[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 46 (Thursday, March 16, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2102-H2114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 VETERANS 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 198, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 1181) to amend title 38, United States Code, 
to clarify the conditions under which certain persons may be treated as 
adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
198, the bill is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1181

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans 2nd Amendment 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONDITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PERSONS AS 
                   ADJUDICATED MENTALLY INCOMPETENT FOR CERTAIN 
                   PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 55 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 5501A the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 5501B. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as 
       adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes

       ``Notwithstanding any determination made by the Secretary 
     under section 5501A of this title, in any case arising out of 
     the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits 
     under this title, a person who is mentally incapacitated, 
     deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss 
     of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a 
     mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 
     922 of title 18 without the order or finding of a judge, 
     magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent 
     jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or 
     herself or others.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 55 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the

[[Page H2103]]

     item relating to section 5501A the following new item:

``5501B. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as adjudicated 
              mentally incompetent for certain purposes.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlemen from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) and 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 1181.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to not traffic the well 
during debate.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, too often, as Americans, we tend to take our freedom for 
granted. We should never forget we owe the freedom to our Nation's 
veterans. That is why it is so egregious that many veterans come home 
to find that they have to do battle with the VA--the very agency that 
is supposed to help and support them--to protect their own 
constitutional rights. The problem occurs when VA, for whatever reason, 
determines that a veteran needs assistance managing his or her VA 
financial benefits and decides to appoint a fiduciary.
  Now, there may be many reasons that a veteran might need a fiduciary, 
such as a veteran who has TBI may have trouble with math and struggles 
to balance his or her checkbook. But it is important to remember that 
the decision to appoint a fiduciary is made by a VA bureaucrat, not a 
judge or a magistrate after ensuring that veteran's due process rights 
are protected.
  Unfortunately, there are serious, unintended consequences when VA 
appoints a fiduciary. This is because, once VA decides that the 
beneficiary needs help with finances, even though there may be no 
evidence that the individual may be a danger to himself or others, the 
Department sends his or her name to the FBI to be added to the NICS 
list.
  As you know, anyone whose name is on the NICS list is legally 
prohibited from possessing a firearm. This means that the veteran can 
no longer participate in sports like hunting or target shooting. The 
veteran is also legally obligated to relinquish any firearms he or she 
owns, including collector's pieces and family heirlooms.
  I am opposed to the VA's existing policy not only because it deprives 
veterans of their constitutional rights without due process of law, I 
am also concerned that these veterans are not able to participate in 
recreational therapy programs like VA's program at the VA Grand 
Junction medical center in Colorado that enables veterans with physical 
and mental disabilities to go hunting or shooting. I know from personal 
experience that these therapy programs are very effective in helping 
these heroes recover from injuries that they have received while 
serving our country.
  It is unfortunate that some of the opponents of this bill are 
perpetrating the outdated stereotypes that people who are mentally ill 
may be violent and should be feared. I am concerned that these false 
characterizations may actually deter people from seeking the health 
services they need.
  It is hard enough for some people to admit they need help, Mr. 
Speaker, but image how much more difficult it is when they fear that 
they would be stigmatized and isolated. It is also possible that some 
veterans decide to avoid using VA healthcare services all together out 
of fear that a VA bureaucrat may decide that they are incompetent and 
take away their constitutional rights.
  Let's take a look at the people who actually are added to the NICS 
list as a result of the Veterans Administration's appointing a 
fiduciary.
  There are currently more than 1,000 children under the age of 20 here 
on the NICS list, likely because VA appointed a fiduciary because they 
are too young to handle their own money.
  VA has also added the names of 107,000 people over 80 years old to 
the NICS list. These individuals probably just need help with their 
finances due to their advanced age.
  But should VA really take away the Second Amendment rights from our 
Nation's seniors, particularly those who fought for the country? It is 
outrageous that the only group of people that can have their 
constitutional rights taken away without a hearing before a judge or 
magistrate are the very people who fought for those rights and their 
dependents. Even criminals must be convicted in a court of law before 
their names are added to that list, Mr. Speaker.
  H.R. 1181 would simply prohibit VA from sending veterans' names to 
the NICS list unless there is an order from a judge or a magistrate 
that says the person may harm themselves or others.
  This proposal has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. In 2011, 
the House passed H.R. 2349, which included similar provisions, by voice 
vote. And just last month, both the House and Senate passed H.J. Res. 
40, which prevented the Social Security Administration from 
implementing a similar policy to report the names of some people who 
have received disability insurance benefits to NICS.
  H.R. 1181 also has wide support among the veterans community, 
including the American Legion, the VFW, and AMVETS. H.R. 1181 is also 
supported by the National Disability Rights Network and the National 
Rifle Association. Additionally, H.R. 1181 has a positive statement of 
the administration's support.
  Mr. Speaker, veterans who fought to defend the Constitution should 
also be allowed the rights it protects. I urge all Members to support 
H.R. 1181. It is the right thing to do, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I recently joined the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
because of its bipartisan history of working together to improve care 
for our veterans. I stand ready to work with the committee--in 
particular, with Chairman Roe--and with every Member of this House to 
improve and work on the important issues that affect our veterans every 
day. However, I cannot support this bill, and I strongly urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.

  As this House knows all too well, there is a veterans suicide crisis 
in this country, a crisis that is enabled by the easy access to 
firearms. Just last week, the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, David 
Shulkin, told the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs that the issue 
of veteran suicide is one of his highest priorities, and it needs to be 
a priority of this House as well.
  Today, on this day that we have this debate, 20 brave men and women 
who have worn the uniform in service of this country will take their 
lives in suicide, and the vast majority of them will use a gun.
  As folks all over the country who have helped veterans know, the 
means matter. Research has shown that more than 85 percent of suicide 
attempts with a firearm are ultimately fatal compared with just 5 
percent for all other means. That is why addressing the public health 
crisis in the veteran community demands a thoughtful and comprehensive 
approach: to ensure that veterans in crisis do not have easy access to 
guns and that they get the care that they need and deserve.
  And yet, today, this House is voting on legislation that completely 
ignores the crisis that many of our most vulnerable veterans are 
facing. Unfortunately, this bill was rushed to the floor with no 
consideration in committee, collaboration, or even time for all of us 
to understand its full implications. The majority scheduled H.R. 1181 
for a vote in committee last week with the bare minimum notice 
required, even having to move the start time of the markup to comply 
with the 48-hour notice requirement.
  During last week's committee markup, I raised the concern shared by 
many who work closely on this issue that H.R. 1181 would end up being 
applied retroactively. The result of this bill being applied 
retroactively would mean that, if it should pass, more than 170,000 
veterans currently prohibited from owning a firearm would be able to

[[Page H2104]]

pass a background check and buy a gun.
  While the chairman expressed his sincere intent and desire that this 
legislation not be applied retroactively, it is fair to say that 
reasonable people disagree on how this bill would be implemented. This 
honest disagreement, alone, illustrates exactly why this House should 
be taking its time on a bill that could have such a profound impact on 
our Nation's veterans.
  The fact of the matter is that, should H.R. 1181 be signed into law, 
it would need to be read together with the NICS Improvement Amendments 
Act of 2007, which requires--requires--Federal agencies to update the 
records they have previously shared with NICS, meaning, should this 
bill pass, the VA would be required to remove the 170,000 records they 
have previously shared with NICS since none of those were approved by a 
court, nor did they meet the new standard established by this bill.
  Now, with respect to the text of the bill itself, the Veterans 2nd 
Amendment Protection Act, contrary to its name, would create an end run 
around the firearms mental health prohibitor that we have attempted to 
refine and improve since Congress passed the Brady Act nearly 20 years 
ago and the bipartisan NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007.
  Put simply, this bill would make it easier, not harder, for those 
veterans in crisis to get access to a firearm by establishing a new 
judicial requirement that is far higher than any other agency's or 
department's implementation of the firearms mental health prohibitor, 
and, quite frankly, would be impractical, if not impossible, for the VA 
to actually use. The VA is already strapped for resources, and it is 
unclear if it has the legal standing to initiate a legal proceeding 
such as that suggested in the bill.
  As Members of this House know very well, there has been a fierce 
debate in this country over the meaning and extent of the Second 
Amendment right to bear arms. But the question before this House today 
is not whether an American has a right to own a firearm. The Supreme 
Court has been very clear on this issue, and the controlling law has 
been settled. However, constitutional rights are not absolute. As the 
late Justice Scalia wrote in the controlling Supreme Court Heller 
decision on the Second Amendment, ``the Second Amendment is not 
unlimited.''
  The question before this House is whether we are going to summarily 
overturn the VA's efforts over the last 20 years to help prevent 
veteran suicide and protect veterans' families by reporting the names 
of veterans with serious mental health issues to the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS.
  Supporters of this legislation argue that the current process used by 
the VA to share mental health records with NICS is overinclusive and 
must be thrown out and replaced with a process that ensures veterans' 
due process rights.
  I agree that the current process is overinclusive, and I agree that 
we must do more to ensure veterans have sufficient notice, an 
opportunity to be heard, and a meaningful opportunity to appeal any 
decision that may impact their constitutional rights; and I stand ready 
to work with my colleagues on the committee and in this House to more 
specifically tailor the application of the firearms background checks 
law as it applies to veterans, both prospectively and retroactively.

                              {time}  1430

  But a wholesale elimination of the VA's long-established practice to 
help keep firearms out of the hands of veterans who are at serious risk 
of harming themselves or others is dangerous and misguided.
  To be clear, of the 170,000 veterans currently prohibited from owning 
a firearm, as of 2015, almost 20,000 of them were diagnosed with 
schizophrenia, over 11,000 with dementia, and over 5,000 with 
Alzheimer's. For a veteran suffering with a significant mental health 
condition like one of these, access to a firearm is a serious matter.
  Moreover, just 3 months ago, this Congress passed bipartisan 
legislation that codified a process for how the VA can make a 
determination of the mental capacity of a veteran before that 
information is sent to NICS. The 21st Century Cures Act, which passed 
this House 3 months ago by a vote of 392-26, required a veteran to be 
provided notice of a proposed financial competency determination and 
given an opportunity to be heard, present evidence, and be represented 
at a hearing.
  H.R. 1181 seeks to undo this carefully crafted compromise before we 
even have a chance to study the impacts of the 21st Century Cures Act 
or the VA's existing practices.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by 12 veterans, 
including retired Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus, whose 
leadership and support for our military and veterans community is 
unquestioned and who believe that this bill could put mentally ill 
veterans in harm's way by giving them easy access to firearms.
                                            Veterans Coalition for


                                                 Common Sense,

                                                   March 14, 2017.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker 
     Ryan and Leader Pelosi, As dedicated service members and 
     members of the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, we write 
     to you today to express our grave concerns with legislation 
     being considered by Congress, the Veterans 2nd Amendment 
     Protection Act. This proposal would put America's veterans 
     who need our support the most in harm's way by providing them 
     with easy access to firearms. Instead of passing this 
     irresponsible and dangerous legislation, Congress should 
     instead do more to guarantee that all veterans have access to 
     world-class medical and counseling services. We urge you to 
     oppose this bill.
       Our nation is facing a devastating epidemic of veteran 
     suicide. The bill you are debating comes at a time when an 
     average of 20 veterans commit suicide each day, two-thirds of 
     whom do so by using a firearm. We know that non-deployed 
     veterans are at a 61 percent higher risk of suicide compared 
     to the American civilian population, and deployed veterans 
     are at a 41 percent higher risk. Firearms are the most lethal 
     means when it comes to suicide, resulting in death nine out 
     of ten times. When vulnerable veterans have access to 
     firearms, they can do harm not only to themselves but also to 
     family members and loved ones. The impact of these tragedies 
     is felt in communities across our nation.
       Last week, we were pleased to hear Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs (VA) David Shulkin announce his intent to provide 
     urgent mental health care services to veterans with other-
     than-honorable discharges. This is a step in the right 
     direction. Over 22,000 soldiers in the Army alone have 
     received these bad paper discharges since 2009 due to mental 
     health conditions, and they are among the ones who most need 
     access to comprehensive mental health services.
       But they are not the only ones. In 2008, President Bush 
     signed a law requiring all federal agencies to submit the 
     names of individuals who are legally prohibited from 
     possessing guns to the National Instant Criminal Background 
     Check System (NICS). Since then, the VA has submitted over 
     174,000 names of servicemen and women who require a fiduciary 
     to manage their benefits and have been determined through 
     clear and convincing evidence to meet the federal standard 
     for gun prohibition. Of these 174,000, 19,000 are individuals 
     that suffer from schizophrenia and another 15,000 have severe 
     PTSD.
       For these individuals, possession of a firearm could be 
     fatal. The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act would put at 
     risk the safety of these veterans and our communities by 
     changing the standard for gun prohibition, so the VA's 
     determinations would no longer stop a veteran from obtaining 
     a gun. Instead, the names of veterans already in the 
     background check system would be erased, putting them at much 
     greater risk of self-harm. This would be irresponsible, 
     dangerous, and life threatening to those who need access to 
     care, not weapons.
       Just last year, Congress worked to ensure that all veterans 
     have appropriate due process protections in place through the 
     21st Century Cures Act. This codified existing practice and 
     guaranteed that individuals who disagree with their final 
     adjudication have the ability to appeal this determination.
       We appreciate your service to your country in the United 
     States Congress, and look forward to working with you to 
     support and protect our men and women in uniform and their 
     communities. In doing so, we urge you to oppose the Veterans 
     2nd Amendment Protection Act. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
         Admiral Thad Allen, USCG (Ret.); General Peter W. 
           Chiarelli, USA (Ret.); General Wesley Clark, USA 
           (Ret.); General Michael V. Hayden, USA (Ret.);

[[Page H2105]]

           General James T. Hill, USA (Ret.); General Stanley A. 
           McChrystal, USA (Ret.); Admiral Eric T. Olson, USN 
           (Ret.); General David H. Petraeus, USA (Ret.); 
           Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, USA (Ret.); 
           Lieutenant General Russel Honore, USA (Ret.); 
           Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.); 
           Lieutenant General Norman R. Seip, USAF (Ret.); Rear 
           Admiral James ``Jamie'' A. Barnett, USN (Ret.); 
           Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.).

  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 
Everytown for Gun Safety and a coalition letter led by the Newtown 
Action Alliance signed by over 40 organizations from around the country 
opposing this bill.

                                     Everytown for Gun Safety,

                                      New York, NY, March 7, 2017.
     Re Reject H.R. 1181, which would put U.S. veterans in danger.

     Hon. Phil Roe,
     Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Tim Walz,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Roe and Ranking Member Walz: I write to 
     express Everytown for Gun Safety's strong opposition to H.R. 
     1181. In the midst of a suicide epidemic among our veterans, 
     this bill would discard hundreds of thousands of mental 
     health records from the background check system and enable 
     Veterans Affairs beneficiaries suffering from severe mental 
     illness to buy firearms.
       The stakes could not be higher. Twenty U.S. veterans take 
     their lives each day--a suicide rate more than 20 percent 
     higher than among the civilian population. Two in three of 
     those suicides are carried out with firearms. While suicide 
     in the general population has decreased since the turn of the 
     century, suicide among veterans has not.
       H.R. 1181 would repeal the law that blocks VA beneficiaries 
     from possessing or purchasing firearms if they have been 
     found mentally incompetent, after receiving due process and 
     the right to a formal hearing. According to the VA, more than 
     170,000 prohibiting records for these beneficiaries are 
     already in the background check system. Under this 
     legislation, those records would no longer lead to a failed 
     background check--and would be removed from the system 
     entirely. H.R. 1181 would roll back the law that prohibits 
     people with a VA incompetency finding from purchasing 
     firearms--even though many of these beneficiaries suffer from 
     schizophrenia or severe long-term post traumatic stress 
     disorder.
       The current process works, and it provides veterans with 
     due process. To make an incompetency finding, VA officials 
     must have clear and convincing evidence. The beneficiary has 
     an opportunity to request a formal hearing and may appeal an 
     adverse decision to a federal judge. Indeed, the 21st Century 
     Cures Act, passed in 2016 by the Republican Congress and 
     signed into law by President Obama, provides new comfort at 
     the statutory level that beneficiaries can present evidence 
     from a mental health professional and be represented by 
     counsel at incompetency hearings.
       When it comes to suicide, means matter. When suicide is 
     attempted with a firearm, the chances that a person will 
     actually end his or her life are radically increased. Because 
     firearms are uniquely lethal, up to 90 percent of suicide 
     attempts with guns result in death. In addition, suicide is 
     often an impulsive act and 90 percent of people who attempt 
     and fail to kill themselves do not end up dying from suicide. 
     Preventing firearm access in these moments of crisis can be 
     the difference between a long life and a tragedy.
       I urge you to protect our service members and veterans by 
     rejecting H.R. 1181.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John Feinblatt,
     President.
                                  ____



                                      Newtown Action Alliance,

                                      Newtown, CT, March 14, 2017.
       Dear Members of Congress: We strongly urge you to oppose 
     H.R. 1181--Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, a bill that 
     would immediately remove 174,000 individuals deemed 
     ``mentally incompetent'' by the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs (VA) Secretary from the National Instant Criminal 
     Background Check System (NICS). These individuals who suffer 
     from serious mental illnesses like dementia, schizophrenia, 
     and severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) will be able 
     to access firearms more easily. With veteran suicide rate 
     increasing by 32.2% from 2001 to 2014, Congress should be 
     closing the background check loopholes rather than weakening 
     our background check system.
       Please thoroughly review the 2014 veteran suicide 
     statistics from VA's Fact Sheet on Suicide Prevention to 
     understand why HB 1181 must be opposed to reduce the tragic 
     epidemic of veteran suicides in our nation.
       https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsh eets/
     Suicide_Prevention_FactSheet_New _VA_Stats_070616_1400.pdf
       ``Veteran Suicide Statistics, 2014
       In 2014, an average of 20 Veterans died from suicide each 
     day. 6 of the 20 were users of VA services.
       In 2014, Veterans accounted for 18% of all deaths from 
     suicide among U.S. adults, while Veterans constituted 8.5% of 
     the US population. In 2010, Veterans accounted for 22% of all 
     deaths from suicide and 9.7% of the population.
       Approximately 66% of all Veteran deaths from suicide were 
     the result of firearm injuries.
       There is continued evidence of high burden of suicide among 
     middle-aged and older adult Veterans. In 2014, approximately 
     65% of all Veterans who died from suicide were aged 50 years 
     or older.
       After adjusting for differences in age and gender, risk for 
     suicide was 21% higher among Veterans when compared to U.S. 
     civilian adults. (2014)
       After adjusting for differences in age, risk for suicide 
     was 18% higher among male Veterans when compared to U.S. 
     civilian adult males. (2014)
       After adjusting for differences in age, risk for suicide 
     was 2.4 times higher among female Veterans when compared to 
     U.S. civilian adult females. (2014)
       Overview of data for the years between 2001-2014
       In 2014, there were 41,425 suicides among U.S. adults. 
     Among all U.S. adult deaths from suicide, 18% (7,403) were 
     identified as Veterans of U.S. military service.
       In 2014, the rate of suicide among U.S. civilian adults was 
     15.2 per 100,000.
       Since 2001, the age-adjusted rate of suicide among U.S. 
     civilian adults has increased by 23.0%.
       In 2014, the rate of suicide among all Veterans was 35.3 
     per 100,000. Since 2001, the age-adjusted rate of suicide 
     among U.S. Veterans has increased by 32.2%.
       In 2014, the rate of suicide among U.S. civilian adult 
     males was 26.2 per 100,000.
       Since 2001, the age-adjusted rate of suicide among U.S. 
     civilian adult males has increased by 0.3%.
       In 2014, the rate of suicide among U.S. Veteran males was 
     37.0 per 100,000.
       Since 2001, the age-adjusted rate of suicide among U.S. 
     Veteran males has increased by 30.5%.
       In 2014, the rate of suicide among U.S. civilian adult 
     females was 7.2 per 100,000.
       Since 2001, the age-adjusted rate of suicide among U.S. 
     civilian adult females has increased by 39.7%.
       In 2014, the rate of suicide among U.S. Veteran females was 
     18.9 per 100,000.
       Since 2001, the age-adjusted rate of suicide among U.S. 
     Veteran females has increased by 85.2%.''
       Gun suicides and homicides are preventable with common 
     sense gun laws. Connecticut passed the second strongest gun 
     violence prevention laws in America after the Sandy Hook 
     tragedy, without infringing on the Second Amendment rights of 
     gun owners. Regrettably, Congress failed to take action after 
     the Sandy Hook massacre and over 400,000 Americans have been 
     killed or injured by guns since the gunman with severe mental 
     illness brutally gunned down 20 innocent children and six 
     educators in five minutes. If it can happen in Sandy Hook 
     then it can happen anywhere.
       We urge you to adequately represent the 90 percent of 
     Americans who continue to support expanded background checks 
     to keep guns away from individuals who are a danger to 
     themselves or others. We implore you to vote NO to H.R. 1181, 
     fix NICS and pass an expanded background check bill to 
     protect the military service members, our veterans, our 
     families and our communities throughout the United States.
           Sincerely,
       Newtown Action Alliance, Blue Star Families, CeaseFire 
     Pennsylvania, CHICAGO SURVIVORS, Coalition Against Gun 
     Violence, Colorado Ceasefire Legislative Action, Connecticut 
     Against Gun Violence, Delaware Coalition Against Gun 
     Violence, Episcopal Peace Fellowship, Gays Against Guns, 
     Greenwich Council Against Gun Violence, Gun Violence 
     Prevention Center of Utah, GunControlToday, Hoosiers 
     Concerned About Gun Violence, Indivisible DuPage, Iowans for 
     Gun Safety, Iowans for Gun Safety, Jessi's Message, Joint 
     Action Committee, Maine Gun Safety Coalition, Marylanders to 
     Prevent Gun Violence, Nebraskans Against Gun Violence.
       New Castle NH Huddle, New Castle Promise, North Carolinians 
     Against Gun Violence, NYAGV, Ohio Coalition Against Gun 
     Violence, One Pulse for America, Pride Fund to End Gun 
     Violence, Protect Minnesota, Rabbinical Assembly, 
     Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Rhode Island 
     Coalition Against Gun Violence, Seacoast Family Promise, 
     States United to Prevent Gun Violence, Stop Handgun Violence, 
     Texas Gun Sense, The Virginia Center for Public Safety, The 
     Virginia Gun Violence Prevention Coalition, Unitarian 
     Universalists of Santa Fe, WAVE Educational Fund, Women 
     Against Gun Violence, Women's Voices Raised for Social 
     Justice, St. Louis, MO.

  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the current practice of 
information sharing between the VA and NICS is overinclusive and that 
alternatives should be explored that would more appropriately balance 
veterans' Second Amendment rights with ensuring that veterans who pose 
a danger to themselves or to others do not have access to firearms.
  This bill, however, was not considered through regular order and no 
genuine attempt was made to work across the aisle or with the VA to 
craft a real solution that addresses the real crisis of veterans' 
suicide in this country.

[[Page H2106]]

  I stand ready to work with the chairman to address legitimate 
concerns regarding the VA process. And in fact, just yesterday, I 
visited at length with VA Secretary Shulkin on how we can all work 
together to keep our veterans safe and get them the care and support 
they and their families need.
  I cannot support any bill, especially one addressing an issue as 
important as veterans' suicide, through this rushed process.
  I ask all of my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1181. Our 
veterans put their lives on the line for this country. We shouldn't put 
their lives and their families at risk when they need us most.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In America, the last time I looked, you are presumed innocent until 
proven guilty. What we have done with these veterans who have served 
this country, many of them injured in combat, is we have said you are 
guilty and you have to prove you are innocent to be able to own a 
firearm in your own home.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, people who are in a fiduciary status 
actually statistically have a slightly lower incarceration rate than 
veterans who are not. So to say that they are a danger to themselves or 
a danger to others is erroneous.
  The other thing I would like to say is that the 21st Century Cures 
Act, Mr. Speaker, has codified basically the VA policy is what it did. 
It did not change the policy. What we are saying to veterans is that if 
you are an honorably discharged veteran who needs a fiduciary for 
whatever reason, you automatically lose a constitutionally guaranteed 
right.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), an 
active member of the Veterans Affairs' Committee.
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Veterans 2nd 
Amendment Protection Act.
  It is unfortunate that under current practices, it doesn't take a 
doctor or a judge to determine a veteran is unfit to own a firearm. Not 
a doctor, not a judge; it just takes the assignment of the fiduciary.
  Mr. Speaker, the women and men took an oath of office to protect and 
defend our Constitution--the same as we do in our offices to serve our 
veterans--and to stand in harm's way.
  Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the opposite of what our legal system 
should allow. There is no due process. All of a sudden they go to the 
VA. They are seeking help with maybe other issues that are out there--
because they can't even have a judge or a doctor make that decision, if 
that is the case--but they do make a decision that they have to have a 
fiduciary to help them with certain things.
  It is vitally important that we maintain the due process. This 
legislation still allows for dangerous individuals to be denied their 
firearms, but it leaves the determination to someone with the expertise 
to understand their case. This is a case where bureaucracy has run 
amok. We have got to stop it. That is what our job here is to do.
  Our Second Amendment rights are vitally important. Each amendment and 
those rights under our Constitution are vitally important. And for 
those men and women who have served to protect those rights, shouldn't 
we make sure that they are protected with due process.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1181.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to the assertion that there is no due process in this act and 
that the 21st Century Cures Act did not do anything to help veterans.
  The 21st Century Cures Act codified the following due process 
guaranteed to veterans through the VA. Individuals are notified by the 
VA that a fiduciary is recommended and are allowed 30 days to respond 
with a notification of acceptance or contest, and they are notified of 
the implications that this would have for being reported to NICS. The 
veteran then has 60 days to present evidence against the need for a 
fiduciary. And as required by law, the VA relief process allows 
impacted individuals to maintain their fiduciary, but regain gun 
eligibility removing their names from NICS. These are all already 
processes in place.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who 
is the vice ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1181.
  The epidemic--actually, rather the tragedy--of veterans' suicide has 
affected families across the country, including my own. I recall 
walking home after school at the age of 10 or 11 in the month of 
November--as you know, Veterans Day is in the month of November--and 
hearing the news that my uncle, who lived across the street from us, 
had taken his own life with a firearm. He was a Vietnam veteran, and 
his memory serves as a personal reminder about the tragedy of veterans' 
suicide. To this day, it continues to plague our communities with our 
recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Of the 20 veterans who die from suicide every day, two-thirds of 
those occur by firearm. Part of stopping this crisis is keeping guns 
out of the hands of our most vulnerable veterans. Removing all 
individuals determined by the VA to be mentally incompetent from the 
National Instant Criminal Background Check System will make it easier 
for a veteran in crisis to obtain a firearm.
  To be clear, there are veterans currently flagged in the background 
check system who should not be there, and we need to create a fair and 
streamlined process for veterans to appeal their status.
  But there is a balance between protecting veterans' Second Amendment 
rights and protecting veterans who are a danger to themselves or 
others. Immediately removing restrictions on every individual does not 
strike the right balance. Instead, it rolls back the bipartisan work we 
have done through the 21st Century Cures Act, and it endangers the 
lives of veterans who need our help the most.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1181, the 
Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. Our veterans should not lose 
their right to bear arms and defend themselves and their families 
simply because they receive health care from the VA and have someone 
appointed to help them with their finances.
  Currently, when a veteran appoints a fiduciary to help them manage 
their VA benefits, the VA automatically adds the veteran's name to a 
list that prevents them from purchasing a firearm. It makes no sense to 
take away a veteran's constitutionally protected rights simply because 
someone else is managing their finances.
  Opponents of this bill argue that dangerous or suicidal veterans 
could have easy access to guns if this VA process is stopped. However, 
the program does not make any determination on veterans' mental health 
or the dangers they pose to others. The VA system focuses only on 
whether veterans receive assistance with their finances.
  The right to bear arms is too important to deprive veterans of due 
process without a judicial determination of whether the veteran poses a 
threat to themselves or others. Those who defend our Nation, whether or 
not they use a fiduciary to manage their benefits, are entitled to the 
right to defend themselves.
  I urge my colleagues to support this good bill.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bera).
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the so-called 
Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. I agree with the chairman of the 
full committee that we don't want to take away Second Amendment rights 
from our veterans. In fact, our veterans have the skills and 
understanding of how to handle firearms. I think about this as a 
doctor, though, who has served veterans and who has worked in the VA 
system.
  We have an epidemic on our hands right now. Every day, 20 veterans 
commit suicide. That is 20 too many. As someone who has sat in the exam 
room and listened to these veterans, if there is any evidence or risk 
of suicidal ideations, if there is any risk of that, I

[[Page H2107]]

don't want to take doctors out of this process, and that is what I am 
worried about here. My first job is to do no harm and to do good and 
help protect these veterans.
  Two out of three veterans who commit suicide do so with a firearm. We 
have got to prevent this. This is an epidemic, and it is a national 
crisis, and we know gun suicides are preventible.
  When we see those risks, I want to make sure I, as a doctor, have the 
ability to act and protect that veteran. We need to address this 
problem like the public health issue that it is. We need to continue to 
allow doctors to report the risks when they see them. It makes their 
patients safer, their communities safer, and it is the right thing to 
do.
  I would love to work with my colleague, a fellow doctor and the 
chairman of the full committee, on making sure we protect our veterans.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The text of this bill does not remove the names of anyone who is 
currently on the NICS list. It simply prohibits the VA Secretary from 
continuing to send the names of beneficiaries who utilize a fiduciary 
to the NICS list. And there is nothing in the bill that would require 
the VA Secretary to take any action with respect to those already on 
the list.
  Just one other thing, Mr. Speaker, to show you how the VA's policy is 
not consistent: just as an example, a veteran who is rated at 100 
percent disabled for PTSD is not automatically given a fiduciary, even 
though the symptoms required for that rating may include suicidal or 
homicidal ideation. So they are very inconsistent about how they do 
this. And of the 915,744 veterans who have a service-connected PTSD 
condition, only 1.7 percent of them have a fiduciary. Remember, they 
lose their constitutionally guaranteed right.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), 
a hardworking member of this conference.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, under current practice, if a veteran or 
beneficiary is appointed a fiduciary by the VA, they are automatically 
labeled as mentally defective and added to the FBI's background check 
system which prohibits them from purchasing a firearm. This rule fails 
to identify which beneficiaries have a mental illness that make them a 
danger, instead instituting a blanket ban on anyone who needs help 
managing their benefits, and it discourages veterans who need help from 
seeking help.
  The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act will prohibit the VA from 
considering a beneficiary just because they are assisted by a fiduciary 
as mentally defective without due process. Just because you have 
trouble managing your finances doesn't mean you are dangerously 
mentally ill. This discourages veterans who may need help from seeking 
help.
  We owe it to our veterans and to all Americans to protect the 
freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and ensure that they are not 
taken away without due process. That is why I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this bill.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 14 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Tennessee has 18\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
thank her for her leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this piece of legislation. This 
bill undermines our commitment to our veterans, it weakens our 
background check system, and it puts guns in the hands of those who 
shouldn't have them.
  I am a combat veteran and I am a gun owner. I strongly support the 
Second Amendment. With responsible gun ownership comes the recognition 
that not everyone is mentally capable to own a gun.
  Every day, 20 veterans take their own life, most of those with a 
firearm, so the VA acted to prevent violence and to comply with the law 
by keeping guns out of the hands of veterans who are in crisis. These 
are veterans with very serious diagnoses, including 20,000 veterans 
diagnosed with schizophrenia, over 11,000 with dementia, and more than 
5,000 with Alzheimer's. Passing this bill would remove their names from 
our background check system.
  This is absolute stupidity. The VA has done a good job to keep more 
than 174,000 veterans with serious mental health problems from getting 
a gun. They are working hard to save the lives of these veterans. This 
bill would make it easier for veterans to take their own life.
  I don't want to see another veteran become a statistic. Passing this 
bill puts our veterans at risk. We owe them the best care and support. 
Sadly, this bill would leave them more vulnerable than ever. This is a 
dangerous overstep, and I urge every Member to seriously consider the 
impact this will have on our veterans, their families, and their 
communities.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, once again, let me state this for 
the record. The text of this bill does not remove the names of anyone 
who is currently on the NICS list, except it prohibits the VA Secretary 
from continuing to send the names of the beneficiaries who utilize a 
fiduciary to the NICS list.
  I don't want guns in the hands of anybody who should not own a gun 
who is mentally unstable, but what we are saying is that a VA rater 
should be a judge or a magistrate, where you can argue both sides of 
this in front of them. It shouldn't be a VA bureaucrat that is doing 
this.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Veterans 2nd 
Amendment Protection Act, a bill that I have supported for the last 
several Congresses.
  The Second Amendment is a constitutional right for all of us, but it 
is especially sacred to the men and women who put their lives on the 
line to protect our Constitution and our way of life. Unfortunately, 
under current law, many of our servicemembers who use a fiduciary to 
help them navigate the increasingly complicated Department of Veterans 
Affairs are automatically labeled as mentally defective--which, in this 
politically correct era, is probably not the best way to phrase them--
which places them in the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background 
Check System.
  This label wrongly denies these veterans their constitutional right 
to bear arms. The determination for a label of this magnitude should 
rest with the courts, as this bill ensures, not with a bureaucrat, as 
the current practice dictates.
  Mr. Speaker, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, 
they have listed some almost 40,000 people who have a clinical issue 
who deserve to have a conversation of the 174,000 that are on the list. 
What about the other 130,000?
  As the other side has also admitted, it overreaches and is beyond 
what we should be doing. Their gratuitous offer to negotiate to fix 
that, they know, of course, that the current practice of just labeling 
folks by a bureaucrat would remain in place throughout that negotiation 
process if it were to ever actually occur.
  All too often, government bureaucracies fail the very men and women 
who fought to protect this Nation; however, this bill is an easy fix to 
ensure that veterans aren't further hindered by Big Government 
bureaucracies.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1181. As a 
combat veteran in the Iraq war, the issues we are debating this 
afternoon are deeply personal to me.
  Veteran suicide has reached crisis levels in this country, and our 
failure to do more to help veterans in desperate need of mental health 
care is truly shameful. Unfortunately, Republicans have brought forward 
a bill today that will make this crisis even worse.

[[Page H2108]]

  Here is the plain truth. If we allow people with serious mental 
illnesses to purchase dangerous weapons, we are putting their lives and 
the lives of their loved ones at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when more veterans are taking their own lives, 
we should be debating how to get them greater resources and support, 
not easier access to firearms. At least 10--10--esteemed military 
leaders, including David Petraeus, Michael Hayden, and Stanley 
McChrystal all agree. Here is what they wrote in a heartfelt letter to 
Congress:
  ``Our Nation is facing a devastating epidemic of veteran suicide. The 
bill you are debating comes at a time when an average of 20 veterans 
commit suicide each day, two-thirds of whom do so by buying a firearm.
  ``We know that nondeployed veterans are at a 61 percent higher risk 
of suicide compared to the American civilian population, and deployed 
veterans are at a 41 percent higher risk'' than the American civilian 
population.
  ``When vulnerable veterans have access to firearms, they can do harm 
not only to themselves but also to their family members and loved ones. 
The impact of these tragedies is felt in communities across our Nation.
  ``The VA has submitted over 174,000 names of servicemen and -women 
who require a fiduciary to manage their benefits and have been 
determined through clear and convincing evidence to meet the Federal 
standard for gun prohibition.
  ``Of these 174,000, 19,000 are individuals that suffer from 
schizophrenia, and another 15,000 have severe PTSD.
  ``For these individuals, possession of a firearm could be fatal.''
  They conclude by calling the bill before us today ``irresponsible, 
dangerous, and life threatening to those who need access to care, not 
weapons,'' and I couldn't agree more with that.
  The question for my Republican friends is a simple one: Do you know 
more about what is best for our veterans than General Hayden? Do you 
have a better understanding of what would improve their welfare than 
General McChrystal? Do you appreciate their needs more acutely than 
General Petraeus? If the answer is no, then you should vote ``no'' on 
this bill later today.
  Mr. Speaker, if this legislation is signed into law, more veterans 
will take their own lives. That is the tragic reality we face. Please 
side with General Petraeus and General McChrystal. Side with your 
conscience and your values. Side with our veterans. Please vote ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Law Center to 
Prevent Gun Violence regarding a summary of the effect of H.R. 1181.

                                                     Law Center to


                                         Prevent Gun Violence,

                                                   March 10, 2017.

                               Memorandum

     To Interested Parties.
     From Americans for Responsible Solutions.
     Re Effect of H.R. 1181 (2017): Veterans 2nd Amendment 
         Protection Act.


                                Summary

       H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, would 
     mandate that veterans determined to be mentally incompetent 
     or incapacitated by the Veterans Administration (VA) shall 
     not be considered to have been ``adjudicated as a mental 
     defective'' for the purposes of federal firearms law without 
     a finding by a judge or judicial authority that the veteran 
     is a danger to self or others.
       The VA has reported records to the FBI's National Instant 
     Criminal Background Check System (NICS) regarding more than 
     170,000 beneficiaries who were adjudicated as mentally 
     incompetent under a very different standard. The vast 
     majority of those incompetency adjudications have been made 
     (1) without a finding of dangerousness and (2) without the 
     involvement of a judge or judicial officer.
       In short, this bill would drastically change the standard 
     under which veteran beneficiaries may be considered 
     ``adjudicated'' for the purposes of federal firearms law, and 
     it provides no express time limitation to ensure that this 
     new standard would not be applied to VA adjudications that 
     occurred before enactment of this bill. As a result, there is 
     significant concern about how this legislation would affect 
     veterans who have previously been adjudicated as mentally 
     incompetent by the VA, and who are, as a result, currently 
     considered subject to federal law's firearm prohibition.
       The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) states 
     that once a federal department or agency is aware that, when 
     the basis under which a record was made available to NICS 
     does not apply, or no longer applies, a federal agency must 
     ``update, correct, modify, or remove the record from any 
     database that the agency maintains and makes available to the 
     Attorney General, in accordance with the rules pertaining to 
     that database; and (ii) notify the Attorney General that such 
     basis no longer applies so that the National Instant Criminal 
     Background Check System is kept up to date.'' A strong 
     argument could be made that, if H.R. 1181 were to become law, 
     most beneficiaries who have been found to be mentally 
     incompetent by the VA could no longer be considered subject 
     to federal law's firearm prohibition.


                           Relevant Language

       The relevant language of the bill states: ``Notwithstanding 
     any determination made by the Secretary under section 5501A 
     of this title, in any case arising out of the administration 
     by the Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a 
     person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally 
     incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of 
     consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental 
     defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of 
     title 18 without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, 
     or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that 
     such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.''
       The key phrase is ``in any case arising out of the 
     administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under 
     this title.'' This phrase determines the scope of the 
     individuals that would be affected by this bill. It is not 
     limited to cases that the Secretary administers subsequent to 
     the enactment of the bill, but rather is unbounded in time. 
     This language could therefore be interpreted to apply to any 
     case arising out of the administration of these laws and 
     benefits by the Secretary, regardless of when the case 
     occurred. If the NICS Section of the FBI follows this 
     interpretation, it may remove records of these individuals 
     from NICS.
       This would have far-reaching impact. Currently, few if any 
     mental incompetency determinations by the VA are made by a 
     judge, magistrate, or judicial authority. These 
     determinations are made my VA examiners who determine, in the 
     course of processing veterans' benefits claims, that as a 
     result of as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or 
     mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, a 
     beneficiary ``lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage 
     his or her own affairs'' and requires a fiduciary to handle 
     the disbursement of benefits. Because these beneficiaries 
     require a fiduciary to handle disbursement of their payments 
     due to mental incompetence, they are considered to ``lack[] 
     the mental capacity to . . . manage [their] own affairs . . . 
     as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental 
     illness, incompetency, condition, or disease,'' and are 
     therefore prohibited from possessing a firearm under existing 
     federal law.
       These incompetency determinations may be appealed to the 
     VA's administrative Board of Veterans Appeals, and then 
     eventually to federal court, but the federal judges reviewing 
     the case would be reviewing the VA's finding that the veteran 
     is mentally incompetent, and would have no basis for 
     determining whether or not the veteran was ``a danger to 
     himself or herself or others.'' Determining whether a person 
     is a danger to self or others is generally outside the 
     purview of the Veterans Benefits Administration or cases 
     arising out of the administration of laws regarding veterans' 
     claims for benefits.
       If an incompetent beneficiary seeks relief specifically 
     from the NICS firearm prohibition, the VA must determine 
     whether the beneficiary has proven by clear and convincing 
     evidence that ``he or she is not likely to act in a manner 
     dangerous to self or others, and the granting of relief is 
     not contrary to public safety and/or the public interest.'' 
     Essentially, the VA is tasked in these cases with assessing 
     whether the beneficiary met a substantial burden of proving 
     non-dangerousness. This does not involve a finding by a 
     judge, magistrate, or judicial authority. Though veterans may 
     then appeal an action by the VA denying NICS relief to a 
     federal district court judge, that judge would be tasked with 
     reviewing whether the evidence reasonably justified the VA's 
     determination that the veteran failed to provide clear and 
     convincing evidence that he or she was not dangerous. It is 
     not clear even in these rare cases that a judge upholding the 
     VA's determination would have occasion to make an affirmative 
     finding that the person was a danger to self or others.
       In short, this bill would drastically change the standard 
     under which veteran beneficiaries may be considered 
     ``adjudicated'' for the purposes of federal firearms law, and 
     provides no express time limitation to ensure that this new 
     standard shall not be applied to previous adjudications by 
     the VA. It could therefore threaten to implicitly require 
     that NICS lose nearly every prohibiting mental health record 
     it has ever received from the VA.


                           Limiting Amendment

       In order to avoid the loss of these records in NICS, we 
     suggest amending the phrase ``in any case arising out of the 
     administration . . .'' to refer only to cases arising 
     subsequent to the enactment of this law.


[[Page H2109]]


  

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I guess by listening to the debate that is going on, one would assume 
that someone who has a fiduciary would be a danger to themselves and 
others, and I think that is completely erroneous to assume that.
  Let me read you excerpts of a floor statement that Senator Burr made 
in 2009 to show you how this can get off track. And we are going to put 
sort of a human face on this, just an excerpt from a letter that 
Jennifer wrote as the wife of Corey.
  ``Corey served in Iraq. He was a paramedic. He was severely injured 
by an IED explosion in 2004, which caused severe burns, damage to his 
lungs, and severe traumatic brain injury after shrapnel entered his 
skull. Corey spent . . . 5 years recovering from his injuries. Jennifer 
reports that he is walking, talking, and enjoying life at home with his 
two children.
  ``Now it gets really sad. Because of his head injury, Corey still 
requires help with certain things. The VA said he needed help managing 
his disability compensation payments, and they named Jennifer, his 
spouse, as his fiduciary''--his wife. ``That is where I would like to 
read you her letter. Again, I quote from the letter:
  `` `On May 19, 2009, we had our annual fiduciary meeting with the VA 
field examiner. At the end of the meeting, our field examiner said he 
needed to read a statement to us. He read the Brady Bill statement and 
then stated that Corey can't own, possess, use, be around, et cetera, 
any firearms. He then went on to say that anyone in our household can't 
own a gun while living in this household.
  `` `I asked him about Corey going on adaptive hunting trips and he 
said he couldn't. Corey stated that he had a gun that was handed down 
from his grandfather and that Corey was going to hand it down to his 
son, and the field examiner told him that he couldn't have it. He 
stated to Corey that if he did own a gun or be around a gun that he 
would be threatened with imprisonment.
  `` `The way that that field examiner talked to Corey about this issue 
was not appropriate. The field examiner said that I could challenge it 
and handed me a blank sheet of paper with a VA heading. I asked the 
field examiner for the statement that he read to me, but he said that 
he had to ask his boss if he could actually provide a copy of that 
statement. After 2 weeks of me emailing him, I finally got the attached 
papers in the mail. I think the VA is taking this way out of concept, 
and I would greatly appreciate your support.'
  ``Well, in case any of my colleagues think the government would never 
prosecute someone like Corey for possession of a firearm, being around 
a firearm, I wish to read to my colleagues excerpts from the VA 
directive that went out to all VA regional offices on September 29, 
2009, on this very issue.
  ``The directive is meant to inform fiduciary field examiners of their 
obligation if they were to witness a violation of the Brady Act. I am 
going to quote from this VA memorandum to the field examiners.
  `` `Field examiners or other VA employees who encounter beneficiaries 
believed to be in violation of the Brady Act are required to notify the 
fiduciary activity manager as soon as safely possible. At no time 
should the employee place him/herself in danger. The fiduciary activity 
manager at the VA regional office of jurisdiction must immediately 
report the alleged violation to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms,' '' and here is the number.
  And that is straight out of their memorandum, Mr. Speaker.
  We don't want weapons, no one in this room, and none of my colleagues 
on the VA Committee, Republican or Democrat, want weapons in the hands 
of someone that is considered dangerous. But we have American heroes 
that are being denied their Second Amendment right to even keep their 
grandfather's gun. I feel that, if you want to go and have your due 
process rights in front of a court of law or magistrate, that is 
perfectly okay. That is the way our system works. But not a VA rater. 
They don't get to do that. And I think, by passing this bill, we will 
guarantee those rights to our American heroes.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my 
colleague from Connecticut for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1181, which has very 
little, if anything, to do with protecting veterans' Second Amendment 
rights as the bill's title suggests.
  I am a 30-year veteran of the United States Army. I served in Iraq. I 
have led soldiers in both combat support and combat service support 
units in the active and reserve components.
  Our servicemen and -women face harsh realities in harsh 
environments--not just in wartime, but in peacetime as well. Military 
life, Mr. Speaker, is a hard life during war and in peace. It takes a 
toll on the body and the mind. The number of military members seeking 
mental and behavioral health services in the last 16 years, as well as 
the mental health-related incidences involving soldiers and veterans, 
substantiates my point.
  But our soldiers are resilient, and that is no less true when we take 
off the uniform.

                              {time}  1500

  But for many of our veterans, it might take some extra help, some 
extra time, to recover from that harsh and sometimes traumatic military 
experience.
  As a nation, we must support our veterans in recovering from that 
experience not only by providing the benefits they deserve, but by 
protecting their right to enjoy the rights that they have defended.
  But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1181 misses the mark. When a determination is 
made that a veteran is mentally incompetent or incapacitated, for 
whatever reason, that determination is made to protect them, not to 
punish or deprive them. When that determination is made, we owe it to 
our veterans not to put a weapon in their hand, but, rather, to put the 
full weight of a responsive mental health system at their disposal.
  We entrusted our soldiers with a weapon while in uniform, so let's 
treat our veterans with the same expectations and standards of safety 
when they take off the uniform. If the unintended consequences of the 
current law, as the bill's supporters claim, are too broad and 
disqualified too many of our veterans from responsible gun ownership, 
then let's work together to tackle that issue.
  However, this bill goes too far and would prohibit the VA Secretary 
from sharing important information with law enforcement on veterans who 
might be a danger to themselves or to others.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1181 misses the mark and ignores the 
responsibility to safeguard and take care of our veterans who have 
sacrificed so much to protect our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three documents, and they are 
the testimony of Brigadier General Xenakis, an op-ed from General 
Chiarelli, as well as testimony submitted by Jeffrey Swanson.

      Testimony of Brigadier General (Ret) Stephen N. Xenakis, MD


             erik erikson scholar, the austen riggs center

  Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, Hearing 
                             June 24, 2015

            H.R. 2001--Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act

       Thank you to the Committee for this opportunity to submit 
     testimony regarding H.R. 2001--Veterans 2nd Amendment 
     Protection Act. I am Dr. Stephen Xenakis, retired Brigadier 
     General and Army Medical Corps Officer, with 28 years of 
     active military service. I am certified by the American Board 
     of Psychiatry and Neurology in General Psychiatry and Child 
     and Adolescent Psychiatry, and have dedicated my professional 
     career to providing medical and psychiatric care to our 
     soldiers and veterans and sustaining the readiness of our 
     fighting force. First and foremost, I am dedicated to 
     improving and protecting their health and wellbeing, and 
     therefore urge the committee not to pass H.R. 2001--Veterans 
     2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 2001) in its current form.
       Under the current process, if a veteran is determined to be 
     incapable of managing his or her disbursement of funds from 
     the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), the veteran is 
     assigned a fiduciary, categorized as mentally incompetent, 
     considered ``adjudicated mental defective,'' and therefore 
     prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. In its 
     current form, H.R. 2001 would

[[Page H2110]]

     change the process, stating those who are deemed mentally 
     incompetent by the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) would 
     NOT be considered adjudicated mental defective ``without the 
     order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial 
     authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a 
     danger to himself or herself or others. The result being, 
     individuals who are currently prohibited from purchasing or 
     possessing firearms, because of a VBA fiduciary finding, 
     would no longer be prohibited.
       Though I concur that there is room for improvement in the 
     VA interpretation of the mentally incompetent determination, 
     H.R. 2001 is misguided in its approach. Yes, there may be 
     individuals who have been swept into the ``adjudicated mental 
     defective'' category because they need assistance managing 
     their disbursement of VBA funds and for whom firearms access 
     would not pose a risk to themselves or anyone else. However, 
     there are also individuals in this category for whom access 
     to a firearm would indeed be dangerous. Therefore restoring 
     firearms in the sweeping manner to everyone declared mentally 
     incompetent by the VA, as H.R. 2001 would do, would put our 
     veterans, and citizens, in harm's way.
       To discuss H.R. 2001 is to discuss this country's veteran 
     suicide crisis, and to discuss suicide is to discuss access 
     to firearms. The high suicide rate among the veteran 
     population is devastating; a 2012 report from the VA reported 
     an estimated 22 veterans per day commit suicide. Data shows 
     recent veterans who were on active duty during the wars in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan have a marked increased risk of suicide 
     compared to the general population (41% higher suicide risk 
     among deployed veterans; 61% higher risk among those non-
     deployed). Access to firearms is a significant part of the 
     problem; a study of male veterans found that veterans were 
     more likely than non-veterans to use firearms as a means to 
     suicide. Research shows firearms are the most lethal means to 
     suicide; an estimated 85% of suicide attempts using a firearm 
     are fatal, compared to 2% by poisoning or overdose, or 1% by 
     cutting.
       The evidence is strong and paints a grim picture--suicide 
     is a serious public health problem. According to 2013 data 
     from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide 
     is the 10th leading cause of death for all age groups. 
     Suicide is the second leading cause of death for those age 
     25-34, ahead of heart disease, liver disease, or HIV. Over 
     half of the 41,149 suicides in 2013 were by firearm.
       Our society can mitigate this problem however with smart 
     policies and practices. We should take a page out of the 
     military training manuals. The military trains us to think 
     ``safety first'' and avoid unnecessary harm and injury. It is 
     our standard practice among military psychiatrists to 
     confront a potentially suicidal soldier and intervene 
     aggressively to protect the soldier and the family. I 
     routinely ask--``do you have weapons, where are they, what 
     can you and your family do now to keep you and them safe?'' 
     As such, it is absolutely crucial, that any veteran who has 
     been deemed mentally incompetent by the VBA go through an 
     individualized process to restore his or her firearms rights, 
     including an assessment for risk to self and others 
     consistent with best medical practices, to ensure that the 
     veteran would not constitute a danger to the self or others 
     going forward. Such a process is not outlined in H.R. 2001 
     and, therefore, I urge the committee not to pass the 
     amendment in its current form.
                                  ____


                     [From The Hill, Mar. 16, 2017]

         Give Our Veterans Considering Suicide Help, Not a Gun

                 (By Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, retired)

       As the Army's vice chief of staff, I spent much of my time 
     working on a crisis most Americans don't even realize exists. 
     A crisis that on average takes the lives of 20 American 
     veterans each day: the devastating epidemic of veteran 
     suicide.
       Our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives daily 
     to make America safer. But for many, when they return home, 
     the battles they face are far from over. The stress of 
     repeated deployments, failed relationships, financial 
     challenges, depression and PTSD are among the reasons that 
     every year roughly 7,000 veterans take their own life. Two-
     thirds of the time they do so by gun.
       Researchers who study suicides have found that the decision 
     to end one's life is often spontaneous, and that if 
     accessible, guns are the most lethal and common way one 
     commits suicide. For this reason, eliminating easy access to 
     a gun during a mental health crisis can mean the difference 
     between life and death.
       Knowing this, I am shocked that some in Congress are 
     currently supporting a new piece of misguided and dangerous 
     legislation that would make it easier for veterans who are at 
     risk of facing a mental health crisis to get their hands on a 
     gun. Congress should be working to save lives and to 
     guarantee that all veterans have access to world-class 
     medical care and counseling, not making it easier for those 
     suffering from the hidden wounds of war to end their lives.
       We have to do better. And as someone who has spent years 
     working to reform our mental health system and to reduce 
     veteran suicides, I know we can.
       Shortly after the tragedy at Virginia Tech, Congress 
     passed, and President Bush signed, bipartisan legislation 
     requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs to send the 
     names of veterans who have clear and convincing evidence of 
     mental incompetency to the National Instant Criminal 
     Background Checks System. Any person listed within this 
     system is ineligible to legally purchase firearms from a 
     licensed dealer.
       The legislation that Congress is currently considering 
     would reverse this law, and would immediately remove more 
     than 174,000 mental health records from the background check 
     system. The records that would be removed include veterans 
     who are prohibited from obtaining guns because they are 
     suffering from serious mental illnesses like dementia, 
     schizophrenia, and long-term severe posttraumatic stress.
       We know that reducing veteran suicide is a complicated 
     issue that requires comprehensive solutions. That said, 
     providing veterans who struggle with mental illness increased 
     access to a gun is not part of that solution.
       Congress should instead focus on more supportive gun-
     focused legislation like making it easier for family and 
     friends to help their loved ones in crisis. Most states 
     currently lack laws that enable family and friends to contact 
     law enforcement and remove firearms from individuals who pose 
     a threat to themselves or others. Gaps like these in our laws 
     help explain why since 1968, more Americans have died from 
     guns in the United States than on battlefields of all the 
     wars in our country's history.
       Still, there are some who will mislabel these responsible 
     policies as efforts to strip our veterans of their rights 
     without due process. They could not be more wrong. In fact, 
     there is already a law on the books that ensures any veteran 
     on the prohibited purchaser list has a right to a hearing 
     where they can present evidence regarding his or her mental 
     capability. That's important. The current system works.
       Last year, I joined former Congresswoman Gabrielle 
     Giffords, her husband, Navy combat veteran and retired NASA 
     astronaut Capt. Mark Kelly, and a long list of the nation's 
     most prominent retired military officials to launch the 
     Veterans Coalition for Common Sense. It is a national 
     initiative of distinguished veterans from all branches and 
     ranks of the military who are committed to advancing 
     commonsense solutions to gun violence here at home. While 
     respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding 
     Americans, our focus is to help keep guns out of the wrong 
     hands, and saves lives.
       Throughout the course of my nearly four decades of service 
     to our nation, I saw first hand the incredible power of 
     firearms and the dangers they pose when they end up in the 
     hands of people who should not have them.
       Every day while deployed, our brave men and women in 
     uniform risk their lives to protect our freedom, and when 
     they return, we should protect theirs. Congress has a duty to 
     ensure these heroes' safety and they can do so through 
     rational and honorable grin safety legislation. Our veterans 
     in crisis need our help, not a gun.

  Testimony submitted by Jeffrey Swanson, PhD and Richard Bonnie, LLB

 Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, Hearing, 
    June 24, 2015, H.R. 2001--Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act

       We thank the Committee for this opportunity to submit 
     testimony regarding H.R. 2001: Veterans 2nd Amendment 
     Protection Act.
       The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 2001) 
     addresses an important concern of fairness in a policy that 
     is intended to protect veterans but may infringe their rights 
     without sufficient due process. The policy in question is 
     VA's current practice of reporting to the FBI's National 
     Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) the names of 
     veterans who are assigned a fiduciary to assist the veteran 
     in managing their benefit funds. What is controversial about 
     this is that VA decides, in a rather opaque administrative 
     procedure, who gets a ``fiduciary''--and thus, indirectly, 
     who is put into NICS--without assessing whether a 
     financially-challenged veteran is at risk of harm to self or 
     others. This decision occurs without a hearing before either 
     a judge or other objective, duly authorized administrative 
     officer in which the facts of the matter could be presented 
     and challenged.
       Over the past several years, VA has reported the names of 
     about 100,000 ``incompetent beneficiaries'' to the NICS--the 
     database that licensed gun dealers query to determine whether 
     people trying to buy a gun can legally do so. The proposed 
     law, H.R. 2001, would remove these veterans' names from NICS 
     and would uncouple the loss of gun rights from routine 
     assignment of VA fiduciaries in the future. Would such 
     changes be good or bad for veterans, or for the public? Our 
     testimony offers some background information and research 
     evidence to help legislators evaluate VA's fiduciary/gun-
     restriction policy and consider the possible advantages and 
     drawbacks of rescinding it.
       The Department of Veterans Affairs did not invent the idea 
     of removing gun rights from people found incompetent to 
     manage their money; the policy was apparently initiated to 
     implement the 1968 federal Gun Control Act, which banned the 
     possession of firearms by certain categories of persons 
     assumed to be dangerous, including anyone ``adjudicated as a 
     mental defective.'' The archaic phrase gives offense to 
     modern ears

[[Page H2111]]

     and lacks clinical meaning, but the Department of Justice 
     (DOJ) has defined it specifically to include anyone who 
     ``lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her 
     own affairs'' as determined by some lawful authority. 
     According to current VA procedure, military veterans fall 
     under this broad gun-disqualifying definition whenever the VA 
     finds them to be financially incompetent and in need of a 
     third-party ``fiduciary'' to manage VA benefit funds.
       VA's assignment of fiduciaries is made through an 
     administrative process within the Veterans Benefits 
     Administration (VBA), and without the requirement of either a 
     formal evaluation of decision-making capacity by a healthcare 
     professional or a genuine opportunity for a fair hearing for 
     adjudicating the question of financial capacity as defined in 
     the DOJ regulations. These strong due process objections to 
     the VA's policy are clearly the main concern underlying H.R. 
     2001. The argument is mainly about procedure, and we have 
     serious doubts about whether VA's current way of assigning 
     fiduciaries actually meets the definition of ``adjudicated as 
     a mental defective'' under the Gun Control Act. But it is 
     worth asking whether this procedurally flawed policy is also 
     substantively flawed. Is there a public-safety rationale for 
     attaching gun rights to the fiduciary standard? What do we 
     know about the relationship between the ability to manage 
     money and risk of harm to self or others? Is there even a 
     connection?
       Recent research on post-deployment adjustment of Iraq and 
     Afghanistan war veterans has found a modest statistical 
     correlation between a measure of financial decision-making 
     capacity and self-reported suicidality and interpersonal 
     violent behavior. In a nationally representative random 
     sample of 1,388 separated veterans and reservists from the 
     era of our recent wars, participants were tested on basic 
     money management skills and also queried about violence and 
     suicidal behavior and thoughts. Veterans who scored poorly on 
     financial management abilities were about twice as likely to 
     report serious acts of violence, arrest, suicidal behavior, 
     and use of illicit drugs, compared to those with good money 
     management skills. These differences in relative risk 
     associated with financial incapacity were statistically 
     significant, even though the majority of veterans with 
     financial incapacity were not violent or suicidal. Other 
     research, on civilians with psychiatric disabilities who were 
     found incompetent to manage their Supplemental Security 
     Income (SSI) benefits, founds that assignment of a family 
     member as a ``representative payee'' was significantly 
     associated with increased risk of violent acts by the 
     incompetent beneficiary against family members.
       Does the fiduciary gun-restriction policy, as it stands, 
     effectively prevent firearm-related violence and suicide 
     among veterans? The full answer to that question is unknown, 
     but the population impact of the policy is inherently limited 
     by the very small proportion of at-risk individuals that it 
     affects, considering the entire veteran population of 
     approximately 22 million. There are undoubtedly better and 
     more efficient, effective, comprehensive, and carefully-
     tailored ways to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous 
     people than reporting a relatively small number of 
     putatively financially incompetent veteran beneficiaries 
     to the NICS.
       But what about the 100,000 veterans who are already in NICS 
     because they were assigned a fiduciary? What are the 
     implications, for them and their families, of automatically 
     restoring their gun rights without any case-by-case review? 
     Unfortunately, there is little information publically 
     available about the population of incompetent veterans who 
     have already been reported to the NICS. However, we do know 
     something about the distribution of psychiatric diagnoses of 
     veterans in NICS, which are typically the diagnoses for which 
     the veterans are receiving VA benefits: approximately 20,000 
     of the group--1 in 5 of those in NICS--have a diagnosis of 
     schizophrenia or other psychotic illness, and about half of 
     those have a ``paranoid type'' of schizophrenia, which is 
     typified by delusions of persecution and threat from others.
       Do these mental health conditions significantly elevate the 
     risk of violence and suicide and thereby justify legal 
     restrictions on gun access? Sometimes, and it depends. 
     Epidemiological studies of people with schizophrenia in the 
     general community have found that the large majority are not 
     violent towards others, but that the subgroup with acute 
     symptoms of excessive and irrational threat perception--such 
     as believing that others are ``out to get me''--are 
     significantly more likely to be violent towards others.
       Also in NICS are about 23,000 veterans diagnosed with 
     posttraumatic stress disorder and about 15,000 (mostly older) 
     veterans suffering from dementia with underlying causes 
     ranging from Alzheimer's disease to traumatic brain injury 
     research literature would suggest that both of these groups 
     of veterans, too, carry some elevated risk of suicide or 
     irresponsible behavior with firearms. Still, all of these 
     diagnostic categories function as nonspecific risk factors 
     for gun violence and suicide; there are many more people with 
     these diagnoses who will not harm anyone than who will. That 
     is because violence and suicide are caused by many 
     interacting factors--mental illness being only one--and 
     people with mental illness may carry other risk and 
     protective factors for dangerous behavior. It is just the 
     magnitude of the thing being prevented--death by a gun--that 
     might justify limiting the rights of so many people who would 
     not turn out to be violent in any case.
       Civil rights advocates and gun violence prevention experts 
     could each find fault with a policy that infringes the 
     constitutional rights of so many while having only modest 
     impact, at best, on gun violence and suicide. Hence, the 
     criticism that animates H.R. 2001: that the VA's fiduciary/
     gun policy, without due process, precludes access to firearms 
     by people who have not been shown to pose any particular risk 
     of harming anyone. To make matters seem even more unfair, 
     those ``incompetent beneficiaries'' reported by VA to the 
     NICS have been subjected to different treatment than 
     similarly-situated civilian counterparts. For instance, 
     incompetent Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries 
     with ``representative payees'' assigned by the Social 
     Security Administration do not similarly lose gun rights. 
     Further, when states report ``incompetent'' individuals to 
     NICS, it is because a state court has determined mental 
     incompetency in a formal adjudicatory procedure--one that 
     relies on expert clinical testimony and offers due process 
     protections commensurate with the important rights at stake.
       In the end, what would H.R. 2001 accomplish from the 
     veteran's point of view? Mainly, it would mean that VA's 
     appointment of a fiduciary to manage one's VA benefits would 
     no longer be used, by itself, as a predicate for denying the 
     veteran the right to purchase and possess a gun. This would 
     reform the VA's arguably flawed policy going forward. 
     However, the problem addressed by H.R. 2001 is more 
     complicated in two ways. First, it is necessary for the VA to 
     take appropriate steps to facilitate NICS reporting for 
     veterans receiving mental health care in the VA system who 
     are found by a lawful judicial or administrative authority to 
     pose a danger to themselves or others. For example, the VHA 
     could decide to report to NICS all involuntary commitments to 
     VA hospitals; this would fill a gap created by the current 
     inconsistent NICS-reporting practices of state civil courts 
     and public mental health authorities.
       Second, it is necessary to address the fate of the 100,000 
     veterans who are already in NICS. Some of these veterans are 
     disqualified under other criteria because, for example, they 
     have been involuntarily committed or convicted of a felony or 
     domestic violence misdemeanor, with corresponding additional 
     records in the NICS. However, should the gun rights of all of 
     the remaining veterans in this group be automatically 
     restored by retroactively invalidating the VA's past actions? 
     From the limited available data, it seems likely that 
     automatically restoring all of these individuals' gun rights 
     will provide legal access to firearms for at least some 
     veterans who do, in fact, pose a danger to themselves or 
     others. Therefore, for veterans already in the NICS because 
     of a fiduciary determination by the VA, perhaps some level of 
     systematic review on the question of dangerousness, with due 
     process overseen by a federal court, might provide some 
     needed protection and peace of mind--for the veterans 
     themselves, as well as for their families and communities.

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I include in the Record two documents from the VFW and The American 
Legion supporting this legislation.

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                                                    March 8, 2017.
     Hon. David P. Roe,
     Chairman, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Roe: On behalf of the men and women of the 
     Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) and our 
     Auxiliary, I am pleased to offer the VFW's support for H.R. 
     1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
       It is unconscionable to require veterans to choose between 
     the care they have earned and deserve and their 
     constitutional rights. Your legislation would ensure veterans 
     who suffer from mental health conditions no longer have to 
     worry about losing their 2nd amendment rights when seeking 
     potentially lifesaving mental health care. By elevating the 
     threshold for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal 
     Background Check System, this important legislation would 
     help destigmatize mental health and protect veterans' 
     constitutional rights.
       The VFW commends your leadership on this issue and your 
     commitment to our nation's veterans. We look forward to 
     working with you to ensure the passage of this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                            Carlos U. Fuentes,

                                                         Director,
     VFW National Legislative Service.
                                  ____



                                          The American Legion,

                                    Washington, DC, March 2, 2017.
     Hon. Phil Roe,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Roe: On behalf of our more than 2.2 
     million members, The American Legion expresses support for HR 
     1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. This 
     measure, as currently written, would prohibit the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs (VA) from considering any beneficiary 
     assisted by a fiduciary as ``mentally

[[Page H2112]]

     defective'' without a magistrate or judicial authority ruling 
     that the beneficiary is a public danger for the purpose of 
     reporting their names to the National Instant Criminal 
     Background Check System (NICS), or any other database 
     intended to identify persons who would be excluded from 
     keeping, possessing, or purchasing firearms.
       Veterans are not required to give up their weapons for the 
     purpose of receiving VA health care for mental health 
     conditions. However, there are concerns that the threat of 
     being placed on a list that might deny veterans their Second 
     Amendment rights could act as a deterrent for those who might 
     otherwise seek treatment for their mental health conditions. 
     The American Legion's concern is that stigmas associated with 
     mental illnesses may force veterans to lose their Second 
     Amendment rights.
       The American Legion reaffirms its recognition that the 
     Second Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees 
     each law-abiding American citizen the right to keep and bear 
     arms and encourages our nation's lawmakers to recognize the 
     same. The men and women who have fought to protect the 
     Constitution deserve to live under both its laws and rights.
       In conclusion, The American Legion applauds your leadership 
     in addressing issues that are important to America's 
     servicemembers, veterans and their families.
           Sincerely,
                                               Charles E. Schmidt,
                                               National Commander.

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I, too, served in the military as 
a military doctor in the 2nd United States Infantry Division in 
Southeast Asia many years ago, so I have seen patients who were 
mentally ill. One of the things that has bothered me is that we are 
perpetuating an outdated stereotype that mentally ill people are prone 
to violence. Most are not, and perpetuating this stereotype that they 
are may result in their being isolated or not seeking treatment. This 
is unfortunate for people who suffer from mental illness and need 
support and understanding.
  I think we do them a great disservice. My bill would require a court 
of law rather than a VA rating specialist--that is all we are saying 
here--to determine whether an individual actually poses a danger to 
themselves or others before their name gets sent to the FBI and added 
to the NICS list. A VA employee should not be able to add a veteran's 
name to a NICS list before that veteran has been afforded due process.
  Let me explain how bad it really is. It is outrageous that a criminal 
has more rights than a veteran when it comes to being placed on the 
NICS list--at least they aren't added to the list until they have been 
convicted by a judge or a jury, Mr. Speaker. We should at least treat 
our American heroes that well.
  Here is another point I would like to make: a veteran that has been 
rated--listening to the debate to show you how the VA system is not a 
standard for everyone. A VA veteran rated 100 percent for PTSD does not 
automatically get a fiduciary because they are 100 percent service-
connected disabled because of their service even though the symptoms 
require that, for that rating, it may include suicidal or homicidal 
ideation.
  All we are saying--and I think, hopefully, everyone would agree--is 
that you deserve as an American citizen--and especially an American 
citizen, Mr. Speaker, who has served this country whether in combat or 
not, who has served his country in the military--your day in court and 
at least be heard by a judge and jury.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). The gentlewoman has 
6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I note that the chairman noted the support of some of 
the veteran service organizations, and I think it is noteworthy that 
the IAVA, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, has in the past 
supported this bill. They do not support it this year. They do not 
because they are so concerned about the crisis we are facing, 
particularly in their members--those who have come back from the wars 
in the last 10 or 20 years. They are concerned about that veteran 
suicide crisis that we are facing and are concerned that this bill 
might make that worse.
  We have heard repeatedly assertions that this would be the only 
category, that veterans alone would be deprived without adjudication. 
That is not true. In fact, the law for the firearms prohibitor covers 
many categories of people who do not have any legal determination:

       Anyone who is an unlawful user or addicted to a controlled 
     substance is prohibited, does not require any adjudication.

  The NICS has 23,000 people who are prohibited under the controlled 
substance addiction and use category. Anyone adjudicated as mentally 
defective or committed to a mental institution, there are 4.2 million 
people. There are a wide variety of people who are in that category, 
again, many without court orders. Those were aliens, those dishonorably 
discharged from the Armed Forces, that is 10,000 individuals. So it is 
not unique to veterans. There are other categories as well.
  But I really think the bottom line is this: we have heard a great 
deal of agreement that we care about our veterans, we want to prevent 
military suicides, and we know that for some of these veterans, it 
would be dangerous for them to have a firearm. That is precisely why 
this committee should have had a hearing, so we would have had the 
opportunity to systematically address these issues and find a better 
way forward that recognizes that some veterans who need a fiduciary 
also should not have firearms, and some who need a fiduciary, there is 
no concern there. But we have been deprived of that opportunity in 
committee, to do the work we should be doing in committee, to work 
together in a bipartisan way to fashion a better way forward.
  This is way too far. It is an overreaction to a process that should 
be fixed, and we are committed to do that. But the alternative we are 
presented with today will wholesale uproot the 20-year process of the 
Veterans Administration that would be dangerous and wrong, and we 
remain committed to working together in committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this proposal is not new. It has been passed out of 
committee in 2010, 2011, 2013, and this year. It passed the full House, 
H.R. 2349, in the 112th Congress, which is included in this proposal, 
by a voice vote.
  On February 2, the House approved H.J. Res. 40, which nullified the 
Social Security Administration rule that would have similarly 
restricted the Second Amendment rights to certain disabled people who 
require help managing their finances. There is no reason that veterans 
who have fiduciaries should be treated any differently than Social 
Security beneficiaries who need help managing their finances.
  Next, Mr. Speaker, veterans who need fiduciaries are not necessarily 
mentally ill. A veteran may not be able to handle his or her finances 
due to conditions such as traumatic brain injury. Furthermore, The 
American Legion testified in 2015 about a case in which the VA declared 
a veteran incompetent because he told his doctor he didn't pay his 
bills. But, in reality, the veteran didn't pay his bills because, like 
a lot of us, of the division of household responsibilities. His wife 
paid the bills, and he got caught up in that. Then to get out of it is 
a chore.

  I wanted to say, once again, I really feel strongly about this 
because we worked on the 21st Century Cures bill on removing the stigma 
of mentally ill people that because someone is mentally ill, they are a 
danger to themselves or others. Perpetuating this stereotype, I think, 
is dangerous. I think it keeps people from coming in and seeking the 
help that they need.
  Also, and I have participated in this, Mr. Speaker, at home where we 
have used hunting trips or fishing trips to help veterans with PTSD get 
back on their feet and assume--instead of treating it as a disability 
and saying: We are going to get you well and back on your feet and be a 
productive member of society.
  I am afraid if we stereotype this, we will prevent people from coming 
in for the very needed help that they so richly have earned and need.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2113]]

  

  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I note that 18 of the 26 Members of the House Veterans' 
Affairs Committee did not serve during a time when there has been a 
hearing on this bill--18 of us, and that includes me. The evidence that 
the chairman was referencing from 2015 was from a hearing that never 
occurred, so there was never an opportunity to discuss that evidence. 
Again, I think this underscores the extent to which we really do need a 
hearing.
  I have to say, since 2012, when the Newtown shootings occurred in my 
district, the public feels differently about this now, and our veterans 
numbers have been going up and up. So I think it is high time for us to 
have a hearing. It has been 5 years. We should be looking at this 
process.
  The last point I will note: there has been much made of the 
Constitution today and how outrageous it is. In 20 years since this 
process has been in place in the VA, I note that no one has ever 
challenged this successfully in court as a violation of constitutional 
due process, and I know the love our veterans have for the 
Constitution, as we do in this Chamber. That tells me that many 
families, for example, actually are relying on this.
  So, again, I pledge to the chairman we should be working together in 
committee to get this process right. This is not the way to do it, not 
with this bill, not with the questions, and not without an opportunity 
for us to do the things I have referenced.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as all of us in this incredible place that we are in, 
the House of Representatives in the Capitol of the U.S., our hearts go 
out to everyone, especially the families, of all those touched by that 
horrible tragedy that was just described. I am willing to work with 
anyone on the committee or otherwise in a reasonable way to keep 
firearms out of the hands of criminals and people who are dangerous. 
There is no question we are all willing to do that. But that case did 
not involve a veteran who had a fiduciary.
  I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment even if others 
aren't. I think we can all agree that veterans should not be denied the 
same due process rights that all other Americans receive. What this 
bill does is ensure that veterans do not lose their constitutional 
rights without a judicial hearing.
  The freedoms granted under the Constitution of this great country 
should apply to all Americans, especially those who have been willing 
to put their lives at risk to protect those same freedoms. It is wrong 
for veterans and beneficiaries who use a fiduciary to lose their Second 
Amendment right without due process.
  This commonsense bill would ensure that no veteran or beneficiary is 
declared mentally defective simply because a VA rater appoints someone 
to assist with the management of that person's financial affairs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard spirited and passionate remarks here 
today, but I think it underscores how much we would benefit, the 
veterans that we serve would benefit, their families, and this Chamber 
would benefit from our pursuing regular order with this very important 
topic. So, again, I urge in the strongest possible terms for my 
colleagues to vote against this bill, to give us the opportunity to get 
this process right, to safeguard our veterans, protect them from 
military suicide, and to preserve their rights in the best possible 
way. This hastily considered, rushed-through legislation that leaves 
way too many questions and way too much risk for our veterans I must 
strongly oppose.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as all of us in this room are, I am personally 
devastated that our Nation loses 20 of our finest citizens to suicide 
every day. Ending this tragedy is one of the top priorities we have on 
the Veteran Affairs' Committee and as a nation. We have and will 
continue to work with the VA to develop programs that will effectively 
help identify and treat veterans who may be considering ending their 
own lives.
  But denying veterans who have fiduciaries their constitutional rights 
will not end veteran suicide. It is unfair to paint all veterans who 
may need a fiduciary with the same broad stroke and to assume that just 
because someone needs assistance with their financial affairs, that 
they may also be violent and a danger or they are contemplating 
suicide. That is just plain wrong.

                              {time}  1515

  It is unfortunate that the arguments advanced by some of the 
opponents of this bill reinforce the false impression that people who 
suffer from mental health challenges--and veterans, in particular--are 
dangerous. There is no evidence that people who suffer from mental 
illness are more likely to be more violent than people in the general 
population--just none. I am convinced that perpetuating this outdated 
and incorrect stereotype makes the situation worse, deterring people 
from seeking the very health services that they need.
  It is difficult for some folks to admit they need help. I saw 
patients like that for years who finally broke down in my office and 
explained that they were depressed or whatever the situation may be. 
Imagine how much harder it is when people feel that they will be 
stigmatized or isolated because other people may fear them?
  By passing this bill, Congress will send a strong message that people 
who suffer from mental illness are owed the same respect and have the 
same constitutional rights as every other American citizen.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of our Members to support 
H.R. 1181, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to 
H.R. 1181, the ``so-called'' Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
  Mr. Speaker, twenty veterans a day tragically take their own lives.
  Just ONE veteran taking his or her own life is one too many.
  But twenty every day is an epidemic. It is unconscionable, and 
unacceptable.
  With two-thirds of veteran suicides being carried out with firearms, 
this bill practically pulls the trigger for veterans at risk.
  H.R. 1181 threatens the safety of our nation's veterans and 
potentially others; by providing those veterans suffering from mental 
illness with greater ease in obtaining a firearm.
  The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is a critical 
tool in stopping those who want to do harm to themselves or others.
  If passed, this bill would dangerously alter the protocols for 
including a veteran in the database when he or she has been assigned a 
fiduciary.
  In addition, over one hundred-seventy thousand mentally ill veterans 
would be removed from the National Instant Criminal Background Check 
System.
  Instead of wasting time and energy on senseless budget cuts and 
harmful bills like H.R. 1181, this Congress should be focused on 
strengthening protocols so that no veteran struggling with mental 
illness ever falls through the cracks.
  Just two months ago, a veteran, Esteban Santiago, suffering from 
mental illness fell through the cracks and killed five people at my 
home airport in Fort Lauderdale.
  The current protocols failed him. We failed him and we should be 
doing all that we can to make the system strong for those suffering--
not making the situation worse, as this bill does.
  This bill does a grave disservice to those men and women who have 
served us valiantly.
  Moreover, it is opposed by military leaders including General Stanley 
McChrystal and General David Petraeus, who led our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  It is our obligation to ensure every veteran has the physical and 
mental health care they both deserve and need, We owe them better than 
this. Instead, this bill prioritizes putting firearms in the hands of 
mentally ill veterans who are already at serious risk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 198, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

[[Page H2114]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________