Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act

Floor Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and the ranking member of the Subcommittee for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend Ranking Member Takano for his leadership on the committee. I know he feels just as strongly as I do on this issue. That is why I must rise in opposition to this bill today.

Every day, 17 veterans die by suicide, and 13 of them use a firearm to take their lives. That number is simply unacceptable to me, as I know it is to all of my colleagues, but I am deeply concerned that, with this bill, we are about to make it worse.

The current law was written to help protect veterans. A key moment is when their doctor and care team deem that they are not able to manage their own life and are deemed to be mentally incapacitated.

At that point, the law is designed to prevent them from owning a gun and potentially harming themselves. The VA should be able to refer veterans to NICS who are at the most risk for the purpose of saving lives, but this legislation will permanently tie the VA's hands.

As the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I have opposed this legislation every time it has been attached to our bill, in the name of protecting veterans.

When I was in the Rules Committee last week and on the floor debating the MILCON-VA bill, this provision was raised multiple times, but, Mr. Speaker, I heard something different this year. There are some core agreements. There is a glimmer of hope.

We all agree that we have a major issue with getting help to our veterans and keeping them safe. While we disagree about this legislation, I think that there is a path forward to a bipartisan compromise, a compromise that could allow the VA to do the work that we need to save lives, the work that we directed them to do, and that also respects the choices of some of our veterans.

In the meantime, I must urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation that is attempting to use a sledgehammer where a scalpel can do the job.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. TAKANO. Morrison). Dr. Kelly Morrison is my good friend and fellow committee member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source