds of thousands of American families that their service was not in vain and this committee and America has got their back. As chairman, that's my priority. As a veteran, that's my priority. And as a veterans who are up here. This bill is crafted on behalf of over 20 organizations who represent 4.9 million veterans' voices, some of which of those people are voiceless. Who have said the time to get this bill done is now. Not next year, not five years, right now. That is my mission and Representative Barrett's mission and that's why it's a good bill. I hope the Democrat, my Democrat colleagues will take a moment to reflect why they serve on the VA committee and put politics aside and vote for a good bill with things that you have voted for before, the ones that have been here when you were in the majority, these same offsets. And to have this argument all day long is not good for the people we're trying to serve. Now, certain things were brought up and I believe that we can move forward, but we still got to follow the rules of this House. And many of these amendments did not follow the rules of this House. With that, I ask...

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to the suggestion that Democrats have not helped. From the very beginning, we have been clear and consistent. We support increasing special monthly compensation, we support increasing the dependency and indemnity compensation. We have said that publicly and we've said it to you privately. What we have also said from the very beginning is that we cannot support raising fees on other veterans. But you've done it before. And so when I hear you say that we haven't helped, what you are really saying is that we won't help you cut other veterans' benefits and impose new fees on service members and veteran homeowners. You've done it before. And in that respect, you are correct. We will not help you do that because we believe the American people, the country these men and women serve, should pay for these benefits, not the veterans themselves, not the service members. We've offered alternatives, we've suggested funding paths outside this committee, we have asked you to seek waivers, to look beyond jurisdictional lines, to use emergency spending if necessary. This is not obstruction. Very hypocritical. You are asking us to help you charge veterans more. We are saying no to that. It is not a failure to help you, it is a refusal to do harm. Veterans should not be the offset. I yield back.

Very hypocritical. Thank you. With that, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on any of the bills reported favorably today. Without objection, so ordered. I thank the members for their attendance today and being as late as we did. Thank you. Committee is adjourned. [Gavel sounds.]