Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 46 (Thursday, March 16, 2017)

[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.

____________________