▶ 0:05:44Injection. The chairs authorized to declare recess at any time. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider three measures. H.r. 1041. H.r. 647 and h.r. 1329. H.r. 1041. The veterans second amendment protection act would institute a sorely overdue correction within the appointment process of fiduciaries for veterans.
▶ 0:06:13When the va appoints fiduciaries to veterans to manage their benefits due to disability. The act of doing so can trigger automatic reporting to the national instant criminal background check system. This, in turn, would unnecessarily strip the veterans of their right to possess firearms without a court finding of any reasonable or present danger that they present.
▶ 0:06:40The brave men and women who have served our nation are afforded the same constitutional rights and due process as every other american. Sadly, the va process deprives them of that right. Again, this is an issue that must be corrected. H.r.
▶ 0:06:576047, the sheri briley and eric edmondson veterans benefits expansion act of 2026 would increase the monthly benefits rate for catastrophically service connected disabled veterans with a traumatic brain injury or other severe disabilities that require regular round the clock in-home medical care.
▶ 0:07:26Offering an additional $10,000 annually. It should be more. This legislation also expands the va home loan program eligibility requirements for national guard and reservists from 90 days of active duty service to 14 days of active duty service with a 1% fee.
▶ 0:07:52This would allow more members of the guard and reserve, generally younger members, to be able to live the american dream by owning their first home. Further, h.r. 6047 would transform the lives of over 500,000 veterans and their families, filling crucial gaps in the delivery of va benefits. That has not changed that. That has not changed in decades.
▶ 0:08:19And finally, we turn to hr 1329, the smithsonian american women's history museum act, that would designate land on the reserve of the national mall to establish the smithsonian american women's history museum. This museum was already funded back in the 116th congress on a bipartisan basis in both the house and the senate.
▶ 0:08:46And this legislation would allow the museum to be built alongside many other peer museums. The development of the smithsonian american women's history museum has been years in the making. By moving forward with this legislation and designating the land on the reserve of the national mall as the site for the museum to be constructed, we are one step closer to realizing the museum's completion.
▶ 0:09:15Women's history is one that needs to be told, and the smithsonian american women's history museum will do just that. Recognize women's contributions to various fields and throughout different periods of history that have influenced the direction of the united states. With that, I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. mcgovern, for any comments he wishes to make.
▶ 0:09:40>> well, thank you, madam chair, and let me begin by offering prayers to the families who lost loved ones in the shooting at the san diego islamic center yesterday. Our thoughts are with the mosque members and the larger community in the wake of this horrific tragedy. Madam chair, um, republicans are bringing forward bills before us today, and not one of them, not one, does a damn thing to lower costs for the american people.
▶ 0:10:06The first bill deals with the smithsonian american women's history museum. Let's be clear democrats have supported building this museum for years, and there's already a bipartisan bill to get it done. But of course, republicans had to turn it into a partizan mess, giving donald trump unchecked power over the site, stacking the process with political loyalists, and even finding a way to inject their favorite culture war topic trans people.
▶ 0:10:33Then we have a veterans bill that, believe it or not, makes it harder to prevent veteran suicide. Nearly 5000 veterans die by firearm suicide every single year. 5000 this bill dismantles a tool that the va has used for decades to help keep at risk veterans safe. We have another veterans bill that helps disabled veterans, but pays for it by taking the money from other veterans. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
▶ 0:11:01These guys always find plenty of money for a ballroom, for new wars, for new tax breaks, for billionaires. But when they want to, when they want a new benefit for veterans, they pay for it by taking the money away from other veterans. Unbelievable. And finally, my understanding was that we were supposed to be marking up the score act today. But here we are again with this majority pulling it at the last minute from our agenda. This is the second time that this has happened. Maybe that's because the bill is deeply flawed.
▶ 0:11:31This bill is backed by the nca and opposed by student athletes that it supposedly helps. That tells you everything you need to know. Uh, madam chair, I feel like I say this every single week and every week. Republicans prove my point. Your party's agenda is backwards. It's all screwed up. It's not based on what regular people care about.
▶ 0:11:53Americans are not sitting around their kitchen table talking about how to take from some veterans to give to other veterans, or whether we should give donald trump a new ballroom or more power over museum exhibits. They are asking us why the hell gas costs $4.50 a gallon. They're asking where the hell the republican bill is to lower costs. They're asking, where the hell is the legislation to make life more affordable, to bring down grocery and housing prices?
▶ 0:12:21They want to know why republicans won't pass a bill to end the tariffs and to stop this war that's making everything more expensive. We know trump's not focused on any of that. Um, and let's let's look at the priorities for this week. He sued his own irs and you can't make this up. He he sued his own irs.
▶ 0:12:41And then he settled with himself to create a $1.8 billion secret slush fund that he's going to use to pay off anyone he says has been unfairly targeted by government. And, you know, this is going.
▶ 0:12:59That means the january 6th rioters, you know, the people who viciously, viciously beat cops, uh, who sent them to the hospital, then got arrested and convicted for their violent crimes and then ended up in jail. Not only did trump pardon them, he's creating a taxpayer funded slush fund to pay off their legal debt. I mean, that's sick. It's obscene. But it's just the latest chapter of this corrupt, dishonest and morally bankrupt administration.
▶ 0:13:28Shameful disrespect for our country and for the law enforcement officers who protect us. It's disgusting. And let's not even get into how, you know, trump's stock trading, where he buys stock on a monday and then on tuesday, you know, boost up the name of the company that that he's invested in to try to make more money. You know, I've said many times in this committee on the house floor that this administration is the most corrupt administration in recent history. I want to amend that.
▶ 0:13:59I want to remove the word recent. This is the most corrupt administration in our history. And that's just a fact. Um, and history is watching whether or not we, the congress, are going to respond or do anything, or whether we're just going to roll over. And as far as and as far as I'm concerned, the majority's agenda this week is the exact opposite of what people in this country want. Well, people pay more at the pump. Donald trump is profiting off his presidency while families try to afford food.
▶ 0:14:29He's worried about the drapes and his taxpayer funded ballroom and shaking the white house upside down like his own personal piggy bank. And while patients are worried about health care bills, he's golfing at mar a lago and repainting the reflecting pool. Not a damn thing to lower grocery prices. Not a single damn bill to lower inflation. Not a solitary thing to bring down health care costs. Not one thing to make life easier for working people.
▶ 0:14:53But sadly, this is the awful backwards billionaires first agenda that we've come to expect from this radical far right republican government. It is time for a change, and I yield back. >> thank you very much, Mr. mcgovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel chairman and ranking member, takano, from the committee on veterans affairs.
▶ 0:15:21Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you to summarize your statement in five minutes. We ask that you include all legislation within your committee's jurisdiction in your five minutes. Chairman bost. I welcome your testimony. >> thank you, madam chairman. Ranking member, members of the rules committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I appear before you to support two bills h.r.
▶ 0:15:486047, the sheri briley and eric edmondson veterans benefit expansion act of eight and the h.r. 1041, the veterans second amendment protection act. I respectfully ask the committee to issue an appropriate rule for consideration of these bills.
▶ 0:16:05If you choose to make any amendments in order, I ask that they not undermine the purpose of the legislation or increase its cost, or distract from the veterans and families these bills are intended to serve. H.r. 6047 is led by my friend and fellow veteran representative tom barrett. Today I want to speak about the people this bill would benefit.
▶ 0:16:32Sergeant eric edmondson was just 25 years old when his vehicle struck an ied near the syrian border in 22,005. The blast ruptured his spleen, fractured his spine, destroyed his kneecaps, and his heart stopped beating for 30 minutes. Most people do not survive that. But by the grace of god, eric did.
▶ 0:17:00Without the ability to walk or speak, eric is still here today, fighting 20 years later. His wife and his parents became his caregivers, helping him to do what he loves hunting, painting, being a father, going to church on sundays, h.r. 647 would increase special monthly compensation for severely disabled veterans like eric.
▶ 0:17:29Roughly 7000 veterans qualify for these benefits, requiring around the clock help for their basic needs. This bill would provide an additional $10,000 annually to help those families with financial costs that come with the injuries. This bill would also be for surviving spouses like sherry.
▶ 0:17:51Brylee, jerry brown's husband, bo bradley, was killed in somalia during the battle of mogadishu in 1993. Many of you might understand that he was the pilot in black hawk down that was killed. Their daughter was just five years old when his. When her. Her father came home wrapped in an american flag.
▶ 0:18:17Sherry, a young widow, was left to raise a child alone via dependency and indemnity compensation. Rdic exist for over 500,000 survivors like sherry. This legislation would offer the first increase to dic in 30 years and adding 1.5% total over the next two years, on top of the annual inflationary increases.
▶ 0:18:46This bill would also expand va's home loan program to make guard and reservists with just 14 days of active duty service eligible at a 1% higher rate that they can that they can then access those home loans, they leave their civilian lives behind when called to serve and deserve access to the economic opportunity and stability that the va home loan provides.
▶ 0:19:16Ranking member takano and many of my democrat colleagues say that their issue with this bill is the offset or complain that the benefits in this bill should be more. This bill contains the committee's bipartisan harm offset, which has been voted on many times, extending current home loan fees.
▶ 0:19:37It also contains our bipartisan extension of current law, capping certain veterans needs based private pensions if they are in government funded, long term nursing care. It also contains a small increase to the home loan fund fee for those refinancing, which during the 116th congress, then chairman takano supported and voted in favor of a similar proposal at a lower amount.
▶ 0:20:05Most importantly, veterans serve organization veteran. Most importantly, veteran service organizations support these offsets. Madam chair, I ask unanimous consent that the joint letter from 19 veterans veterans service organizations is included in the record. >> without objection. >> in addition to this letter, the bill is supported by the veterans of foreign war and the american legion. This bill would be paid for and fully compliant with the house rules that require.
▶ 0:20:35We do not increase the national debt. If these groups support the bills, offset. Why are my colleagues opposed? We should listen to them and stop playing political games. I would also like to highlight the importance of h.r. 1041, the veterans second amendment protection act.
▶ 0:20:54Under va's fiduciary program, veterans can be assigned a fiduciary for many reasons injury, illness, age, or even due to the request of themselves. For decades, va automatically reported these assignment assigned to fiduciaries to the fbi's next list, prohibiting them from purchasing a firearm or even having a firearm.
▶ 0:21:19They reported them not because they committed a crime, were subject to a they're subject to or subject to a court ruling, or were deemed a danger to themselves or others. They were reported because they could not balance their checkbook. Secretary collins and the trump administration have changed that and removed previous reporting, reported names from the nics list. But h.r. 1041 would provide a lasting fix.
▶ 0:21:51Veterans constitutional rights should not depend on who runs the va. That is why I have long championed my bipartisan provision in my yearly va appropriations bill prohibiting va from reporting veterans with fiduciaries to the next list veterans struggling with injuries, post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injuries, or old age faced enormous barriers asking for help.
▶ 0:22:15Veterans should not have to choose between receiving support and preserving their constitutional freedoms. Madam chair, memorial day is approaching. Across this country. Families will visit cemeteries and join veterans parades. Surviving spouses will remember husbands and wives. They could not grow old with several disability. Disabled veterans will wake up to fight battles most americans never see. Veterans will exercise the freedoms that they fought to protect.
▶ 0:22:43These bills would be for those great americans. I want to thank you for your time and with that, I yield yield back and look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. Chairman, boss, ranking member. Takano, you're recognized. >> good afternoon, gentlemen, and ranking member mcgovern. As we approach memorial day and the 250th anniversary of our nation, we should be honoring the service and sacrifice of those who gave all to defend us.
▶ 0:23:14Instead, we are unfortunately dishonoring that service and sacrifice by ignoring the full cost of war. Even in the face of the president's actions in iran, where service members have lost their lives. Apparently this majority believes that the only way to do things for veterans is to make them pay for it first with their service, and now with their own benefits. This. The legislation before us today isn't aimed toward honoring veterans, nor is it about protecting them. H.r.
▶ 0:23:421041 does nothing to promote better mental health among service members and veterans. It, however, injects more risk of harm into the system. H.r. 6047 increases benefits for veterans and survivors, but only at the expense of deepening the trump administration's veteran foreclosure crisis. I cannot in good conscience support either of these bills. H.r.
▶ 0:24:081041 isn't about defending the constitution and the rights it bestows upon us, nor is it about preserving a veteran's right to due process. Rather, this bill is purely about the politics of guns. I know that chairman boss does too, that we must do everything we can to promote access to mental health services at va.
▶ 0:24:31The stigma surrounding mental health began during service and are complex and lead veterans lead to veterans not seeking help when they can and should seek help. They also contribute greatly to the scourge of veteran suicide.
▶ 0:24:47So it is even more bewildering that chair boss continues to champion a bill that will do nothing but put more firearms in the hands of the most vulnerable beneficiaries in va system, that fisheries in the fiduciary program are there because of severe illness or injury. It is not based on a math test, as the majority asserts.
▶ 0:25:11It is based on medical evidence documented by a clinician and corroborated by professionals. Professionals trained to interpret it. Chairman boss asserts that fear of losing rights serves as a disincentive for veterans to seek mental health care. But one chief contributor to that fear is the very debate we're having now.
▶ 0:25:32Republicans continue to perpetuate the false narrative that the department of veterans affairs is violating due process and stealing veterans guns because it plays well with their political base. This is a cynical and dangerous position. Now, regarding h.r. 647, the goal of increasing the goal of increasing special monthly compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation is noble.
▶ 0:26:01Veterans, their families, caregivers and survivors deserve every resource congress can provide and recognition of their sacrifice and service. And that is why I strongly support both the care, the caring for survivors act and the love lives on act and is also why I strongly support the major richard star act to finally end the wounded warrior tax.
▶ 0:26:24But we're not discussing those bills today because the majority wishes to feign concern for veterans while hiding behind debt and deficit to avoid doing anything, unless it's veterans themselves that are going to pay for it.
▶ 0:26:41Republicans and becca balint, sadly, have chosen to finance long overdue increases in s, m, c and dic by imposing thousands of dollars in new fees on service members and veterans seeking to use their earned va home loan benefit. This is simply a trade off I cannot support, and I hope we'll have greater discussion about this.
▶ 0:27:04If we are to honor veterans with any sincerity, we must move beyond this paradigm of forcing one group of veterans to pay for the benefits of another group. It is unconscionable that we're spending $30 billion so far on a war of choice, $1 billion on ballrooms and reflecting pools, a trillion or more on the department of defense, tax cuts for the wealthy, and whatever else this majority deems worthy. Uh, 1.7 billion for firearm silencers, for goodness sake.
▶ 0:27:33And yet, when it is time to honor our promise to service members, veterans, and their families, we suddenly hear cries of poverty. For too long, congress has ignored the true cost of war. And if budgets are a true statement, a statement of priorities, then the majority has shown that veterans are not their priority. Republicans and rep barrett are harming veterans who are desperately trying to avoid foreclosure and remain in their homes.
▶ 0:27:59The trump administration's actions have already led to an explosion of veteran foreclosures. On top of the rampant affordability crisis trump has caused, the administration chose to end the veterans affairs servicing program, which was one of the primary tools va used to help veterans avoid foreclosure.
▶ 0:28:16The majority's response to that is to heap thousands of dollars, thousands of dollars, not a little, small little fee of additional fees on top of skyrocketing housing costs to make it more expensive for veterans and financial distress. To access the interest rate reduction loan program known as earl, which is one of the which is one of the last available lifelines to help veterans stay in their homes.
▶ 0:28:43Now, I truly wish that we were meeting here today under better circumstances, but the choices republicans and representative barrett have made have left me only with one choice, which is to oppose these bills. I reject the cynicism that permeates this legislation, and I will stand for what is right, just, and fair for our veterans and their families in this nation. Thank you, and I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. takano. Um, Mr.
▶ 0:29:10Bost, um, I detected, congressman boss, I detected perhaps that you're don't exactly agree with Mr. tucanos, uh, characterization of the, uh, one of the pieces of legislation, or maybe all of them. Would you like to respond? >> yeah, I like to. I like to hide my, um, spatial expression, but I've never been good at that.
▶ 0:29:38Um, so I mark takano claims there is a memorandum from congressional research services that shows a study with the congressional research service says that that study is flawed for the loss of those veterans who commit suicide. Uh, additionally, this is really that that part of the bill is really about, um, whether or not our nation's veterans deserve the same rights as those people who haven't served.
▶ 0:30:08If you and all of those in this room that have not served, if all of a sudden someone makes a, the, the only way that you can have your second amendment right taken away is, is if that, um, someone says you're a danger to yourself or to others, and then that is handed off through a certain officer, someone who is a known reporter, and then that is taken before a judge. It isn't a bureaucrat that all of a sudden says, well, you can't balance your checkbook.
▶ 0:30:38So let's take away the rights that you fought for. So that's what it boils down to in a nutshell, on that particular bill. Now, when we talk about the other bill, um, you know, the, the eric edmunds bill, uh, and the, uh, the brady bill, the same cost.
▶ 0:30:56And I mentioned that in my opening, uh, we're off the same things that we're using today with the same offsets that the chairman that, that when the ranking member was chairman, he used.
▶ 0:31:12So these are the things that, that we are set with as, as a chairman and my staff work very hard to find the offsets necessary to move forward to provide for these veterans that really the va was built for them at first place. Those veterans that are disabled to the level of eric edmondson and the widows and orphans of our veterans who have lost their lives serving us.
▶ 0:31:42These are the offsets we can use, and that's why we're moving forward with this legislation and why I'm happy to carry it. So let's clear up with the politics. And let's also say this if there was a problem with these offsets, do you think there being 22 veterans service organizations that would have signed off and said, yes, this is what we want to do? I'm a veteran there. Veterans. The people are saying that we shouldn't do it this way. Aren't veterans.
▶ 0:32:12So with that, I'll yield back to you. >> um, thank you very much, chairman. Boss. Mr. mcgovern, you're recognized. >> yeah. Um, well, first of all, I, I was just reading the letter that chairman vos put into the record, and I if I heard you correctly, you said that there are 19 veterans organizations that support the offsets in this. >> and support the legislation. >> I'm reading this. No one says anything about the offsets. I it's hard for me to believe that any of these veterans organizations would increase.
▶ 0:32:41Would support raising the fees on veterans, but it says nothing about offsets. >> it does say they support for legislation. Correct? Okay. I did say offset because the legislation includes the offsets. We all know that. >> your bill would increase benefits for disabled veterans and survivors, which we all think is important, but it would pay for those benefits by raising fees for veterans who want to refinance their mortgages through the va. So am I correct that this bill would make will make it more expensive for veterans to refinance their home? Is that accurate?
▶ 0:33:12>> only, only. And this is why it needs to be corrected. The existing bill or charges with a home loan, which is one of the best home loans anyone can have, is not increased. And our initial home loan, it only when they refinance and they choose to refinance, it will be then increased by $8 per month.
▶ 0:33:35And also with that is the the inclusion of the of our veterans who are national guard and reserve. >> but the question I asked, would this bill make it more expensive for veterans to refinance their homes? I mean. >> no, no. You ask if it would. Know to finance their. >> home refinance. >> okay. To refinance, it would increase by $8 if they're not disabled. >> I mean. >> if they're not disabled.
▶ 0:34:05>> in fact, the tripling of the refinancing fee from 0.5% to 1.4% means that the average veteran will be paying an additional $3,780 in fees, am I correct? >> that is not correct. That is not correct. >> that's according well, I mean, uh, go ahead. >> that is that is correct, sir. The whole point of this pay for that they're seeking to create by increasing, uh, the fees for refinancing.
▶ 0:34:34That's the whole point of this legislation, the refinancing, the fees on the veteran home loan. Um, uh, what's objectionable is that they're doing this in a permanent way. It will cost us money in order to bring down that fee in the future. But let me tell you something else, um, to this committee of psych, uh, since, uh, for the last year, uh, there have been 10,000 veteran foreclosures, uh, under the veteran home loan. Uh, why?
▶ 0:35:05Because this administration chose to rescind and remove the vast program, which was a big tool in preventing those foreclosures. I worked in a bipartisan way with the chairman to replace that. We would have totally replaced it with the partial claims program. And, uh, remember, mcgovern, that program is not due to be implemented for, for several months now. Um, and the effect of increasing the refinance rate is going to already add.
▶ 0:35:35It's, we're in a distressed market. We're in a distressed time. Veterans are in danger of losing their homes. We're going to now increase the veterans ability, the, the cost to refinance their homes at this moment. This is madness. >> and Mr. chairman, I am. I also submitted an amendment to the bill to increase fees on veterans even further. I don't understand why. I mean, why why should the rules committee adopt an amendment. >> and let. Let me explain that.
▶ 0:36:03So only on refinances, it will be $8 per month. And then the other issue was the fact that those that by allowing those veterans who are national guard and reserve, allowing them the opportunity to drop down to where if they only had 14 days of service, then they qualify, then they pay the the amount plus one 1%.
▶ 0:36:28>> but your amendment, if I'm understanding correctly, will cost veterans an additional $28 million. In terms of offsets. >> it costs them $8 per month, $8 per month. If they were finance. Remember that and not if they're disabled. And the most important thing is, is that as the veterans service organizations agree to. >> this, why? Why are you why you why? >> because we have paygo and because of paygo. And and let me explain this. >> I appreciate that. Okay.
▶ 0:36:58Because, um, I'm looking at the reconciliation bill that I'm sure that all of my friends here, all the great fiscal conservatives will end up supporting, uh, you know, uh, most of it's not offset the senate bill that right now, according to cbo, is 71, $72 billion. You know, the war is not paid for. Nobody is talking about an offset for the war. The the great big ugly bill that you all supported added $3 trillion to the debt. Uh, you know, most of it not offset.
▶ 0:37:27Uh, none of it adds to the debt. Um, and so I'm just like, when it comes to veterans programs, I mean, we, you know, we, there's, there's, there's money for these wars, there's money for tax cuts for the, for millionaires and billionaires, uh, money for ballrooms. But, but when it comes to minor benefit increases for disabled veterans, I mean, you guys think you need to offset the spending by jacking up veterans home loan fees. Um, and I, I don't, I just don't get it.
▶ 0:37:56I don't why, why, why you have to rob peter to pay paul to help our veterans. >> we have paygo as the chairman of the committee. I will find the offsets necessary under my job as a chairman. Not only that, as we also deal with. If you look at what we provide every year for veterans, we've increased over for veterans, uh, overall budget quite a bit over the last several years, and I'm glad to do that.
▶ 0:38:24So that being said, we still need to be wise in what we are doing. And I believe that as whether you want to say that they agree with the offset or not in the letter, the letter is they support the legislation which has the offset. >> so you obviously believe the best way to offset veterans benefits is to raise home loan fees on other veterans.
▶ 0:38:46But ranking member takano has submitted an amendment to strike the home loan fee increases on veterans in this bill while protecting the benefit increases. Would you support that amendment. >> or would not? >> would you support this committee making that amendment in order? >> I would not, because I think it would be a poison pill for this bill. We have worked very hard to follow the rules of this house on how we do our offsets. We worked very hard. Staff search.
▶ 0:39:10We actually asked the ranking member and his staff to come forward what they brought to us as an offset actually increased the cost. So therefore, we've been working with them. We're not moving forward. We can sit here and argue over this for many, many hours, but we have always at the cost of those people who need this money most. >> we have another amendment to replace increased veterans fees with a reduction in the estate tax exemption from 15 million to 14.5 million.
▶ 0:39:38Um, and, um, you know, I mean, let me remind everybody here, the republicans tripled the amount of money the wealthy can pass on to their heirs tax free from 5 million to 15 million. And the big ugly bill, this would scale it back slightly to prevent a hike in veterans home loan fees. So would you support that amendment? Or at least. >> I I still believe these amendments are trying to trying to. >> I think I just we just delay it. Our proposal is very modest. We just delay the implementation of the.
▶ 0:40:07>> would you support this committee making an order that amendment so we could debate. >> it or not? Because I do believe it would be a problem. >> are you asking for a close rule on these bills? >> I'm not. I if you'll notice my opening statement, I ask that it did nothing to hinder the bill to change the benefits that would be offered. I change the cost. All of these would do that. And I have another.
▶ 0:40:29>> yeah, it sounds like I mean, again, this is this is another problem with the way this place is being run is we're becoming a, an institution where, um, we, we hardly ever have an amendment on the floor because everything is like fixed and, and closed, which is an awful way to do it. I just think there's a better way to do this. I don't think you need to hurt one group of veterans to help another group of veterans. And we have some alternatives here.
▶ 0:40:55You may not like them, but I mean, I would think we should have an opportunity to debate them and vote on the floor. Uh, but it sounds like the fix is in. And I think that that's unfortunate. Um, but I Mr. cano. >> yeah, I just want to clarify that I have never supported the interest rate reduction, um, provisions in this bill. Right. I, I completely. >> false was talking. >> about, um, second, uh, we have modest proposals. Uh, we just delay the implementation of the inheritance tax relief and the big ugly bill.
▶ 0:41:24Um, somewhat, uh, but we don't believe look, there are thousands. >> ever being your offsets. >> no, no, there are thousands of veterans, right? Not veterans, active duty personnel. People don't realize that active duty personnel are eligible for the veterans home loan. So there are thousands of our servicemen or servicewomen, sailors in, uh, in and around iraq who are in service right now, many of whom might be in a financial distress, in danger of losing their homes.
▶ 0:41:54Um, what this, what the republicans propose to do is increase the burden of refinance on our service members right now. >> yeah, no, I appreciate that. Again, I just the idea that, you know, tens of millions of dollars, um, taken from a particular program will have no impact on that program or the people who benefit from that program. It just doesn't pass muster. I mean, I'm sorry. Uh, and I yield back, madam chair. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 0:42:24Miss fischbach, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. And, um, chairman bost, I just if if you have anything, you did a great job explaining things, but if there was anything you wanted to just clear up. I appreciate. >> any questions you might have. I'll be glad to answer. >> okay. Well, thank you very much. And I guess I just I, what I would like you to do is reiterate, um, and just repeat some of those, uh, supporters.
▶ 0:42:48You talked about the supporters and they support the bill and, um, they, I think they probably have an idea that they understand what is in the bill and that's why they signed a letter. And so if you just repeat. >> it, yeah, I'd love to expand on that. As chairman, anyone else ever been chairman, regardless of which chairman of the committee you are, and then you work with the stakeholders that are involved. Our stakeholders are represented by the veterans service organizations, those veterans service organizations.
▶ 0:43:1519 of them signed the letter, and the other two came openly because these other two are the largest. Okay. Now, the veterans of foreign war and the american legion, they understood and understand the principle that is set forth in this bill. They also understood the offsets. We worked with them. We brought them in. We had major conversations. We would have liked to expand it more. But they said, okay, this much and no more, and we're good with that.
▶ 0:43:43We're going to still look for other things and hopefully increase these benefits before or later on. But what we really need to understand is veterans. I'm a veteran carrying this bill. The main sponsor of the bill for the is is, uh, tom barrett, also a veteran. The veterans are asking for us to move forward with this bill. Why is that?
▶ 0:44:11That's because they understand the surviving spouses and orphans are why it is that we actually are here and what we're trying to help, and what they fought for was those freedoms that would allow, uh, if they fell in battle, knowing that their widows and orphans would be taken care of.
▶ 0:44:31And they also know those friends, the buddies that stood beside them, that they watched them being carried off the field in conditions where they didn't know they were going to make it or not, not knowing that they were going to spend the rest of their lives with their wife, their mother, their father.
▶ 0:44:49Maybe if they live long enough, their children taking care of them 24 hours a day, why we why abraham lincoln created the va was for situations such as this, for the fact that these have not had an increase in three decades is ridiculous. It's not going to cure all of their problems, but it's going to be a step in the right direction.
▶ 0:45:18I don't want to play politics with it. I want to move it forward. When it comes to the other part of the bill, the second amendment, why, that's as simple as it can be. Why in the world should a person who fought for our constitution actually have part of their rights in the constitution removed without due process? So the bill is a very good bill, both of them very good.
▶ 0:45:43They are what our veterans have asked for and what our veterans deserved, and I've never been prouder to carry it. >> thank you very much. And and I too, am appreciate what is in the legislation. I appreciate those 19 organizations coming together, having those discussions with you, understanding the legislation and the fact that they have put their name on the letter supporting this. Um, I am happy to support this legislation. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I yield back.
▶ 0:46:13>> thank you, Mr. fischbach. Scanlon, you're recognized. >> thank you. Um, and I, I do have some questions about the legislation. Got a lot of veterans in my district. They have a lot of questions. I have veterans in my immediate family. So I'm always going to support, you know, making sure we have the best benefits we can for those veterans.
▶ 0:46:32Um, but I'm hearing some things that, that starting with the, the benefits expansion act, so-called, that it's, it's a budgetary bait and switch that it cuts benefits in one bucket in order to increase them another way. And overall benefits aren't going to increase. They're just shifting around.
▶ 0:46:52And I am disturbed about this link, um, that the ranking member mentioned, you know, we're giving all this additional credit to the millionaires who have, um, these, the funding, the tax credits, etc. That passed with the big ugly bill last summer. But here we have veterans who are going to have to be paying more for housing. Um, at a time when, you know, housing is in such short supply and is so expensive.
▶ 0:47:18And also coming on top of the cancellation of the va program earlier this year, that protects veteran homeowners from foreclosure. So we knew there was already an issue with veterans facing foreclosure. I mean, ranking member takano, you talked about this as being a bill that's hiding behind debt and deficit. Can you talk a little bit about the issues with this? And has there been veteran outreach in opposition to this bill? >> let's let's be clear.
▶ 0:47:44We've had 10,000 veteran foreclosures on veteran homes in the past year that did not need to happen, did not need to happen. Va canceled the vast program. Um, we are now in an economic situation, uh, where people are suffering veterans and all americans are suffering from inflation. Uh, they're suffering from higher costs brought on by this war of choice, not of necessity.
▶ 0:48:09Um, and what this bill does is it increases the costs for veterans to refinance their homes. He makes it seem like, oh, only when they refinance their homes. It's not about when they want to buy a new home, but that's, that's not great either. Um, it means that if we're already seeing 10,000 veterans losing their homes in the past year and the next three months, we can expect that pace to continue.
▶ 0:48:33And we've now we're now going to make it harder for those veterans to refinance their homes, uh, because we want to pay for our catastrophically disabled veterans and their survivors. We need to take care of them. That letter to, um, by the, the veterans service organizations in support of that. I, I'm in line with that. I support increasing their benefits. It's long overdue. But the, the, it's deceptive.
▶ 0:49:04Though some service organizations are silent on the pay for their salary, on their pay for. I want to remind everyone that we passed the pact act on our pact act without a pay for out of this house. Um, we passed that the and that the veterans service organizations are being put in a very, very precarious situation. They desperately want, uh, these catastrophically disabled veterans to be taken care of.
▶ 0:49:32Um, yes, veterans will help veterans. Veterans will, they will do that. But this congress, the people sitting around this, this table should not be asking veterans to do that. Yes, we know veterans are going to want to help other veterans. Yes, veterans will sacrifice for them. But we should say, no, no, we should not be asking you, the veterans, to sacrifice for another. You sacrificed enough. We, the congress, can do better. The american people want us to do better by veterans.
▶ 0:50:00They don't want us to take from one set of veterans to help another set of veterans. And we're talking, you know, what are we talking about here? Billions of dollars. Uh, we could be asking, uh, multi-millionaire families who want to pass on their, uh, their legacy, an inheritance. We can, we can move the implementation of that relief back by a few months or a year in order to pay for this.
▶ 0:50:29We don't have to ask veterans. We have other choices. That's what really gets me. >> sure. I mean, it it does sound like we're asking veterans to sacrifice again. >> we are. >> very much in order to help other veterans. But what about some of the folks who maybe can afford to or maybe take some of the money from, say, a ballroom or a golden arch or, um, from some other slush fund that no americans have asked for?
▶ 0:50:52Um, let's also talk about the other bill, the, the one that would, um, overturn the va's long standing policy of reporting to the nics program, which, which is what gun vendors use to check whether people are eligible to purchase guns. So as I understand it, the va reports to nics. If there are veterans with mental health issues that might cause them to be a danger to themselves or to others, is that right? >> yeah.
▶ 0:51:21You know, the va's reporting of beneficiaries to the next list is a requirement that was set forth in the brady handgun violence prevention act and the gun control act. Uh, va was following these laws as congress intended and adhering to the guidelines we affirmed in the nics improvements act that protected the due process rights of beneficiaries in the fiduciary process at va, which again, is a medical decision, not a math test.
▶ 0:51:49Uh, there are no less than six points at which a beneficiary may challenge the underlying findings and reporting to nics so their their second amendment rights are protected through six different situations where they can ask to be taken off all those points. Um, and those points all follow robust communication from va to the beneficiary about their proposed findings and their appeal rights.
▶ 0:52:13This entire process, which again, congress affirmed in the next improvement act, passes constitutional matter. But let me also say to you that, um, that, that, that this group of, of individuals that are appointed fiduciaries, a big, big share, if not a majority of them suffers from serious mental health issues, central, uh, severe mental illness.
▶ 0:52:37Um, and that's what puts, um, a huge part of this list in danger of self harm. >> well, we certainly see it across the country. The rate of veteran suicide is appalling.
▶ 0:52:53And, you know, we have had some bipartisan success, including with things like this nics enhancement act, um, that required this kind of reporting as well as other things, um, to try to reduce veteran suicide by putting in place hotlines and additional mental health assistance, some of which has been undermined by cuts by this administration. So it does not feel like a time when we should be, um, pulling back on support for veterans who are at risk. >> yeah.
▶ 0:53:20Let me say, we all know from academic research that the population of beneficiaries that are assigned to fiduciary suffers from mental health conditions that would preclude most of the general population from owning firearms conditions such as schizophrenia, severe tbi, ptsd, bipolar disorder, dementia, alzheimer's, and others. Moreover, mental incompetency for fiduciary purposes is in fact equivalent to increased suicide risk.
▶ 0:53:46Veterans who scored poorly on financial management abilities were about twice as likely to report suicidal ideation and attempts using illicit drugs, engaging in violent behavior, and getting arrested compared to those with good financial management skills. Also, rates of suicidality and violence were found to be significantly elevated in veterans who were identified as needing a fiduciary and not just among veterans, but the general populations of the general population as well.
▶ 0:54:15Financial stress is one of the chief causes of suicidal ideation, but again, the fiduciary process isn't simply about financial acumen or a math test. It's about protecting veterans who have become more vulnerable because of the injuries and illnesses incurred during their time in service, and we shouldn't undermine that protection. And that's what the chairman is attempting to codify into law. >> right.
▶ 0:54:42Well, it's it's once again, that we're not talking about binary choices here. We're not talking about taking away someone's second amendment rights with no due process. There is a substantial amount of due process here. There are folks who have been, uh, the evidence shows that these folks are at greater risk to themselves and to others. But if they are not, then they have plenty of opportunity to show it.
▶ 0:55:04>> the current process allows, as I said, at least six, six opportunities, uh, in an internal appeals process within the va. Uh, the due process rights of the veteran are respected. >> look, whenever we talk about issues regarding gun safety, we hear from the general public that they want to implement common sense gun safety consistent with due process, but that, you know, the second amendment is not a suicide pact for all of us.
▶ 0:55:31Um, and that, um, the kinds of common sense protections that this nics act reporting is one of them are what the public wants. The public wants the police to be able to do their job to enforce, um, what goes on in the community. And we hear time and time again, there are certain folks everybody agrees shouldn't have easy access to weapons. And that includes people who are at serious risk of injuring themselves or others.
▶ 0:55:59So, um, I absolutely will have to oppose this bill. And I thank you for your testimony. >> thank you, thank you. >> thank you, miss scanlan. Mr. scott, you're recognized. >> chairman bost. >> I want to just say this. I've talked I talked to a lot of veterans and, um, a lot of them that I talked to while they will in a private conversation suggest that maybe they could use a little bit of
▶ 0:56:30Help. They will not go to the va under any circumstances because they know if they need just a little bit of help, maybe just the ability to talk through some things that happen in combat with someone else who had been in combat, that they're afraid of how their file might be documented, and then the gun grabbers are going to come take their guns away from them, and then they'll have to hire all kinds of lawyers and everything else to get the constitutional rights back that they fought for.
▶ 0:56:58Is that what you hear from the veterans that you talk? >> that's that's how this came up originally. >> reluctance to discuss things with the veteran affairs committee because of the activists in that organization, at least, that used to fill that organization, will go grab the guns from the veterans. >> that is correct. When I first started working on this.
▶ 0:57:17>> issue was 12 years ago when I first came to congress after meeting with some people in my own my own, uh, american legion where the conversation was, if you think I'm going to go to the va and have the opportunity to have them take away my rights, which I fought for. Mhm. Why would I do that? Which is so many things and so many great benefits that they can receive, but instead they choose not to do that. And I'd like to comment if I can. With the. >> the comments before.
▶ 0:57:46>> that said, if they are a that, that, that what this does is if they're a danger to themselves or others, then they can actually have their second amendment rights taken away. That's not what this says, that that's not what this says. What it says is the if if you receive a fiduciary for any reason, a fiduciary, you can actually ask and say, hey, can you help me with my checkbook? Now your name is turned into the next list.
▶ 0:58:14Now you lose your second amendment right, which you actually stood up and stood for that constitution. How many you know, what if we go down this path and we should say that, let's say you say something offensive of the member of congress here you are trying to defend the constitution, but because you said something offensive. You know what? Let's take your freedom of speech away. >> if and if you're a veteran and you say, yes, my kids are in the business now, I've turned over the operations of the business to my kids. You know what.
▶ 0:58:43>> then you're not capable either. You don't you don't need you can't go hunting with your grandchildren. You can't all of these things. And here's here's an important thing too. They say there's due process, but there's really not. There is a way that they can actually appeal it. But let me tell you how effective this is. 240 oh 240,000 veterans, since this has been in effect, have had their second amendment rights removed. Mhm.
▶ 0:59:08Less than a thousand, from what we can understand, have ever got them back. >> let me let me go to the to the paygo rule. Yeah. Because there's been a lot of drama and misrepresentation around this, I think. And, uh, I'll tell you, I was trying to get something passed purple or freedom to work act. I think people who are combat injured totally and permanently should be able to go back to work and keep their social security benefits. That's mandatory spending to fix. That is mandatory spending to fix that. And you want to fix the suicide thing.
▶ 0:59:37You let people go back to work and not worry about losing their benefits. Right? Uh, I truly believe that, but because it's mandatory spending, when I sit down with the cbo, because the paygo rules has to have an offset. Is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and so this offset with the mortgages is typical with the other offsets. >> it is exact same outfit that's been. >> used over years and years of both parties over the years. That is correct. >> absolutely. The only reason they're opposed to it is because you're proposing it.
▶ 1:00:06I mean. >> I'm not sure that would. >> be the case. They have supported these exact same offers past. Correct? >> that is correct. >> yes, sir. That that is that is right. It is the standard offset and in many cases, uh or are these offsets kind of as time goes on, maybe pushed aside, funded a different way so that the veterans don't actually pay the fees that are in the. >> by the time it's said and done, it's spread out over the long period of time.
▶ 1:00:34It's $8 per month on all refinancing, just so you know that. And the most and an important offset here also is including the people who have not been able to access but begged the ability to have access to the veterans home loan because it's so good. And that is our reservists, national guard members. If they've had 14 days of active duty now, they can pursue this. Will those same fees be on there? Yes. Plus a 1%. Yes.
▶ 1:01:03Because these are such beneficial opportunities to get that home loan. And remember, remember, they don't get that 8% unless it's refinance. >> yeah. We're going to protect the veterans second amendment rights just like they protected our rights. And I appreciate you doing this. And I just, you know, on the paygo rules, I, I really wish we could get the agreement to rewrite the, the, the budget acts that led to the paygo rules are certainly things that, uh, that we could and should do better.
▶ 1:01:33And I think it's pretty clear that they haven't worked and. >> even I would be glad to work on that. But the reality is this is the legislation that's before us today. >> that's right. And this is this is, uh, the veterans organization support this. They understand the intricacies of, of this and that's why they back it. Mr. boss, you've been a good chairman of the of the veterans affairs committee, veterans affairs committee. I look forward to continuing to work with you to support the veterans. And with that, I yield back. Thank you. >> thank you, Mr. scott.
▶ 1:02:02Miss leger fernandez, you're recognized. >> madam chair, and, uh. >> welcome, chairman and ranking member. You know, what's interesting about this conversation is I think every democrat, including me, agrees on an important aspect, and that is that we should increase the benefits for our disabled benefit veterans.
▶ 1:02:27These are service members who gave their limbs, their sight, their mobility to our country. It's right that we increase those benefits and that we treat their families fair. I mean, I think we all agree on that. We all agree on that. What we don't agree on is the idea that you're going to take away from veterans.
▶ 1:02:55At the same time, republicans giveth and republicans taketh away. And that's the problem that you are hearing from us. And it's my understanding that we've never agreed to triple. >> no. >> the cost. I mean, can you just clarify that? Because we keep hearing that we've never agreed to triple the cost for housing for veterans. >> yeah. Thank you, thank you.
▶ 1:03:19Uh, congresswoman, uh, the bottom line is that this legislation is going to increase the cost of refinancing home loans for veterans at a time when foreclosure rates are rising among veterans, when the economy is really challenging and we're putting this burden on our active duty service members as well because they're eligible to refinance their homes.
▶ 1:03:43So let me just kind of walk through the two times that there was a temporary increase that democrats supported. This increase is a permanent increase, which will cost us money to bring back down there wanting to pay permanently for other veterans by by putting the burden on veterans who want to refinance their homes.
▶ 1:04:05So when I was chairman, um, we did pass a bill out of the house in 2020 that would have increased the, the interest rate reduction refinance loan program by one quarter of a percent, but it didn't become law. When you strip away all the context around the bill, you can try to set up a gotcha. Oh, you democrats did this too. But in reality, we are in a much different situation now. First, the proposed increase in 2020 returned to the current levels after a few years. It was temporary.
▶ 1:04:35Representative barrett and chairman botts replacement at the current replaces the current level with a >> new fee level. And it's not a temporary change, it's a permanent increase. That's why the vsos are not jumping up and down. Oh yeah, we support this. Today's proposed increase is almost three times what it was. What was contemplated in 2020.
▶ 1:04:56That translates into 2500 or 3000 to $3,000 more in fees that veterans would have to pay under representative barrett's plan. And that cost doubles when the veteran has to pay interest on that fee. Also, back in 2020, home loan mortgages and finance rates were at record lows. That's not the situation today. Fees had much less of an impact on a veteran's ability to lower the housing cost. Today, interest rates are much higher.
▶ 1:05:23Many more veterans are facing foreclosure, foreclosure, and the trump administration got rid of vasp, which was the last ditch program to keep veterans and their families in their homes. And, congressman, as I said, in the last 12 months, 10,000 veterans homes were foreclosed upon. Uh, it has been a year. And the replacement, the partial claims program still has not ruled out. Now, I'll just mention one more thing. Blue water navy that was negotiated under a republican controlled house.
▶ 1:05:53But it didn't get done until democrats took charge, changing the pay for changing the pay for once I took the gavel, uh, would have meant that the agent orange presumptive would not have, uh, passed quickly and would have gotten stuck in the senate, meaning elderly veterans would not have gotten access to health care and their disability benefits.
▶ 1:06:13We democrats and republicans, together, we both in the house and senate, made an agreement to allow an increase in the home loan fees for a couple of years, but the agreement was that that increase would be the last time congress would use the increased fees to pay for veterans benefits. We here in congress were supposed to find alternative ways to pay for the earned benefits besides charging veterans.
▶ 1:06:35What we're contemplating today is a permanent, significant increase in the veteran home loan program. And look, you can't just dismiss away. Oh, this is just only on those who want to refinance their homes. That's particularly the point. Refinancing a home is going to be particularly important for those veterans in danger of losing their homes. >> and right now, I think the the issue is right now everything is more expensive. That's right.
▶ 1:07:01And and chairman bos, he keeps referring to the fact that there are 10,000 who've already been foreclosed on. Do you know how many are likely to be foreclosed on? >> I can tell you what we have done since. >> I asked you a question. Do you know what the estimate is? >> what is the estimate? What's the estimation? >> yeah. Uh, the number of veterans who are likely to be foreclosed on. >> can you give me the number? What's the number? Can you give me the number? >> it's 90,000. So that would be 100,000 veterans.
▶ 1:07:32>> that's why earlier last year, we passed and supported the partial claims bill. That's why we did that, so that we could be wise in the way that we were doing our fiduciary duty to back up those loans and help them one time to try to actually cure the problem rather than just taking over the loan. Take your time, do. >> what has it been implemented? >> it is not yet. >> this is the problem is that it has not been implemented. Lot fees are going to go up and you're proposing to have more fees.
▶ 1:08:01And I, I, I have some other questions. I want to go on things, but I believe the ranking member. >> I just I just want to clarify something because I came in when Mr. scott was speaking. I just want to make sure I understand it. So he listening to him made it sound like all these increases and the and, uh, you know, were embraced by democrats. I mean, I don't I don't ever recall you proposing tripling the fee to refinance alone. >> making it permanent. >> yeah, yeah. Or making it permanent, am I correct? Yeah. So why do they say that?
▶ 1:08:30Why do they keep on saying that this was. >> because these are the offsets we've used. >> yeah. >> we've tried. >> we've never made them permanent and never uh. Do I recall you tripling the fee to refinance the loan? Are you saying that. >> this still boils down to the fact that I want to have. Increases for those. >> people who. Truly the va were wanting to, uh, and and the thing is, still veterans service organizations have agreed that this is the way we need to get it done under our existing paygo law.
▶ 1:09:00>> well, I think the issue going back to what Mr. leger fernandez said, is that we don't agree. We all agree in terms of helping our disabled veterans anywhere we can. We have other offsets, and I don't know, and you seem to be married to this office. Actually, that will triple the fee to refinance a loan, which we're hearing now from people, um, will cause some hardships on veterans. >> we have, we have. >> asked and, and you came out saying, no, you can't even have a vote or a debate on anything.
▶ 1:09:27>> we ask for nine months in the committee for offsets from the minority. We've asked for nine months when they came forward with the proposal that they said would save money. When it came back, it actually cost money. So we've worked hard as staff. I have worked hard as a member, and I'm going to work to make sure those veterans are provided for. You can play the political ground if you want, but the idea is that this bill is vitally important to our veterans. I'm a veteran. The veterans have signed off on it.
▶ 1:09:55>> you do not have to find offsets by increasing the cost for other veterans. That's where our objection is, I think. >> I think the issue is that we just heard about a potential offset where we would help millionaires who got a huge tax break and the big, beautiful bill help pay for this. And you said, I don't even want to consider the other. The other thing is, later on this week, we're going to vote on a bill. We're going to vote on a bill that does not have any offsets. Uh, it's going to be your second reconciliation bill. Do you know how much that bill is likely to cost?
▶ 1:10:26>> I'm debating the bill that we have before us right now. >> $73 billion is what it's established. And you know what's in that bill? You know how much half of the program cost here? Half the program cost is $1 billion, right? $1 billion for additional disability compensation. Is that right? Yep. $1 billion. You know what else is in your republican bill that costs $1 billion, that has no offsets? A ballroom chairman, a ballroom.
▶ 1:10:57So republicans are willing to pay for a ballroom without any offset. You're willing to pay for a ballroom without any offset, but you're not willing to pay for additional disability compensation for veterans. That is the those are two votes that we're going to rake this week, right? >> yes. >> for sure. >> okay. Once again, this has to do with our veterans and their benefits.
▶ 1:11:23You are bringing things that have nothing to do with that because it's a great political statement. I'm very passionate about my veterans. I'm a veteran. My grandfather was a veteran. My dad was a veteran. My uncle was a disabled veteran. My son's a veteran. I got two grandsons, one disabled. I know what veterans needs are. Whatever the politics is on your side of the aisle, let me be very clear.
▶ 1:11:52These people have waited 30 years for these increases. I have certain rules I have to follow as a as as the committee chairman, you can say you want to reach out and you want to do everything else. But I'm going to tell you I'm going to follow the rules of this house, and I'm going to follow these rules, and I'm going to deliver for my veterans. And you can kick and scream all you want, but neither one of you is sitting up there asking questions or a veteran. >> chairman, chairman. We all represent veterans.
▶ 1:12:19I, I am a daughter of a veteran, I am I have four uncles who served and are buried in the national cemetery. My godchild is a veteran. We all are. And so I understand in a way that I will never understand because you have served. But I think that we have an obligation to serve our veterans.
▶ 1:12:42And there are ways of doing that, that honor all of our veterans, whether they are veterans who need disability payments or whether there are veterans that need, uh, the gi bill for education or the benefits from housing. And there are decisions that we will make this week. And those decisions reflect our priorities.
▶ 1:13:04And one of the decisions and votes that republicans will vote on this week is whether to spend $1 billion for a ballroom and $70 billion for ice, and whether they will make a decision on funding important disability benefits by making it more expensive to buy a home. Those are the points we are making. They are choices. They are choices that your leadership is making enforcing on you.
▶ 1:13:33We are suggesting that there are better choices than we made. By the way, do you have any idea in terms of how we pay for things, how much the debt has gone up under trump this year alone? No. $2.7 trillion. So this is a republican leadership that is willing to pay for tax cuts.
▶ 1:13:56It's willing to pay for alcatraz, alligator, alcatraz, another billion dollars, $1 billion, $1 billion that could go to our veterans and instead of going to our veterans, is going to these other matters. And those are the points we are making, that these are choices. And the american public wants us to make choices that honor our veterans. >> and about this bill as it allows the veterans themselves. When I ran against veteran. >> Mr.
▶ 1:14:26Chair, that want to honor these things. So I am not questioning any of our any of our motivations with regards to the veterans. That's why I began my statement of saying, we all agreed on this. What we don't agree on is how you're going to pay for it. And when you make these decisions that say it's more important to fund a ballroom than to fund veterans.
▶ 1:14:53And with that, I think the chairman would like me to yield back. >> and I. >> I appreciate it. Thank you. Now, recognize myself for my time of questioning. I do find it somewhat interesting that we haven't figured out everything we're going to do in reconciliation 2.0, but, uh, my colleagues seem to know exactly how much it's going to be involved in financially. And we're still debating those issues, but I understand behind the scenes, but whatever.
▶ 1:15:19Uh, I do want to, uh, get to the, the bill related to, uh, gun rights. Yes. Uh, I, I read through this and thought, this is exactly the answer we needed because we had a discussion in here related to the appropriations bill and the language that you've gotten inserted in there, right? Uh, that says you can't enforce what has been done before.
▶ 1:15:41And I just love this language on pages three and four of your bill, starting really around line 18, but I'm going to pick it up, uh, uh, probably around line 22. Uh, any personal identification of beneficiaries solely on the basis of a determination by the secretary to pay benefits to a fiduciary for the use and benefit of the beneficiary under section five, 502 of this title, without the order or without the order or finding of
▶ 1:16:11A judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction, that such beneficiary is a danger to themselves or others. Now, I, I should have researched it in the meantime, and I have not. But there was some discussion last time that if you voluntarily said, I want to give my son, daughter, nephew the ability to take to be my fiduciary, receiving my benefits because I want to take a trip around the world and sail on the high seas or do whatever that that triggered the loss of your gun rights.
▶ 1:16:41Is that accurate? Because that's what I had understood. But some have said that's not accurate. >> that's not accurate. That is not accurate. >> so it has to be a determination by the. >> it has you have to have a be a has to actually provide you the fiduciary. That's that's the only time that there used to be an issue, apparently with social security cleared that up years ago. Okay. But no, this is this is the only. With the aid, it's always left the people who fought for those rights. >> right. And, and how do they make that determination?
▶ 1:17:12>> that's my that's the problem. These these people are just bureaucrats necessarily. >> a bad thing, but. >> they're not. No, it's not a bad thing. Right. But you any person that is not a veteran and all of a sudden they get assigned a fiduciary outside, well, then they're going to have the gun rights taken away. So the only way they can have their gun rights taken away and the due process that they receive.
▶ 1:17:38>> now, this I you're you're stepping into an area I know as a practicing attorney, for many years, I acted as a guardian ad litem in several cases where there were determinations of mental acuity and. Correct. And there are a number, at least in the commonwealth of virginia. There are a number of different categories. You can have a comity, you can have a fiduciary just for the finances. You can have a fiduciary who doesn't take care of your finances, but make sure that your living arrangements are correct.
▶ 1:18:03So you have a, a guardian of the person, a opposed to a guardian over the financial matters. I mean, there's all kinds of different levels. And we have in at least in the commonwealth of virginia, I can't speak to others. We have special justices who make these decisions right now.
▶ 1:18:17My question to you on that would be is that if a state has special justices like the commonwealth's attorney or mental health justices, as the case might be, can they reach a memorandum of understanding with the veterans administration that if they think somebody needs to have a determination of whether or not they're a danger to themselves or others, that they could bring in the special justice who has additional training. And in those state provisions, at least in the commonwealth of virginia, I didn't practice anywhere else a guardian ad litem at the very.
▶ 1:18:46You would be entitled to an attorney that you could pay for, but the state would pay for what is known as a guardian ad litem. And I did some of that work where the attorney, an attorney, is appointed by the court to come in and work behind the scenes to read the medical records, to talk to the individual, to determine if they were a substantial risk to themselves or to others. >> you said the key words, if they are, if they are a risk to themselves or others, that's key. That that's it. Yeah.
▶ 1:19:13So it whether you're a private citizen or whether you're a veteran, you've been a veteran, the due process is someone who is reporting that is considered a reporting agent that can say, or someone goes to a reporting agent and said, I believe my cousin so and so is a danger to themselves and others. >> or it can be a doctor who makes that. >> there's a whole. >> list of them to the state. >> that's correct.
▶ 1:19:42And therefore then that goes before what a judge or a especially they'd be a special justice if in what state you're in. But then that is the due process. Not all of a sudden after the fact, after you've taken it away. And I'm trying to figure out because that fails and that fails so much. I gave you those numbers a while ago. >> 24,000 to 1000. I remember that very. Yeah. >> oh 24,022 240,000.
▶ 1:20:13>> 40,000 to 1000. >> to one. Right. >> yeah. Which was astounding and shows why it's a problem because you already have somebody who may not have great wealth and they're struggling on other issues. Maybe they're perfectly safe, but they're having some other issues. And as a result, somebody comes along and, and takes away their rights. They don't have the wherewithal financially or perhaps otherwise, to understand how they can note that appeal. And suddenly they're having to go in and go to special you. You're correct.
▶ 1:20:44Nobody but the veteran would have those rights taken away from them without a hearing in advance. Correct. By a judicial officer of the respective states or territories. Is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and that's why I have always supported language like this in in the appropriations bills and why I think you've got it right. And like I said, if there's a memorandum of understanding, those folks can come right to the va, they can come right on to I mean, I understand the va may not it may not be able to show up without an agreement.
▶ 1:21:16But I will tell you that that I did some of those hearings a long time ago when I was a young lawyer as a, uh, a guardian ad litem for the person at the psychiatric hospital in my hometown. We would go to the special justice would be there, and you'd have an appeal to the circuit court from the special justice's decision, due process, due process.
▶ 1:21:37But you had a judicial officer appointed by the state trained extra special in this area, and then a guardian ad litem who comes in to make sure your rights are being protected. And, and it can be at any facility where it needs to be. And we would go to, to the psychiatric facility and do the hearing right there in that building. We didn't they didn't have to come to court. They didn't have to. And special times could be set up.
▶ 1:22:06It was something that was immediate. I mean, if there was a somebody who was being detained because they were a danger to themselves or others, that hearing would take place quickly. Mhm. Um. >> as, as what. >> it should as well. It should, that does not happen at the va, from what I understand. >> no. >> it does not. And they may have some extra training, but they're not judicial officers of the state. They don't correct the, the state, uh, provisos.
▶ 1:22:30And every state can do it differently as they see fit, as long as in the words of your bill, as long as the judge, magistrate or other judicial authority of a competent jurisdiction, that would be the state that such beneficiaries in danger to themselves. >> that is correct. >> and there's all kinds. Like I said, there's all kinds. There's even a finding in virginia where you may not be a danger to yourself or others, but you're substantially incapable of taking care of yourself.
▶ 1:22:55And like I said, you can have one where you can take care of yourself, fine, but you can't take care of your finances. And we found that in a number of cases where people were subject to, uh, scam artists, right. And they couldn't tell the difference between a legitimate, uh, sales person and somebody that was scamming them. And so they couldn't spend their money, but nobody took away their gun rights just because they weren't able to take care of their money. And that happened a lot.
▶ 1:23:22And that doesn't happen in the va, from what I understand. >> that is correct. >> all right. I appreciate you clarifying some of these issues for me. I will give you an opportunity. Yes, sir. >> Mr. chairman, I think you're bringing up some, uh, distinctions which are very important. And, um and so I do have an amendment, uh, which would restrict, uh, uh.
▶ 1:23:40Making, uh, I'd ask if you would make an order, an amendment that would limit this fiduciary or this referral to the nicholas only for those with who have been medically diagnosed with serious mental illness. I realize that we have to make this distinction between those that, uh, can't handle the finances completely. And by the way, who makes this determination at the va?
▶ 1:24:08It is it is initially a medical, uh, an assessment. Um, and there are built in, uh, within the administrative. So it's not just a bureaucrat, it is a medical diagnosis. You have some very specific special, uh, uh, you know, knowledge given your, uh, your experience, your legal experience. And I do think it is worthwhile, uh, for us to work together to try and get this right.
▶ 1:24:37Um, because we're left with this choice of, of allowing access to weapons to a significant portion of those who constitute this universe of fiduciary appointees, um, who are seriously mentally ill. And we need to be able to kind of sort this issue out about those who are able to handle their finances or not able to handle their finances. Um, but who would not pose a danger to themselves. I mean, I think that's where we're getting stuck here.
▶ 1:25:10>> uh, I can appreciate that. Here's my problem. And I was trying to figure if I could find it really quickly and I couldn't. One of the commanders at the battle of waterloo had a serious mental illness. Uh, the leader of the prussian army that came to the to the aid of, uh, wellington at the very last minute and turned the tide of the battle, uh, at times thought he was married to an elephant and had a serious mental illness. When he was not suffering from the mental illness.
▶ 1:25:39He was a brilliant, uh, tactician and a military leader, had a serious mental illness, but he was not a danger to himself or to others. I yield back and now recognize. Senator jackson, the gentleman from georgia. Mr. jack. >> thank you, Mr. chairman and chairman. Boss, I'd like to focus on h.r. 1041 today.
▶ 1:26:02And, um, since I believe I'm the last speaker would welcome in closing, you describing for this committee, I think it's helpful for all of us to think about those 250,000 veterans. Let's think about just one. If you want to walk us through what it would be like for a veteran who was assigned a fiduciary to, frankly, be subjected to this demeaning practice to be submitted to the nics list, help us understand what what that is, what that veterans are going through.
▶ 1:26:32>> okay. Basically, they've went to the va and they're seeking help. Now, let me tell you another issue that's out there. And I think, uh, representative scott and I touched on this slightly. When I fly over country like we are, um. Veterans go to the va and they go to the, to the va, they go to the legion and they go up vfw and other clubs and organizations.
▶ 1:26:59And then all of a sudden one says, you know what, I'd like to seek help from va, but I heard that if I get in there and all of a sudden decide I need something else, they can take my second amendment rights. And so that chases people away from a very good system that is in the va. But what what happens with the ones that don't understand this? They come in and they're seeking help. They're having some financial problems. They're not handling their finances well.
▶ 1:27:22They are, uh, there may be another issue, but they're not a danger to themselves or to others. They come in and they go, you know, I could use some help. And all of a sudden someone looks over their case and says, look, we're going to assign someone to you.
▶ 1:27:43Because that's what a fiduciary is, someone that is assigned to you to take care of your finances, not because you have a situation where you're going to hurt yourself or others, but because you have trouble with your finances, but automatic. And the way this came into effect and this is how long it's been happening.
▶ 1:28:02This was an interpretation by the attorneys from the department of justice with, uh, that guided the va in this, that if you are assigned a fiduciary automatically, you're put on the next list automatically. If you're on the nics list, you lose your second amendment right, not only to purchase a firearm, but to own, possess, or anything else.
▶ 1:28:27Now, let me tell you that the vitally important thing to realize is, is that the concerns of everyone of, oh my gosh, a veteran's going to have a gun. Well, yeah, they do. Yeah they do. And then add to that that they're, they're saying that. But this veteran is seeking help from the va and they're going to have a gun. They are not a danger to themselves and they are not a danger to others.
▶ 1:28:53If you are not a veteran, the only thing that will take away your second amendment right is someone has had to file and go to court and put before some form of justice, some form of of a judge. Okay. Depending on the state that you are a danger to yourself and others. And this can be done very quickly. Once a person reports it, then due process is done.
▶ 1:29:22Now they will claim that va has due process. But that's whenever I told you that the 240. People who have had since the brady bill passed and since that interpretation have been made, less than a thousand have received their right to carry. >> and this legislation, passage of it will restore the rights for all 250,000 people. >> simply say that. >> even that.
▶ 1:29:53>> going to a fiduciary ability. >> is. Not going to remove your second amendment right, go into going to anywhere in the va will not. Now, if someone at the va all of a sudden says, I believe that this person is a danger to themselves and others, they can then report that through the court system and do exactly what the private, the non-veteran would have to do. Very simple. That is why it's so confusing that we are doing this t can have our rights.
▶ 1:30:21And, and, and, and I, I've never understood the argument in this case that in so many people misunderstand that veterans are a naturally bigger danger to themselves or to others. I don't know that numbers show that. I just know that.
▶ 1:30:42And the argument let's look at this to remember, we're now into the third year of the budget where we changed the budget to where they couldn't actually do this in on the budget side. This is this is the authorization side. So we're going to straighten it out for from here on out. But over those three years, we don't know.
▶ 1:31:03Remember, we're a year and a half or two years behind in the number reporting, but we don't see our numbers have been had remained the same about those veteran suicides that are out there. As far as we can tell, I've fought to help every veteran out there to make sure to not make that permanent choice, that for a temporary problem, to try to help them where they don't commit suicide. But nothing has shown that we've had an increase since we've done this.
▶ 1:31:33>> well, I appreciate your testimony today. I think we all, um, are very grateful for your leadership of this committee. And with that, I will yield to my friend, Mr. griffith from virginia. >> thank you so much for yielding to me. I just want to get the historical record correct because I got it wrong. He didn't think he was married to an elephant. He thought a french soldier had impregnated him with an elephant. And, uh, he went in and out of lucidity, but it was, um, uh, blue, blue or blue.
▶ 1:32:03I may be mispronouncing it, and I yield back. >> thank you for correcting that. >> madam chair, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. jack. Um, gentleman, I see no further, um, requests for questions. So you are excused. Thank you very much for being here.
▶ 1:32:40>> good. >> clear out these old waters. >> yeah. Hey, brian. >> how you doing? Is it coming? Oh, yeah. Just just the chair.
▶ 1:33:14>> I now welcome our second panel chairman, style and ranking member morelli, from the house committee on administration. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. And we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes, chairman style, I welcome your testimony. >> thank you very much. Chair fox. We'll keep it below five minutes. I know the ranking member and I have a suspension bill on the floor here shortly. Uh, thank you, ranking member, uh, as well. Uh, we're here to testify in h.r.
▶ 1:33:421329, the smithsonian american women's history museum act. As we all know, throughout our history, american women have played a critical role in so many of our nation's crowning achievements and innovation, uh, in their success as america's success. I was proud to support previous legislation authorizing this museum. Today's bill allows for construction of this this museum to proceed.
▶ 1:34:04Specifically, the bill designates an exact location on the national mall for the museum, which can be changed by the president within 180 days of enactment. Importantly, this puts guardrails in place to ensure this museum does not represent history in a partizan way. This museum will highlight the contributions of american women on the national mall for citizens and tourists alike. I think it's all the more worthy that congress advances this legislation.
▶ 1:34:31This year, as we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the american of american independence. I thank you for having me here, and I look forward to your questions. I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. style. Mr. morelli, you're recognized. >> thank you. >> chair. >> madam chair, and to the ranking member and the members of the committee, it's always a privilege to be back here at the rules committee. Uh, let me start by stating the obvious. The smithsonian american women's history museum is long overdue and deserves a prominent place on the national mall period.
▶ 1:35:01The national mall is where a nation tells its story, its triumphs and its struggles, and american women have shaped every chapter of that story, which is why I support the bipartisan version of h.r. 1329, introduced by my colleague and friend from new york, representative nicole malliotakis. That's why I supported her companion, bill h.r. 1330, which would also make the same technical fix for the national museum of the american latino.
▶ 1:35:26Together, these bills would resolve a statutory anomaly that has stalled both museums and allowed them to move forward on the mall, as congress explicitly intended. But that's not what we are considering today, and I am deeply saddened and disappointed that the majority has abandoned a bill that is a result of years long bipartisan process in favor of an unserious, hyper partizan substitute designed to fail. There was no hearing on the substitute bill before you.
▶ 1:35:54Now, we didn't hear from smithsonian witnesses about its consequences. We didn't hear from museum professionals about what happens when politicians, rather than curators, start making curatorial decisions. And we certainly didn't hear from legal experts about the extraordinary authorities. This bill grants the president. The substitute text was offered at the markup and reported out on a party line vote. And the same morning, it fundamentally alters representative malliotakis legislation in four key ways.
▶ 1:36:24And let me just quickly go through them. First, it omits the national museum of the american latino, which has been paired with the women's history museum since they were authorized together in 2020. Second, it grants the president unprecedented unilateral authority to disregard the smithsonian's recommended site and pick his own, which is extraordinary, since this bill is intended to site it on the national mall. Third, it has control over design and construction.
▶ 1:36:51The board stacked with party loyalists who have already shown they will rubber stamp whatever the president wants. And you need to look no further than the pile of rubble that used to be the east wing of the white house for evidence of that. And fourth, it inserts an ideological poison pill intended to dictate what the museum can and cannot say about women's history. Colleagues, we deal with a lot of complicated issues around here that require complex solutions. This is not one of them. For half a decade, this was a bipartisan process.
▶ 1:37:21It has changed suddenly, as have so many things with the election of donald trump back to the white house, we could pass the republican led bipartisan bill with 104 republican co-sponsors today on suspension, if not by unanimous consent, the american people would find it baffling that you chose this route instead. Perhaps it would have been clearer had the majority held a hearing. The whole exercise is especially unfortunate given the bill's history.
▶ 1:37:462019 democrats accepted a republican amendment requiring the museum to reflect, quote, the diversity of the political viewpoints held by women of the united states. Virtually the same language appeared in this bill until it was amended again, or looks for another amendment in the corresponding latino museum bill. But we're considering today makes clear what viewpoints diversity really meant. Only viewpoints republicans agree with. How much more cynical can you get than that?
▶ 1:38:14If the goal were truly to move the museum forward, we would not be abandoning the years long bipartisan process that brought us to the brink of construction. We would not be considering a bill without a hateful ideological poison pill, and we would not exclude the latino museum. And we would certainly certainly not be giving donald trump, of all people, the authority to pick a location and design for the women's history museum.
▶ 1:38:37And I will just say, this bill fundamentally misunderstands the role of museums. The prominent status of the smithsonian, who should decide what appears in a smithsonian museum, where it goes and what it looks like? Should it be the historian, scholars and curators for 180 years have made the smithsonian the premier museum complex in the world, or a politician seeking to reshape history to fit his preferred narrative.
▶ 1:39:04Um, I think the path forward is obvious. The house should pass the clean bipartisan bill with its 230 plus co-sponsors, paired with the latino museum, as we've done for years, and I look forward to that happening. If it doesn't happen today and it doesn't happen in the intervening months, I guarantee it's going to happen in the 120th congress. And with that, I yield back. >> uh, thank you, Mr. morelli. Mr. fischbach, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 1:39:34And and, you know, originally I wasn't going to ask questions, but now I have comments and maybe a question, but, um, I think it's important that I understand that Mr. morelli thinks that this is horrible and that we're doing this and it's going to be biased. But you also need to understand that this says balanced. So it is important that it is balanced because so much of the time, and I'll be real honest, so much of the time, conservative women are forgotten.
▶ 1:40:04And the ones that are highlighted are, are the are what I guess would be considered the more liberal. And, and so I think that I think it's important for all women that this is balanced. And so I just wanted to ask. >> and I just suggest. I mean, that's why I think we agreed to 2019, the language that was included that reflects the diversity of opinion. I understand there will be an amendment today which removes that. Um, and I guess it's a little like the first amendment.
▶ 1:40:32You can agree with it as long as you agree with what I'm saying. But truly I agree with you. Let's have diversity and let's have the bill reflect that. >> and I, I prefer the word balanced as opposed to diversity. I think that balance makes more sense. So that we are that we are representing all women. And I just wanted to ask Mr. steele, um, how, how was the language written to ensure that that balance is achieved? >> uh, well, I think there's, there's two things at play here.
▶ 1:40:59One, uh, the, the, the amendment that my colleague is referencing, uh, does have a word change. And I think in general, we felt the word range, uh, more accurately reflects the variety of viewpoints that will be on display, uh, at the museum. Um, I think it's also worth noting, uh, per some of the commentary, the language in the bill doesn't change the current process for deciding what is put into smithsonian museums. I think that's important to get on the record just so that that is not lost.
▶ 1:41:27And if you go back and look at page eight of the bill, it's almost worth just reading. It's incredibly short of two sentences, uh, the scope of the mission. So in general, the museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements, and lived experiences of biological women in the united states. And then sub two prohibition. The museum will not identify, present, describe or otherwise depict any biological male as a female. Uh, if my colleagues disagree with that, they can have that opinion, I suppose.
▶ 1:41:54But I wouldn't, uh, wouldn't stand without the record being corrected that the process for what is put in the museum is unchanged and will continue to be as operated as the smithsonian does. >> thank you. And I yield back, madam chair. >> thank you, Mr. fischbach. Mr. mcgovern, you're recognized. >> yeah, chairman, I just I'm just trying to I want to be clear on this. So as the ranking member pointed out, representative malliotakis original h.r.
▶ 1:42:201329, I understand had 231 co-sponsors, including 104 members of your own conference. So can you identify a single substantive deficiency in that bill that required replacing it with the miller amendment that we're considering now? >> sure. >> I guess the question is, why would why wouldn't you just bring the bill up in the suspension? Because you had so many, um, and so many co-sponsors.
▶ 1:42:46>> I, I'd go back and look at the, the specific text on page eight as I just read, there's going to be dedicated to the experiences of biological women in the united states, the prohibition that the um, museum will not identify, prescribed, present, describe or otherwise depict a biological male as a female.
▶ 1:43:07Uh, and further, uh, the language we presented regarding the range of viewpoints that representative fischbach referenced as being an important aspect of the museum. >> I, you know, I just I wish you guys were as obsessed about gas prices as you are about trans individuals, but that's a whole nother debate. And I'm just looking at the amendment that you offered here. Um, can you explain your manager's amendment? Like, I mean, I'm just trying to like, what is the whole point of this amendment? >> what is the point?
▶ 1:43:35It, it shifts the word diversity to change. >> and is diversity of. >> we just thought the word range more accurately reflects the variety of viewpoints. You may you may dislike the word. >> no, I don't understand why do you dislike the word diversity? >> I just thought that the word. It's a belief that the word range more accurately describes what we're trying to achieve. >> well, what's the difference between diversity and range? I'm just curious, like why. >> I thought the word range more accurately describes the objective. >> you just felt. >> if you'd like to define a difference, I'd be happy to hear your opinion.
▶ 1:44:06>> I just I mean, you go to a lot of lengths here. One, two. Not a lot of four, five, five references to eliminate the word diversity. Like, like, I mean, is that the trump tell you to do that or what's the I know he doesn't like the word diversity. >> we may disagree on what a lot of length says. This might be one of the shortest amendments I've ever seen in the united states. House representative fits on one page and has, I believe, four sentences, all of which are the same, which we can define pretty easily. >> which is really curious. >> I don't know. That's a lot.
▶ 1:44:34>> of language with with eliminating any reference to diversity. I just it's it's chilling, quite frankly, ranking member, the word why was the why was the latino museum dropped? >> uh, this is the easiest problem to solve. This is like a ten inch pot. And instead we're whacking the ball with a driver, hit it off a tree against a, you know, a stone monument and then somehow get it back to the hole. It's crazy. I mean, this was really simple.
▶ 1:45:00There's a, um, contradictory phrase in the original language about where the museum should be placed. Representative malliotakis saw it appropriately to assure that it was on the national mall where it should be. That was it. Um, I don't know why the latino museum has been uncoupled. It was done in the authorizing language, uh, back in 2020. It should be easy to solve this. Um, and so again, we're adding complexity and I mean, even a little more diversity.
▶ 1:45:29I think that's because donald trump doesn't allow the diversity anymore. >> why? Why isn't the latino why was it dropped? >> uh, I wouldn't say that it was dropped. I would say that we're moving this one forward at this time. >> okay. Just curious. >> sometimes bills don't don't all come up at the exact same time. >> and why, why did you think it's appropriate that donald trump ultimately gets to decide where the museum gets located? >> uh, I think I think presidential discretion, uh, is appropriate.
▶ 1:45:57I think the, um, the 180 days, uh, gives the president, the team a chance to review and analyze that, uh, we've made significant. >> isn't that unprecedented? >> I mean, I think putting there's so few data points of buildings that have been built on the mall, the most recent, of course, being the african american history museum from from that point to today, inside the reserve, this might be the second so unprecedented off of this being the second data point. I, I struggle to to utilize the term unnecessarily.
▶ 1:46:27>> but I would say this is pretty simple. >> congress authorizes congress puts it on the mall. This bill would go to the president if he disagrees with having it on the national mall, he could veto the bill, and congress would then get to make a judgment on whether to override that veto or pass a different bill with a different location. This is congressionally authorized. That's how this is supposed to work. And giving the president, yet again, all unilateral power to do things that are congressional prerogatives and the will of the american people are expressed through the house and through the senate.
▶ 1:46:57This is just not the way. But in the modern world, I think the republican majority just refuses to do anything without the president's signature. >> on this issue. But it's on a whole range of issues. One of the real sad realities of republican leadership has been their ceding absolute power and authority to the executive branch.
▶ 1:47:17And even on something like this, it's just I don't know whether it's because you're all afraid of him or what, but, uh, it just it just, it's just not the right way to do things. And anyway, you're in charge, so you can do whatever the hell you want to do, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Mr. jack, you're recognized. >> no questions, madam chair. >> thank you.
▶ 1:47:41Um, chairman style, is there anything else that you would like to say about the museum that hasn't been said or, um, expand upon how it's important that the museum gets built in our nation's capital? >> I think this is really our opportunity on 250th anniversary of the united states of america, to move forward on this important legislation.
▶ 1:48:06Uh, we have finessed and perfected the text, and I think we're prepared to have it passed. >> thank you, miss scanlan. You're recognized. >> thank you. Um, you know, as the ranking member indicated, over 230 members of congress, um, signed on to this original bill. So this should have been a suspension. Um, for years we've seen a strong bipartisan effort to get the women's history museum on the mall.
▶ 1:48:33But at the 11th hour, we've seen our republican colleagues decide to politicize the effort and change the bill first by including a hateful anti-trans writer, and second, by giving the trump administration unilateral authority to control the museum, its construction and its content. So once again, we see republican leadership trying to suppress facts and reshape history that it doesn't like. Women's history is not zero sum.
▶ 1:49:01Including trans women in the museum's content, does not in any way come at the cost of providing the nation with an educational monument to the important role of all women in our national history. Uh, we believe our republican colleagues need to stop playing games and bring up the original bipartisan bill to move ahead with the creation of the women's history museum.
▶ 1:49:23Unfortunately, republican leadership never misses an opportunity to ruin a good thing with their unending preoccupation with their culture wars and their relentless attempts to divide americans against each other. I just wish they brought the same energy to fighting corruption that they do to starting culture wars. And speaking of corruption, it does seem really inopportune to bring up this bill, which would give the administration yet another opportunity to misspend american taxpayers dollars.
▶ 1:49:54When the white house and the department of justice just announced that they're creating a new $1.8 billion slush fund filled with american taxpayer dollars to give handouts to trump's buddies. I mean, it's primary day in pennsylvania, and I stopped by some of our polling places at 7:00 this morning and got an earful, an earful from outraged constituents about this new slush fund. And staff in my office say that the phones and email in D.C.
▶ 1:50:22And the district have been blowing up all day. Basically, the american people want to know what right this president, any president has to give taxpayer dollars to his political friends and to violent criminals who've been convicted of assaulting police officers. How can any president give taxpayer dollars to those folks with no congressional authorization and no oversight? And no one seems able to answer that.
▶ 1:50:50And in fact, even white house appointees seem to recognize they have a problem here. The, uh, treasury department attorney who was charged with overseeing this slush fund resigned. I mean, you don't see a lot of that in this trump white house. So it must be really, really bad. Um, look, I am hearing from constituents that they are having problems filling up their gas tanks, 80 bucks for a pickup truck.
▶ 1:51:17They're having trouble feeding their kids, paying their bills because of this disastrous war in iran. The failure to focus on what the american people need, and instead this corrupt president's priority is to line the pockets of insurrectionists and fraudsters who do his political bidding. So I think, uh, house admin, I think this body should be bringing a lot more attention to the corruption that we're seeing from this white house, and that would serve all americans well.
▶ 1:51:46So I is there anything you want to add, Mr. morelli? >> just with? >> can I agree? I appreciate. >> your comments. I mean, this is so simple. We have two important museums that have been authorized by congress, overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion. The fact that there was contradictory language that needs to be clarified to ensure that both the women's and latino museums end up on the national mall is simple to do. To your point, 231 sponsors. Uh, this couldn't be easier.
▶ 1:52:15And only this congress would find ways to make sure that it doesn't happen, because this is not going to happen. And I think that now it's not going to happen. So if this is a poison pill intended to stop the museums from moving forward, okay, congratulations. You've managed to figure out how to stop something else that americans would enjoy from happening. The smithsonian is, I think we'd all agree. Well, in our view, the most magnificent museum in all of the world.
▶ 1:52:44People come here by the millions. Americans. And, you know, it's funny. I never had a single person stop me in my eight years that I've been privileged to serve in the house. Never once has a person said, do you want to the smithsonian? It was awful. Does anybody ever had that experience? It's there's it's amazing. It's. And there's no entrance fee that people can come. The americans can come. What a perfect place to put their hands on an institution.
▶ 1:53:11This institution, the story of american women and their amazing contributions to this republic as well as the latino community. And yet we're going to mess it up because we can't help ourselves. >> thank you, I appreciate that. I mean, we do appreciate the efforts to continue the project of making this a more perfect union and recognizing the contributions of everybody who makes up this country, whether it's with the women's museum, the latino museum, um, the amazing african american museum that just went online about eight years ago.
▶ 1:53:39Um, we should be continuing that work as opposed to trying to rewrite or suppress history. So thank you for your work on this. I yield back. >> thank you. Mr. Mr. scott, you're recognized. >> madam chair. >> I don't have any questions. I would like to give Mr. steele an opportunity to respond to any of the questions if he would like to, but other than that. >> I thank the gentleman. Uh, maybe just a couple quick points of clarification, because I just wouldn't want the record to, to go unchecked.
▶ 1:54:09Uh, and part of this may be the reason that people get so many phone calls. There's so much misinformation out there. So let's just take off a couple topics here. One is this legislation is, is not a spending bill. So there's no appropriation inside this. There may or may not be in the future that'll be up to our appropriations committee. There was an authorization, uh, in the original text, uh, but there's no spending of taxpayer dollars in the legislation before us, period. Full stop. That may or may not occur in the future.
▶ 1:54:38We could have that debate. It'll probably come before this committee. You guys will have your opportunity to have your say there. Um, second, um, I think it's important to, to note, I think there's a reference that the president would have some sort of control over what is or was not displayed in the museum. That would be an incorrect representation. In my opinion, the language of the bill does not change the current process for deciding what is put into smithsonian museums. Uh, again, you can reference back to page eight.
▶ 1:55:04Again, simple one page, two sentences, total topic of the adjustments that we think are appropriate to make sure that we're properly presenting to the american people. Uh, the success in history of, of women in particular biological women. Uh, and so people dislike page eight. They could say that as such, but that is, that would be a far stretch to say that that alters the president's, uh, or any president's control, uh, over what is or what is not in the museum.
▶ 1:55:33And so with that, I'll, I'll yield back. I appreciate the gentleman's time. >> um, madam, madam chair, with regard to the attacks on president trump, I would just remind my colleagues that he got 312 electoral votes versus, uh, their candidate, kamala harris. Uh, abysmal. 226 and while they might not like him, he is the president of the united states and, uh, certainly a much, much better candidate in the, in the choice of the american citizens than the person they selected in kamala harris. And with that, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. scott.
▶ 1:56:02Miss leger fernandez, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. Um, you know, since trump was mentioned, you know, I would point out, um, whether or not he's a better president, uh, would be an interesting fact because a lot of the american people don't think he was a better president or a better choice. Uh, there's that regret that's going in, but I think it's more of a betrayal.
▶ 1:56:28You know, trump has spent his first 18 months in office not reducing costs or ending foreign wars. In fact, what did he recently say? He doesn't think about american's financial situation, quote unquote, because the reality is the american people have never been his priority. His priority has always been trump. And look at what he's done here in dc.
▶ 1:56:55He destroyed the east wing, and now he's trying to build a ballroom that was going to be paid for by others. But now republicans are suggesting that we pay $1 billion of taxpayer funds. He wants to have his name on our money. He slapped his name on the kennedy center. He slapped his name on the institute of peace. He is putting his name and likeness on visas, chairman style.
▶ 1:57:22Do you know of any other president who has used his time in office to put his name on federal buildings or on our currency? >> do I know of other presidents that I'm not a presidential historian? I think president trump's done a great job.
▶ 1:57:43>> but there is no there was no other president who's ever done that, because it's really kind of insulting when a living elected official spends his time putting his name. >> on, will the gentlewoman yield? Sure. Does she carry the same view of the pelosi caucus room?
▶ 1:58:01>> well, I think that this is the difference of when a president is putting his name on buildings and what he has done with this bill, what he has done with this bill is he himself is making these decisions about what he should be. I mean, who else? I mean, have you been to the kennedy center? Trump. Now, can you guarantee me. Can you guarantee me, uh, are you are you find it quite delightful. You find it quite delightful. Let me ask you this.
▶ 1:58:31>> I just find. >> it to me that you won't put his name on the women's museum. >> I, I, I don't think there's authority in this text to to alter the name. >> of that authority. His people, his ballroom committee, his ballroom committee. Under the changes that your committee authorized, his ballroom committee has the authority to construct and design the women's museum. Isn't that correct? >> has the authority to construct and design and have a say on that? Yes. Under the under the executive branch authority.
▶ 1:59:01>> basically, his ballroom committee, they're the same people who designed and approved his ballroom committee. >> the same positions that have been in place under previous administrations as well. The biden administration had a similar committee. You may or may not have liked the appointees, the biden administration, I may or may not like the appointees, the biden administration as well. >> this is his ballroom committee, and this was a change that was made in house admin who actually directed that. As is pointed out, this was a fairly bipartisan bill. It was moving through not fairly like overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. It was moving through.
▶ 1:59:31Uh, it was supported by everybody who directed that it be changed in house admin. >> we always are working to finesse language of legislative text, um, all the way through the. >> process, sent the suggestions over. >> I received suggestions from numerous people. >> from the white house. >> the white house provided technical assistance. Nicole malliotakis, uh, provided her advice and counsel. We reached out to other colleagues as well. >> the white house directed that these changes be made.
▶ 1:59:59>> I wouldn't I don't think that that would be a correct description. White house provided technical assistance. The white house on the bill. >> we offered changes. Then these changes came from the white house. Did these changes come from the white house, chairman steele? >> um, the the changes were suggested by multiple people, including the original author of the bill. >> the white house. Can you not. >> the author. >> of the bill nicole malliotakis. Wanted these. I made explicit that we. >> do you have a.
▶ 2:00:29Do you have an idea of where these suggested changes came from? >> well, let me say, I think it's. >> I think it's. >> unlikely that members of congress came up with the idea of giving unilateral control over a bill that's supposed to cite this on the wall, giving the ability for the president to, you know, veto and change it.
▶ 2:00:49And as I said, all bills that come I mean, I, I learned this, I think from watching pbs, uh, how a bill becomes a law was a schoolhouse rock, you know, passes the house, passed the senate, the president. So the president would always have the ability to veto. But now they're just saying all the other responsibilities. You know, at the end of the day, how about this every day pass? Let's just say that the president, uh, once we authorize it, that he can still do anything he wants.
▶ 2:01:17Anyway, the whole point of this is to locate the bill on the mall. So all I hear, would you say we're going to locate the bill on the mall? Unless the president says it needs to go in a different place, then by god, the president should be able to decide what's the point of even gathering here? Why don't we pick up the bill? He's going to do what they did to the east white house. I'm surprised he hasn't started building the national museum without congressional authorization. I wouldn't would it surprise you? >> yeah, because we've already started doing that.
▶ 2:01:46And that's the problem with what these changes are. Is this as an opportunity? They stopped the ball room because it hadn't gotten congressional authority. But here congress is acting to give him this. And that's why there were, uh, what was it, 100, uh, 26, uh, democrats were co-sponsors of this bill.
▶ 2:02:05I have a letter written by 140, signed on by 146 members of congress who are now opposing the republican version of the women's history museum. Madam chair, I'd like unanimous consent to enter into the record. The letter, dated april 16th, 2026, sent to speaker johnson.
▶ 2:02:30Without objection by 146 members who say, let's have the bill in its original form. Why are we changing this bill at this last minute? As you pointed out, without the kind of input that would have made sense? I sat in a natural history and a natural resources committee hearing, madam chair, about this bill, and it was a great hearing.
▶ 2:02:56Uh, we had representatives from the smithsonian, uh, from the foundations who were raising the money for the bill. And it was one of those incredibly wonderful hearings that everybody is supportive. Uh, there were a couple of tough questions asked. Is there space for it? Could we raise the money? Yes, yes, yes.
▶ 2:03:13Uh, and we talked about how important it is to tell the story of women's history, how important it is to tell the story about both the republican, the, the, the, the republican who first served in congress. It was a woman who first served in congress, who was a republican before we even had the right to vote. Isn't that a marvelous story to be told?
▶ 2:03:42That would be diversity, maybe. Or you guys don't like the word diversity. So balance or no, it's not. Uh, do you know that there was a cross-dresser who served in the revolutionary art? Chairman steele. >> I'm not a student of of that area of history. I'll take your word for it. >> yeah. There was it would be interesting to tell that story.
▶ 2:04:07In fact, right now, the women's history, uh, in the, the section of the women's history museum tells that story about the questions. It tells a story about the women's spies. It tells the story about how hard women fought to get the right to vote. We marched, we protested, we starved, we were beaten to get the right to vote. You're aware of that part of the story, right, chairman steele? >> yeah, that wisconsin was the first state to ratify the amendment to give women the right to vote. Yeah.
▶ 2:04:38>> and it took a lot of effort. And this museum that's supposed to be about women that women have fought for, that we have championed, should be decided by women. You should not have president trump deciding where the museum should go, what it should look like, or whether he's going to put his name on it, or maybe he'll put melania trump's name on it. We don't know. But you're giving him this authority in the changes that you have brought.
▶ 2:05:07And those are the problems that we have with this bill. That's why you have 146 members saying, do not bring it to the floor in its present form. There are not a lot of bipartisan things around congress these days, but this was one of them. This was one of them. And in your committee, you destroyed it.
▶ 2:05:33And the natural resources committee, it was great because we talked about what was supposed to be in that museum, how it could look, why it was important for us. You guys destroyed it, and how sad. Uh, ranking member, uh, morale. Is there anything else you'd like to add? I'm the last democrat who will speak on this. >> uh, I do appreciate your comments. In 1872, a rochester man by the name of susan b anthony voted and was arrested for voting for president of the united states.
▶ 2:06:03So we think women have a a long and distinguished role to play in american history. It needs to be. That story needs to be told. And this bill, to your point, was so simple to get to that we like literally the ball said, to use a football analogy for non-football fans, but this ball is at the goal line and we've managed to make a mess of it. This is not going to pass both houses.
▶ 2:06:26It will not get to the president's desk, and we'll have to come back next january, hopefully, and pass the bill that has broad bipartisan support. >> I look forward to continue to working on this, because I think the the story of the history of women in america in all of its controversy, its controversy, its complicated. And we shouldn't be afraid of the complexity and the controversy. We should be willing to tell it. Let people take from those lessons what they will.
▶ 2:06:55Um, but we should be willing to tell it and tell it honestly. And it should be told by women. Directed by women. Looked looked like what women want that museum to look like. Not by a man who happens to be president because he was elected. We don't deny elections. I mean, his cabinet nominees can't even admit that he that that he lost the last election to biden.
▶ 2:07:21But we're we he got elected, but he doesn't get to control our history. Uh, and with that, madam chair, I yield back. >> thank you, miss leger. Fernandez. Mr. griffiths, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. Um, as you know, chairman style, I big on additive history.
▶ 2:07:41And the more that we can do to educate, uh, everybody on historical issues, uh, even when there's controversy, uh, even when there's disagreement. I'm a big, big fan of that. Uh, I will tell you, finding locations and fighting over locations on the mall can be difficult.
▶ 2:08:02Uh, serving on the adams commission to recognize the adams family, not the one from the cartoon series, but the one that helped found this country. Uh, I have we we've looked at a number of spots, and so I understand that, >> but I did want to give you the opportunity to make any comments that you might want to make that you felt like you had not had yet had the opportunity to address. >> I appreciate it.
▶ 2:08:31Representative griffith, appreciate your work on the house administration committee on this legislation as well. Um, you guys in this committee spent a lot of time listening to the democrats on the president, united states. Uh, so I commend all your guys's time and effort here. Um, this bill does not. Again, I just think it's worth just hitting the points where there's misinformation trying to be tossed around. It doesn't alter what the process for which information is placed into the smithsonian doesn't give you unilateral control to any one individual.
▶ 2:08:59It remains as it is with the additions of page eight of the bill, which simply says that this is going to be about the history of biological women. We've seen how extreme some people on the left have become. Determined that that language was necessary, provides a range of viewpoints that may be triggering to some, to use the word range. To me, I think it's actually the best way to describe this.
▶ 2:09:20Um, the fear mongering of naming something is just beyond, um, uh, something special to listen to from a group who is more than happy to allow, uh, the cannon caucus room named after speaker cannon after he had passed, after he had left the house, uh, to be renamed thethe. >> Mr. style. >> in the time is. >> my time for a second. Isn't it true that was done by congressional vote? >> no, actually, that's actually really that's actually a great topic.
▶ 2:09:50It's actually actually spent a lot of time in research on this. It's actually not. It was actually just a sign that was put up that can be removed. Uh, it actually doesn't take an act of congress. Uh, from that there. >> there was one. >> no, but but that is actually not what controls that sign, believe it or not. >> well, h. Res. 1495 says differently. That's what. >> it actually doesn't control because there's, there's underlying we can agree on the, on the technical side of this. Um, I, I actually don't, don't think that's accurate.
▶ 2:10:16Uh, but if it was, uh, congress put forward and decided to name it after the sitting speaker, I just find it fascinating that the, the energy that's spent and the hatred against the president by some of our colleagues, but to, to suffice it to say, we have a real opportunity here, uh, to, to, to site, uh, meaning to place on our nation's mall. Uh, the women's history museum, the 250th year of our nation's capital. Uh, this is a great opportunity to tell the women's story. Uh, that was just referenced.
▶ 2:10:46Uh, we have an opportunity to tell it, and we have, uh, this, this committee will decide the nature of how that bill moves forward to the floor, and the members will be able to stand and be on the record. Do they want a museum on the nation's mall? Uh, celebrating the history and the role that women have played in our history? Uh, or do they not? And, uh, the chips will fall where they may. I'm voting yes. I encourage my colleagues to, uh, I think this is a great opportunity for us to, uh, to celebrate that on the 250th year of our nation's birth.
▶ 2:11:15And I appreciate the gentleman giving me the courtesy of time. And I yield back. >> absolutely. And I, I, too, want to see us, uh, have this museum built. And every month that's delayed is another month that it doesn't get started. I yield back, madam chair. >> thank you, Mr. griffith. Mr. langworthy, you're recognized. >> well, thank you very much, madam chair. Uh, I was a very early co-sponsor of this bill due to the persistence, uh, of my colleague from new york.
▶ 2:11:43Nicole malliotakis, who, uh, worked very hard to make sure other new yorkers signed on to support this, uh, incredible legislation. You can't tell america's story without telling the story of the women that shaped this country. And the fact that this has been in a in a partizan way, um, is just asinine at this point. I mean, yes, we are going to talk about biological women because it's the women's history museum.
▶ 2:12:09Uh, and everyone's so petrified about president trump's involvement. I mean, everyone on this dais has been part of government projects, right? Do we really think that this thing is going to be fully operational by the time president trump leaves office? And all of this venom being spewed because he's the president, you got to get over it. And it takes three, uh, legs of the stool to, to make this place run. He's going to have to sign this into law.
▶ 2:12:38Uh, they have a simple ability to review the site. And this is much ado about nothing, but you found a way to politicize it. Maybe. Maybe the anger is because of the biological, uh, you know, women set aside. Uh, I think that's something that america's women deserve to really, truly be honored at their own museum without that being as well. Um, Mr. steele, you have anything you'd like to add that further? Okay, I yield back, madam chair.
▶ 2:13:07I strongly support this. >> thank you, Mr. langworthy. >> I just I just want to say, for the record, um, you lamented about the fact that republicans have to listen to democrats. There were nine republicans that we have to listen to, um, who regularly not only praise, but genuflect to the president. And yeah, there is some angst over here about this president, a man who has a long record of abusing women, uh, overseeing all of this. And let me just say one final thing.
▶ 2:13:37And that is, as someone from massachusetts, uh, where, uh, president john f kennedy came from, the idea that the kennedy center was desecrated with the name of this president. I look forward to the day when we have the votes to. Well, I don't even need the votes because he had no authority to put his name up there. But I look forward to the day where I can go with a crowbar and remove his name from that monument. Uh, because it does a great disservice and disrespect to a president that I greatly admire. President john f kennedy. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 2:14:07Miss horton, you're recognized. >> uh, I have no questions, madam chair. Just if there's anything additional that Mr. style would like to add. Thank you. I yield back. >> thank you, miss horton. Um, I just want to change the subject completely for a second. I was over at the library of congress today with some staff and family, and there is a fabulous exhibit over there called the two georges. It's going to be leaving on the 4th of july.
▶ 2:14:35It's about king george and george washington. I didn't have nearly enough time to spend in there, but I would encourage you to go. Um, I never tire of going to the library of congress. Most beautiful building in congress. Last one that came in under budget and under time. And I always want to point that out. Maybe the most beautiful building. So if you have a chance, I would encourage you to go over.
▶ 2:15:04They've extended the exhibit. They said several times they won't extend it again. The british want their documents back, they said, but it is a wonderful exhibit. If you get a chance to go, I would encourage you to do so. Thank you. Gentlemen, I see no further people wishing to ask you questions, and you are excused. >> thank you.
▶ 2:16:05>> is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none. This closes the hearing portion of our meeting. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from georgia. Mr. jack. >> madam chair, I move the committee. Grant h.r. 1041, the veterans second amendment protection act, a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
▶ 2:16:28The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on veterans affairs, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on veterans affairs or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h.r. 6047.
▶ 2:16:57The shari briley and eric edmondson veterans benefits expansion act of 2026. Under a closed rule, the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on veterans affairs, now printed in the bill modified by the amendment printed in part a of the rules committee report shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. Rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended.
▶ 2:17:24The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on veterans affairs or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h.r. 1329 the smithsonian american women's history museum act. Under a closed rule, the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill.
▶ 2:17:45The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on house administration, now printed in the bill modified by the amendment printed in part b of the rules committee report, shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waves all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on house administration or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit.
▶ 2:18:15Finally, the rule provides that the requirement of clause six of rule 13 for a two thirds vote to consider a report from the committee on rules on the same day it is presented to the house is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day on may 24th, 2026, relating to a measure providing for reconciliation pursuant to title two of s con res 33. >> thank you very much, Mr. jack. You have now heard the motion.
▶ 2:18:43Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? >> yeah. Madam chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee, add a new section to the rule providing immediate consideration of h.r. 7711, the no rewards for january 6th rioters act under a closed rule, debatable for one hour.
▶ 2:19:01Equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee on judiciary, with a self-executing amendment that would require the disclosure to congress within 15 days of any settlements or other payments made out to the so-called anti weaponization fund. So this bill would prohibit the use of federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the united states capitol on january 6th, 2021.
▶ 2:19:28Additionally, my motion would self execute an amendment that would require the attorney general of the united states to disclose any payments made by the so-called anti weaponization fund, which was created by the corrupt settlement agreement between donald trump and his own administration. This secret slush fund should be an outrage to every american, no matter your politics, and at least the majority leader of the senate. A republican seems reluctant to go along with this.
▶ 2:19:54He said today that he is, quote, not a big fan, end quote, and that he, quote does not see a purpose, end quote, for it. But will he and other republicans do anything about it? I know that my colleagues I know my colleague, congressman scott, has expressed concern with trump's pardons of over 1500 individuals who attacked the capitol on january 6th, including the many who were convicted of violent felonies.
▶ 2:20:19And I recall representative griffith say that he had, quote, mixed feelings about the pardons. So how do you feel about secret slush fund money going to these violent offenders? I would urge a yes vote on my motion, and I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Um, any further discussion on the amendment, Mr. allen, you're recognized.
▶ 2:20:40>> yes, I, I really appreciate the gentleman's amendment because it does, uh, what the disinfectant of sunshine on this really corrupt slush fund that has been created by the white house. Um, if there is no problem with it, then there should be no hesitation to make public who is being paid the money and why.
▶ 2:21:01So I think it's a really necessary transparent, uh, move by congress to assert its authority over the power of the purse, which, uh, this administration has usurped by, uh, entering into this settlement fund with itself. And I, I, I agree with the ranking member that every american should be, uh, in favor of this amendment. So I wholeheartedly support it. >> thank you. Mr. scanlon.
▶ 2:21:29Any further discussion on the amendment, Mr. fernandez? You're recognized. >> madam chair, I also support the amendment. I think that this goes back to the fact that this, uh, committee, uh, and this house will vote on various matters this week. Uh, and there are various matters that cost money.
▶ 2:21:49Uh, so when you decide that you're not willing to pay for, uh, disability benefits for veterans unless you get a pay for, you can also decide that you're not going to pay for 1.6, 1.6, $1.8 billion, $1.8 billion slush fund. And you have the power in this committee to say no.
▶ 2:22:15So what ranking member, uh, has done with this amendment is allow you to vote to put some brakes on the slush fund to bring some sunshine to the slush fund. This is a power that you have that you can choose to do something about the slush fund and say no.
▶ 2:22:36Now, I doubt that any of you will vote for this amendment, but I am very proud that the democrats are willing to say no, because our constituents are saying there should not be a slush fund created, and we should do something about it. This is the moment when you can say no to this slush fund. For those who have brutally attacked the police officers that you walk by every day.
▶ 2:23:05Brutally attacked them, sent 140 140 law enforcement officers to the hospital on january 6th. And, and, and this is a moment where you get to say, no, I'm going to say no to the slush fund, because we have the power, because the constitution gave us this power. So don't say that we don't have the authority to do it because we have that authority. We are the rules committee. And I yield some time to the.
▶ 2:23:36>> I just want to say, for the record, so we're not making all this stuff up here. I mean, the acting attorney general, um, you know, uh, did not rule out, uh, anti weaponization payouts for people who assaulted law enforcement officers during the january 6th, 2021, breach of the capitol. He said, quote, anybody can apply. Uh, and that was in response to a question today from senator chris. Uh, that's for me. That's not not for me to say.
▶ 2:24:00That's for the commissioners and whether an individual, an oath keeper, as you mentioned, applies for compensation. Anybody in this country can apply, end quote. Again, this is this is coming from the acting attorney general. And so we need to be proactive here. And that's what this is about. So I thank the gentlelady, I yield back. >> I yield time to representative scanlon. >> I endorse my colleague's remarks, but I, I just would go a little bit further than representative leger.
▶ 2:24:28Fernandez, I don't think this is an opportunity for a republican colleagues to say no to the slush fund. I think it's their duty to say no to this slush fund. It is a misappropriation by someone who does not have the power to appropriate of taxpayer dollars for his own purposes, with no congressional authorization, no congressional oversight.
▶ 2:24:51I think it is the duty of every member of congress to say no, not just to this overstepping of authority, but in this moment, absolutely to this misuse of taxpayer dollars and misuse of power. I yield back to the ranking to. >> right. And I think that this also gets to not only is it a slush fund that could potentially and has been, uh, not ruled out, could be used to pay claims of those who attacked the law enforcement officers who were protecting us.
▶ 2:25:23Uh, it's also think about the precedent. Think about what you are now allowing to happen. Anytime a president wants to get around the constitution and the authority of congress to appropriate funds, they could just certify a lawsuit and then enter into a settlement and say, it's all coming from the judgment fund, but it's not coming from the judgment fund. The judgment fund is not some sort of open ended.
▶ 2:25:51Anytime you want anything, just go file a lawsuit, enter into a settlement. The judgment fund is paid for by taxpayers, and you have an authority. You have a responsibility. Thank you for using that word. You have an obligation.
▶ 2:26:06You have a responsibility to your constituents to not create a system where a president can file a lawsuit, settle, negotiate that lawsuit, and then create this fund of money that can be used for whatever they want. So that's what you are setting up. If you allow this to go forward. And with that, madam chair, I yield back. >> thank you, miss leger. Fernandez, any further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 2:26:39Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair of the nos. Have it the amendments no. >> roll call. >> the the. Mr. mcgovern has requested a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> miss fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman, Mr. roy, Mrs. houchin, Mrs. hodgkin, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 2:27:07I miss. Scanlon, miss scanlon, I. Mr. joe neguse. Mr. fernandez, Mr. fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> three days. Seven days. >> okay. The nos have it. The amendments not agreed to. Is there further discussion? >> I'm sure I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment number four to h.r. 6047, authored by ranking member takano, which would strike sections three and four of the underlying bill, the sections that would raise home loan financing fees for veterans.
▶ 2:27:36As I said earlier, under this republican controlled government, there's always money to spend when it comes to giving tax cuts to the rich and funding illegal wars of forking over billions for the trump ballroom, republicans spent $4.7 trillion on tax cuts that were not offset. And their big ugly bill that's, you know, 1175 times larger than the bill before us today, which adds $4 billion in benefits for veterans.
▶ 2:28:01But when it comes to this veterans bills, republicans say we have to pay for it by jacking up fees on veterans who want to refinance their va home loans. There's got to be a better way to do this. And I urge a yes vote on my motion. >> um, you've heard Mr. mcgovern's amendment. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> no. >> in the opinion chair, the nos have it.
▶ 2:28:30The amendment is not. >> for roll call. >> Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach, Mr. norman, Mr. roy, Mrs. horton, Mrs. hutchinson, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern. I miss. Scanlon, Mr. callaghan, I. Mr. fernandez, Mr. fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> three a seven ayes nos.
▶ 2:29:00>> have it. The amendment is not agreed to share. >> I have another amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment number five to h.r. 6047, authored by ranking member takano, which would strike sections three and four of the underlying bill and replace them with the reduction in the estate tax exemption from 15 million to 14.5 million. Republicans tripled the estate tax exemption from 5 million to 15 million in the big ugly bill. That one, that one move cost taxpayers $211 billion.
▶ 2:29:25That's more than 50 times the size of this veterans bill, scaling that exemption back by $500,000 isn't going to make a huge difference to wealthy heirs. But that alone could fund the benefit increases for disabled veterans and survivors in this bill without penalizing veterans who are trying to afford their mortgages. So let's make this country a bit more fair for once. And I urge a yes vote on my amendment. >> any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. The question is on the amendment.
▶ 2:29:55All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no, no, no. In the opinion of chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. >> for roll call. >> madam chair, Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman, Mr. roy, Mrs. horton. Mrs. horton. Mr. Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern. I miss scanlon, miss scanlon, I Mr. fernandez, st leger.
▶ 2:30:25Fernandez I madam chair. No, madam chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> three days. Seven days. >> the amendment is not agreed to the nos. >> have it. >> madam chair, I have one final amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment number two to hr 14 1041, offered by representative takano, which would carve out several serious mental illnesses from the reporting prohibitions in the underlying bill.
▶ 2:30:49Um, I understand that my republican colleagues are concerned about the second amendment rights of veterans, but it is simply irresponsible to block the va from reporting people to nics, the database that gun dealers use to run background checks for people who have been diagnosed with severe mental illnesses and who are already banned under current law from buying or possessing a firearm. This amendment specifically lists conditions like schizophrenia, psychosis and dementia, and I urge a yes vote on my motion, and I yield back.
▶ 2:31:21>> you've heard the motion from Mr. mcgovern. Is there further debate on his motion? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. No in the chair. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed. >> for roll call. >> Mr. mcgovern requested a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. roy. Mrs. horton, Mrs. now. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr.
▶ 2:31:51Griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. I miss. Scanlon, miss. Scanlon, I. Mr. goose, miss. Leger. Fernandez. Mr. miss. Leger. Fernandez, I. Madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. >> clerk will report the. >> title three a seven ayes. >> and the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion. >> madam chair. >> miss leger fernandez. >> madam chair, I have an amendment to the rule I move.
▶ 2:32:20The committee may consider amendment number two to h.r. 1329, offered by representative chu and myself, which reverts the amended bill back to its original bipartisan base text and includes the text of h.r. 1330, the smithsonian national museum of the american latino act. For years, the smithsonian american women's history museum has been a bipartisan effort.
▶ 2:32:43Now, republicans suddenly blew up the decades of bipartisan work to grant president trump authority to unilaterally select the women's museum site. The republican amended bill now hands control over design and construction to boards stacked with trump's political loyalists. The ballroom board basically, and dictates what the museum can and cannot say about women's history.
▶ 2:33:13Republicans needlessly added an anti-transgender provision. Uh, poison pill. I think they think it's good for political ads or something. There was no reason to add any of these provisions, which were dictated by the white house.
▶ 2:33:29The bill also omits the national museum of the latino history, the latino history museum, the women's history museum have always been considered, advocated and advanced together. They both have had bipartisan support.
▶ 2:33:47As noted earlier, based on the republicans, the republicans amendments to this bill and house administration, we now have a letter signed by 146 members in congress opposing the women's history museum.
▶ 2:34:05Now, that's a really hard thing to do because we want a museum that showcases the complex, complicated, uh, diversity, balanced range of issues that women in america have faced.
▶ 2:34:25But we cannot agree to have a museum where we are putting such authority in the hands of this man, especially considering his history of slapping his name on the kennedy center.
▶ 2:34:44And I think it's really different when you are dealing with a president who unilaterally, without consultation, without congressional authority, decides to name buildings after himself, not because there was a vote, but because he wanted his name up on the kennedy center and any other building he can find.
▶ 2:35:08We don't want his name on the women's history museum, and there's nothing guaranteeing that it will stay off if we allow this version to move forward. So the amendment was simply take us back to that bipartisan supported bill that had no bipartisan opposition, uh, that I knew of. Uh, and I urge a yes vote on my amendment and I yield back.
▶ 2:35:38>> is there any further discussion on the amendment from miss leger fernandez? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. Those opposed? No, no. Independent chair. The nos. Have it. Mr. leger fernandez requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach, Mr. norman, Mr. roy, Mrs. horton, Mrs. hawkins, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr.
▶ 2:36:08Jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. I miss. Scanlon, miss scanlon, I. Mr. joe neguse, miss fernandez, miss lydia fernandez, I. Madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. >> clerk will report the total. >> three days. Seven days. >> the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Is there any other amendment or discussion on the motion from the gentleman from georgia? Hearing no further discussion. The question is on the motion from the gentleman from georgia.
▶ 2:36:38All those in favor signify by saying I, I those opposed say, no, no. In the opinion chair, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Yes, Mrs. fischbach, Mr. norman, Mr. roy, Mrs. houchin, Mrs. hawkins, Mr. langworthy. Yes. Mr. langworthy, I. Mr. scott, Mr. scott, I. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin I. Mr. jack. Mr. jack I. Mr. mcgovern, Mr. mcgovern. Mary scanlon. Miss. Scanlon. No. Mr.
▶ 2:37:08Negus, Mr. fernandez, Mr. fernandez. No. Madam chair. Madam chair, I. >> the clerk will report the title. >> seven years, three nays. >> the ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Representative jack will be managing the rule for the majority. >> and representative leger fernandez for the democrats. >> uh, leger fernandez for the democrats. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.