[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 87 (Thursday, May 21, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3699-H3707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SHARRI BRILEY AND ERIC EDMUNDSON VETERANS BENEFITS EXPANSION ACT OF
2026
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1300, I call up
the bill (H.R. 6047) to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the dollar amounts for
the payment of certain disability compensation and dependency and
indemnity compensation under the laws administered by the Secretary,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment
printed in part A of House Report 119-653, is adopted, and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 6047
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 ``Sharri Briley and Eric
Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026''.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RATES OF CERTAIN DISABILITY COMPENSATION
AND DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION UNDER
LAWS ADMINISTERED BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS.
(a) Increase to Rates of Wartime Disability Compensation.--
(1) In general.--Section 1114 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(u) In the case of a veteran eligible for a monthly aid
and attendance allowance under subsection (r) or subsection
(t) of this section, the Secretary shall, in addition to the
total amount of compensation for which the veteran is
eligible under this section, pay the veteran a supplemental
monthly allowance at the rate of $833.33.''.
(2) Effective date; applicability.--Subsection (u) of such
section (as added by paragraph (1)) shall take effect on
December 1, 2026, and shall apply to months beginning on or
after such date.
(b) Increase to Rates of Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation.--Section 5312 of such title is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d)(1) Whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts
payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
401 et seq.) as a result of a determination made under
section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)), the Secretary
shall, except as provided in paragraph (2), effective on the
date of such increase in benefit amounts, increase the dollar
amounts in effect for the payment of dependency and indemnity
compensation by the Secretary under paragraph (1) and
paragraph (3) of section 1311(a) of this title, as such
amounts were in effect immediately before the date of such
increase in benefit amounts payable under title II of the
Social Security Act, by a percentage equal to the sum of--
``(A) the percentage by which such benefit amounts are
increased; and
``(B) one percent.
``(2) After the first increase under paragraph (1) to the
dollar amounts in effect for the payment of dependency and
indemnity compensation by the Secretary under paragraph (1)
and paragraph (3) of section 1311(a) of this title, the
Secretary shall carry out paragraph (1)(B) by substituting
`one half of one percent' for `one percent'.
``(3) Whenever there is an increase under paragraph (1) in
amounts in effect for the payment of dependency and indemnity
compensation, the Secretary shall publish such amounts, as
increased pursuant to such paragraph, in the Federal Register
at the same time as the material required by section
215(i)(2)(D) of the Social
[[Page H3700]]
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) is published by reason
of a determination under section 215(i) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 415(i)).
``(4) The requirement to increase, pursuant to paragraph
(1), the amounts in effect for the payment of dependency and
indemnity compensation under paragraph (1) and paragraph (3)
of section 1311 (a) of this title by the Secretary shall--
``(A) take effect on December 1, 2026, and shall apply with
respect to months beginning on or after such date; and
``(B) terminate after the date on which the second increase
to such amounts pursuant to such paragraph occurs.''.
SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF WAIVERS OF FEES COLLECTED FOR HOUSING
LOANS GUARANTEED, INSURED, OR MADE BY THE
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
Section 3729(b)(2) of such title is amended, in the loan
fee table--
(1) by striking ``June 9, 2034'' each place it appears and
inserting ``September 30, 2036'';
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``0.50'' both places
it appears and inserting ``1.42''; and
(3) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``0.50'' each place it
appears and inserting ``1.0''.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN LIMITS ON PAYMENTS OF PENSION.
Section 5503(d)(7) of such title is amended by striking
``January 31, 2033'' and inserting ``September 30, 2036''.
SEC. 5. HOME AFFORDABILITY FOR GUARD AND RESERVE.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Home
Affordability for Guard and Reserve Act''.
(b) Eligibility of Certain Members of the Reserve
Components and the National Guard for Guaranteed Housing
Loans.--
(1) Expanded definition of ``active duty'' for purposes of
housing loans.--Section 3701(b) of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(9) The term `active duty' has the meanings as follows:
``(A) In the case of members of the regular components of
the Armed Forces, the meaning given such term in section
101(21)(A).
``(B) In the case of members of the reserve components of
the Armed Forces--
``(i) service on active duty (as defined in section 101(d)
of title 10), inactive-duty training (as defined in section
101(d) of title 10), or annual training duty; or
``(ii) service on active duty under a call or order to
active duty under section 688, 12301(a), 12301(d), 12301(g),
12301(h), 12302, 12304, 12304a, or 12304b of title 10 or
section 713 of title 14, but not including inactive duty
training (as defined in section 101(d) of title 10) or annual
training duty.
``(C) In the case of a member of the Army National Guard of
the United States or Air National Guard of the United States,
in addition to service described in subparagraph (B), full-
time service--
``(i) in the National Guard of a State for the purpose of
organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or
training the National Guard;
``(ii) in the National Guard when performing full-time
National Guard duty (as defined in section 101 of title 32);
or
``(iii) in the National Guard when performing active duty
(as defined in section 101 of title 32).''.
(2) Retroactive applicability to service performed.--The
amendments made by this subsection shall apply with respect
to any service performed on or after September 11, 2001.
(c) Expansion of Eligibility for Guaranteed Housing Loans
to Certain Additional Personnel Upon Payment of Additional
Loan Fee.--
(1) Expansion to individuals with at least 14 days of
service.--Section 3701(b) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new
paragraph:
``(8) The term `veteran' also includes, for purposes of
home loans (subject to the additional loan fee in section
3729(b)(4)(J) of this title), an individual who--
``(A) is not otherwise eligible for the benefits of this
chapter;
``(B) has completed a total service of at least 14 days on
active duty under paragraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (9); and
``(C) following completion of such service, continued to
serve until the completion of entry level and skill training
(as defined in section 3301(3) of this title).''.
(2) Basic entitlement.--Section 3702(a)(2) of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(H) Each individual described in section 3701(b)(8) of
this title.''.
(3) Additional loan fee for such individuals.--Section
3729(b)(4) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(J) In the case of a housing loan in which the veteran
has eligibility under section 3701(b)(8) of this title and
does not otherwise have eligibility, the loan fee table in
paragraph (2) shall be applied to the veteran or other
obligor (as applicable) by adding 1.00 to the percentage in
the table.''.
(4) Notification to personnel.--The Secretary of Veteran
Affairs shall provide information about this benefit to the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that each member of a reserve
component or a member of the Army National Guard of the
United States or Air National Guard of the United States who
completes entry level and skill training (as defined in
section 3301(3) of title 38, United States Code) after the
date of the enactment of this Act is notified of their
eligibility for housing loan benefits under chapter 37 of
such title, including eligibility (subject to the additional
loan fee) under section 3701(b)(8) of such title.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Takano) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 6047, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6047, as amended, the
Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act,
introduced by my friend and fellow veteran, Representative Tom
Barrett.
I will speak to you today about some of the great Americans this bill
will impact.
Sharri Briley is the survivor and spouse of Chief Warrant Officer 3
Donovan ``Bull'' Briley, an Army Special Operations pilot killed in
1993 in Somalia.
Most Americans would be more familiar with the movie adaptation of
that harrowing day, the film ``Black Hawk Down,'' but for Sharri
Briley, this was not Hollywood.
This was her husband and the father of her then-5-year-old daughter.
Donovan gave his life in defense of freedom, the type of sacrifice we
will commemorate on Memorial Day.
This legislation would provide the first meaningful increase in
survivor benefits for families like Brileys since 1993.
Over 500,000 survivors like Sharri receive Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation from the VA.
DIC is a monthly payment of $1,700 meant to help supplement lost
income after a servicemember's death.
It has only been adjusted for inflation over the last 30 years, but
this bill would add an extra 1.5 percent to the DIC over the next 2
years.
I also will discuss Sergeant Eric Edmundson.
When Eric was 25, his vehicle was destroyed by an IED on the Syrian
border. His spleen ruptured. His kneecap shattered. His spine
fractured, and he sustained traumatic brain injury. For 30 minutes,
Eric's heart stopped beating.
Eric was transported to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to recover,
but his injuries left him unable to walk or speak. For the past 20
years, his parents, Edgar and Bethany, and his wife, Stephanie, have
been Eric's full-time caregivers, supporting Eric as they work together
to raise Eric's two kids.
{time} 1420
Despite these injuries, his family has empowered him to live as full
a life as possible--hunting, painting, spending time with his children,
and going to church.
As the Edmundson family recently wrote in an op-ed for Stars and
Stripes: ``Two incomes vanished. The expenses multiplied. When a
service-connected injury permanently removes earning capacity, the math
doesn't bend for patriotism.''
This bill recognizes that and would provide a $10,000 increase to the
7,000 severely disabled veterans like Eric, many of whom require 24/7
around-the-clock professional medical care.
Veterans like Eric receive the three highest tiers of disability
compensation called R1, R2, and T. Many of these veterans will never
work again and cannot perform basic tasks.
Eric's family dedicate their lives making sure Eric, one of our
Nation's most wounded soldiers, continues living with dignity.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is for families like the Brileys and the
Edmundsons.
As the families put it in their recent op-ed, the circumstances are
different, but the consequences are the same: ``The cost of military
service does not end when the ceremony and the headlines fade. It
echoes through decades--through college tuition bills, medical
[[Page H3701]]
equipment invoices, mortgage payments, retirement plans that must be
deferred or abandoned altogether.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the op-ed referred to published
in Stars and Stripes.
[From the Stars and Stripes, May 18, 2026]
Congress Is Debating the Details. Our Military Families are Living the
Consequences
(By Sharri Briley and Edgar ``Ed'' Edmundson)
One of us lost her husband, Army Chief Warrant Officer
Donovan ``Bull'' Briley, when he was killed in action in
Somalia in 1993. In a single moment, I became a Gold Star
widow--raising our children while trying to build a future
shaped by grief and the long financial shadow that follows
permanent sacrifice. The folded flag did not close a chapter;
it began a lifetime of responsibility.
The other nearly lost his son. Eric Edmundson suffered a
severe brain injury while serving in Iraq. He cannot walk. He
cannot speak. He requires constant, round-the-clock care. He
will never return to work--and his parents cashed in their
retirement to care for him. Two incomes vanished. The
expenses multiplied. When a service-connected injury
permanently removes earning capacity, the math does not bend
for patriotism.
Our circumstances are different, but the consequence is the
same: the cost of military service does not end when the
ceremony and the headlines fade. It echoes through decades--
through college tuition bills, medical equipment invoices,
mortgage payments and retirement plans that must be deferred
or abandoned altogether.
That is why the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans
Benefits Expansion Act of 2025 matters and why Congress must
act. The legislation offers a long overdue increase in
compensation for the most catastrophically wounded and ill
veterans and offers a down payment on desperately needed
increases to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for
survivors. In plain terms, it would update benefits that have
not kept pace with the true cost of severe injury or loss of
life.
As reported by Military Times, the proposal would add
roughly $10,000 annually for veterans with the most severe
disabilities and modestly increase monthly survivor
benefits--an adjustment long overdue as living and care costs
continue to rise.
What is being considered in Washington may look like
numbers on a page. To families like ours and so many other
Americans, it is the difference between a road toward
stability and a financial cliff.
The impact of service is not confined to two households. A
landmark Rand Corp. study estimates that 14.3 million
Americans are caring for wounded, ill or injured service
members and veterans. More than 500,000 Americans are
navigating life as surviving spouses. The ripple effects of
war extend far beyond the battlefield--and far beyond a
single generation.
For decades, compensation for the most catastrophically
disabled veterans and survivor benefits have not been
meaningfully adjusted to reflect modern realities.
Catastrophic injury is permanent. Widowhood caused by war is
permanent. The obligations do not shrink with time--they
compound.
Accessible housing must be maintained. Specialized
equipment must be repaired or replaced. Therapy continues.
Children grow up. Savings are stretched thin. None of this is
abstract. It defines daily life.
We recognize that lawmakers have a responsibility to
examine how legislation is structured and funded. That
scrutiny is part of governing. But delay is not neutral.
Every year that passes without modernization forces those
living with the most severe consequences of service to absorb
costs that were never meant to be borne alone.
This is not about comfort. It is about dignity.
It is about ensuring that a veteran who cannot walk or
speak can live with security. It is about ensuring that a
surviving spouse can raise children without wondering whether
gratitude from a nation will translate into financial
stability.
We are grateful--for survival, for sacrifice, for the honor
of loving those who served. But gratitude does not pay a
mortgage. It does not fund adaptive equipment. It does not
replace lost earning power.
Service members are not wounded as Republicans or
Democrats. They are wounded as Americans. The promise to care
for them--and for those who live with the lifelong
consequences of their service--should rise above party lines
just as clearly.
This legislation now stands before leadership in the U.S.
House of Representatives. The question is not whether the
need exists--it does. The question is whether Congress will
act with the urgency that lifelong sacrifice demands.
Because the financial cliff facing those most profoundly
affected by war--like our families--is not rhetorical. And
once stability is lost, rebuilding can take years, if it is
possible at all.
Our loved ones answered the call without hesitation. It is
time for our leaders to do the same--not with speeches, but
with action that honors veterans, survivors and the enduring
cost of service. It is time for Congress to pass the Sharri
Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of
2025.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, this bill would also expand VA home loan
eligibility to members of the National Guard and Reserve who have at
least 14 days of Active-Duty service at a 1 percent higher rate.
Today's Guard and Reserve deploy along Active-Duty servicemembers.
They deserve a broader access to VA homeownership opportunities, as
well.
Mr. Speaker, I also will address the offsets in this legislation
because there has been a great deal of misinformation surrounding them.
The fact is that House Republicans chose to follow the House rules
and the law. We fully paid for this legislation so that we could get
this bill done because promises made to veterans should be promises
Congress can keep and not show votes or fake outrage to get clicks and
votes.
Now, let me be clear about what this bill will not do. This bill will
not eliminate or harm the VA Home Loan Program. It would also not
impose a loan fee on any disabled veteran, and it would not eliminate
zero percent down on a VA home loan.
Instead, this bill contains two bipartisan offsets that would extend
current home loan fees and would extend the current cap on certain
veterans' pensions who are in government-funded nursing care. It also
increases the home loan funding fee that families would pay when
refinancing by a small amount.
During the 116th Congress, then-Chairman Takano supported and voted
in favor of a similar funding fee proposal on refinancing VA home
loans. I find the arguments against our similar proposal today
insincere. It reeks of the type of politics our veterans don't deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I am a veteran. If I thought that this bill would harm
veterans, you can trust I would not bring the bill to the floor. But,
as the saying goes, don't take my word for it, because over 22 veterans
service organizations support this legislation as written. Let me
repeat: The veterans groups like the VFW, The American Legion, the
Disabled American Veterans, and many others support the bill. These
organizations represent millions of veterans and military families who
support this legislation because they know these families cannot afford
to wait another decade for Congress to act.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a joint letter from 20 veterans
organizations supporting the bill.
February 9, 2026.
Hon. Mike Bost,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mark Takano,
Ranking Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman & Ranking Member: As the second session
of the 119th Congress begins and the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs continues its work providing for the needs
of our nation's ill and injured veterans, their caregivers,
and survivors, we write to share our strong support for the
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6047, the
Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion
Act. As you proceed with discussions around this bill, we
urge you to remember those with whom the bill is intended to
help--veterans with the profoundest of injuries and the
survivors who have lost their loved ones. Provisions in this
important legislation would increase the amount of Special
Monthly Compensation (SMC) by $10,000 annually for the most
severely disabled veterans and raise the rate of Dependency
and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) by a total of 1.5 percent
over a period of two years for the surviving family members
of deceased servicemembers and veterans.
SMC is arguably the most important ancillary benefit for
veterans with severe, service-connected disabilities. To be
clear, given the extreme nature of the disabilities incurred
by most veterans in receipt of SMC, we do not believe that
the impact on quality of life can be totally compensated for;
however, SMC does at least provide these veterans an
opportunity to have the financial resources to accommodate
their individual needs.
DIC is intended to protect against survivor impoverishment
after the death of a service-connected veteran. These monthly
payments were intended to provide surviving spouses with the
means to maintain some semblance of economic stability after
the loss of their loved one. DIC is also an indemnity payment
from the government for the loss of life. Unfortunately,
without an immediate increase, many survivors who, in many
cases were once caregivers, face a financial cliff with
catastrophic results. This legislation represents an initial
downpayment on what is truly owed to veterans' survivors, and
we are committed to continuing to work to bring
[[Page H3702]]
DIC in parity with other federal survivor benefits.
Congress established the baseline rates for these crucial
programs decades ago and updating them is long overdue. The
time to act is now. For decades, the veteran community has
urged Congress to strengthen these critical support programs
and increasing SMC and DIC would be the first step in helping
our most severely disabled and their survivors. Passing this
important legislation will provide critical relief to these
communities and we look forward to your swift action.
Sincerely,
Paralyzed Veterans of America; Elizabeth Dole Foundation;
Wounded Warrior Project; Disabled American Veterans; Tragedy
Assistance Program for Survivors; Military Officers
Association of America; Jewish War Veterans of the USA;
Vietnam Veterans Association; Quality of Life Foundation;
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc; Commissioned Officers
Association of the USPHS; AMVETS; The Independence Fund;
Military Order of the Purple Heart; Blinded Veterans
Association; Fleet Reserve Association; Marine Corps League;
Gold Star Spouses of America; Armed Forces Retiree
Association.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, additionally, I include in the Record a joint
letter from ROA, MCRA, and EANGUS in support of expanding VA home loan
programs to include Guard and Reserve members with 14 days of Active
Duty.
January 13, 2026.
Hon. Tom Barrett,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Barrett: On behalf of the members
represented by our respective organizations, thank you for
your leadership in offering the Home Affordability for Guard
and Reserve Act as an amendment to H.R. 6047, the Sharri
Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of
2025.
This amendment expands VA home loan eligibility to Reserve
and National Guard servicemembers who are currently
ineligible under law. Specifically, it broadens the
definition of ``active duty'' to include qualifying service
under Title 10, Title 14, and Title 32 orders, as well as
training duties, and applies retroactively to service
performed on or after September 11, 2001. Further, eligible
individuals who have completed at least 14 days of qualifying
service and remain in the Reserve or National Guard may
access VA home loans, subject to an additional 1 percent
funding fee.
Our organizations support this amendment. However, if the
broader package does not advance, we urge you to move your
amendment forward under regular order as a standalone
measure.
At the same time, we reaffirm our longstanding support for
provisions that guarantee equal fees for all servicemembers.
Introducing different fee structures based on component or
category of service risks creating inequities and
discrimination within the program.
Accordingly, we urge a thorough review of the proposed
additional fee in Section 3 of the amendment, along with the
broader fee adjustments in the bill, to evaluate their impact
on the VA home loan program's purchasing power, solvency, and
the break-even horizon for veterans when refinancing. Without
such scrutiny, these changes risk diminishing the program's
affordability and pricing out the very servicemembers it was
designed to support.
Should the review conclude that these adjustments make
housing under the program unaffordable or significantly
extend the break-even horizon in a way that compromises the
program's intended flexibility, we strongly recommend
reconsideration and appropriate corrective action.
Thank you again, Congressman, for your leadership. We
appreciate your attention to these concerns and stand ready
to assist in moving this amendment forward.
Respectfully,
John B. Hashem,
Major General, USA Retired,
Executive Director, Reserve Organization of America.
Paul K. Hopper,
Colonel, USMC Retired,
National President, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Association.
John D. Gipe,
Command Sergeant Major, USA Retired,
Executive Director, Enlisted Association of the National
Guard.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, veterans deserve more than speeches. They
deserve results.
If you support these benefit increases, then you need a serious plan
to pay for them, because simply saying that someone else will figure it
out later, that is not real leadership.
Mr. Speaker, this bill comes down to a simple question: When America
sends our soldiers off to war, the result sometimes is life-changing
injuries, grieving spouses, and full-time caregivers. Will this country
stand behind them later in the years?
Again, I ask my Democrat colleagues: If veteran groups support the
bill, then why in the world don't you?
Mr. Edgar Edmundson testified before the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, and he asked Congress to stop the politics and get this done.
Mr. Speaker, families like the Edmundsons and the Brileys deal with
the reality most Americans never see. The Brileys answered the call to
serve. The Edmundsons answered the call to serve. Now, Congress must
answer their call.
This legislation, these families, and the thousands of families like
them, we have your back. It is a distinct honor to advance this bill
just before Memorial Day.
I urge all Members to support H.R. 6047.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a very heavy heart and in opposition
to this bill.
Representative Barrett and House Republicans have engineered here an
impossible choice. What they have said to the American people is that
only by raising costs on one set of veterans can we afford to help
another.
At a time when we are spending trillions on defense, trillions on tax
cuts for the wealthy, and countless other frivolities, like ballrooms
and a slush fund for the President's friends, to suggest that we can
only help veterans by hurting them is patently ridiculous. That is why
I oppose this bill.
I want to clearly state that we owe our servicemembers, veterans,
their families, and their survivors a debt of gratitude, as they have
given everything to this Nation. The promise we made to them is
something we strive to live up to every day. However, I believe this
bill misses that mark.
We know that these groups desperately need more resources as our
veteran population ages and requires more acute care. As I have
mentioned before and as I am sure the majority will repeat, the
catastrophically injured and survivor community has not seen an
appreciable increase in their monthly rate since 2009.
{time} 1430
I agree it is well past due that we correct that wrong. I certainly
believe they are worth it. In fact, I wish we were increasing these
benefits even more.
Unfortunately, this majority seeks to correct that wrong by
inflicting harm on another community of veterans who are deserving of
support and who are struggling veteran homeowners.
Just in case anyone needs a reminder, let's look at the last year and
a half. Last spring, Secretary Doug Collins canceled the VA Servicing
Purchase program, otherwise known as VASP, which assists veterans
facing mortgage challenges prior to setting up their backstop program.
Chairman Bost and Representative Van Orden cheered on this
development as thousands of veterans suddenly faced tenuous financial
circumstances and no resources to turn to as they faced foreclosure.
Let me say, in the past 12 months since the closure of the VASP
program, 10,000 veterans have lost their homes due to foreclosure. We
could call this the Secretary Collins, Representative Van Orden, and
Chairman Bost foreclosure program.
All the while, during this time of the past year, President Trump's
affordability crisis has sent prices through the roof, making the dream
of buying a house entirely out of reach for many Americans.
To recap, at a time when it is already hard to buy a home,
Republicans want to make it even harder. They have made it easier for
veterans to lose their homes when funds are tight. Now, they want to
make it harder for veterans to even buy a home in the first place.
Not only do they want to make it unaffordable to buy a home, but they
want to squeeze our veterans when they attempt to refinance. For many,
it is a last-ditch effort to save their home. Remember, they already
came after VASP. They canceled the program. They cheerleaded for the
Secretary to cancel the program.
What we are seeing today is an attempt to take away affordable
housing for veterans. These veterans I am talking about have used a
home loan while in service to live with their families at a duty
station and used it again when they moved on to the next tour.
Understand, the VA home loan is not just about veterans. It is also
about
[[Page H3703]]
Active-Duty servicemembers. They are also eligible to use a veteran
home loan to buy a home and, also, refinance a home.
I am talking about the transitioning servicemembers who want to buy a
place back home, folks who have done their part in this country and
want to transition to civilian life, Active-Duty servicemembers moving
to a duty station, transitioning servicemembers who want to buy a home
back where they want to settle. Even more critical, these are veterans
attempting to keep their homes amidst rapidly rising foreclosures.
Now, we are asking veterans to shoulder the cost of survivors and
catastrophically injured veterans--again, taking from one set of
veterans in order to help another group of very deserving veterans.
Again, I will emphasize the impossible position we are putting our
veteran community in. We are pitting one set of veterans against
another, instituting a civil war in which we rack and stack which
community is more deserving than the other. Frankly, it is shameful.
Before my Republican colleagues who have served stand up here and
tell me that they would be happy to pay that benefit for their fellow
veterans, I would ask them one thing: Why are we asking them to? Why
are we asking our veterans to shoulder this cost? Why must we put the
onus on veterans and servicemembers? Haven't they paid enough?
Yes, I agree that we need to be responsible with how we spend tax
dollars, but I am curious: Why is it only when we are looking at
benefits for the veteran and survivor community that we take this
mindset?
We certainly didn't have this debate when we were offsetting a $30
billion war of choice in Iran, which will only make more veterans,
Trump's $1 billion new ballroom, or a $75 billion slush fund for ICE,
which now the Senate is having trouble getting over to the House.
If my counterparts in the Republican Party truly gave a damn about
veterans, they would not pit them against one another just to give them
a meager downpayment on veteran benefits. No. If they did, they would
enact meaningful change.
We could be, instead, bringing to the floor the Love Lives On Act. We
would pass the Caring for Survivors Act, and we would ask the American
people to pay for them. I have no doubt the American people would say:
Yes, we should pay for these things. We shouldn't put this on veterans.
I could go on and on all day. We could expand access to toxic-exposed
veterans, provide fertility care for our women veterans, and address
traumatic brain and blast injury. Getting things done on behalf of our
veterans requires bold action.
That is why, today, I have filed a discharge petition on the Major
Richard Star Act. It is live and ready for signature, and I invite my
colleagues on the other side, as soon as we are done with this debate,
to go down and sign that petition. I believe it will reach 218 very
quickly.
Chairman Bost, Congressman Barrett, and Congressman Van Orden, I
invite you right after this debate to go down and sign the discharge
petition to bring the Major Richard Star Act to the floor.
I ask all of my colleagues to join me when they come to vote, in
maybe 45 minutes or so, to sign the petition. We can get something
meaningful done on behalf of veterans right now.
Let's end the wounded warrior tax. If we are not committed to caring
for veterans and ensuring that they and their survivors get benefits
that they were told they would be entitled to when they signed on the
dotted line, then we need to stop making more veterans, full stop.
We can choose to do the right thing. We can choose to do the
honorable thing. We can choose to do the moral thing and give survivors
a meaningful benefit.
Right now, my colleagues across the aisle are choosing a Band-Aid for
a wound that needs stitches. We cannot allow ourselves to accept
veterans paying for their own benefits, and we should not tolerate
forcing this community to fight each other in a pecking order of who
matters most.
I hope to appeal to my colleagues' morality when I say that
increasing compensation to survivors and catastrophically injured
veterans is the right thing to do. We should do it, but we cannot do it
at the expense of other veterans.
This legislation has pushed us to the point of having to make a hard
decision out of what should have been an easy one. Waive paygo and pass
meaningful legislation.
Today, we sit here debating a change on the margins that opens a
Pandora's box to charge veterans for their own benefits. That is why I
simply cannot support this legislation as written, and I encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
I will say that was a wonderful post of all the veterans service
organizations that support this legislation. Yes, they support raising
the compensation for the catastrophically disabled. If you read their
letter very carefully, they are silent on the pay-for. They are silent
on the subject of should you ask our servicemembers who are serving
right now in the waters around Iran whether they should be charged
$1,000 or more in fees to refinance their homes. There is not a single
one of those veterans service organizations that says that they agree
with that pay-for.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate my colleagues for suddenly wanting to
be fiscally responsible, I do not appreciate my colleagues implying
that the home loan funding fee as an offset is unnecessary or
inappropriate. Finding a way to pay for expenditures and benefits is
not an option. It is a requirement.
May I remind my colleagues and Ranking Member Takano that he has
supported dozens of bills that contain the home loan funding fee. My
colleague has also submitted a manager's amendment on the floor to
increase fees for refinancing loans in the 116th Congress. While the
offer used by the ranking member only increased fees, refinancing loans
by 0.5 percent and 0.85 percent, and was only a temporary increase, the
concept still remains the same.
{time} 1440
This legislative body has long understood that fiscal responsibility
is not separated from caring for our veterans and their survivors. It
is part of that responsibility.
The House has repeatedly relied on adjustments to the VA home loan
funding fee to pay for veterans' benefits expansions. Members on both
sides of the aisle have voted for that approach many times. As chairman
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I don't just pay lipservice to the
veterans and survivors who we serve. I get things done for them.
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if my colleagues across the aisle
would stop caring about political wins and focus on getting a win for
the most deserving population of veterans and surviving spouses, so
let's get the bill paid for and across the finish line.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Barrett), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley
and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, legislation that I
am leading with Chairman Bost to support the servicemembers and
families who sacrificed the most for our Nation.
When men and women sign up to serve in our Armed Forces, they
willingly put their own lives on the line to defend the American people
and the freedoms we too often take for granted.
Some of those heroes make the ultimate sacrifice. Others who are
lucky enough to come home do so with life-changing injuries. While we
can never fully repay the debts that we owe to these men and women,
that will never stop us from doing everything that we can.
My bill will deliver a long overdue, historic increase in benefits to
care for veterans who were severely injured in the line of duty, and it
will support the Gold Star families who lost a spouse, a
[[Page H3704]]
parent, a child, or a loved one in service to our country.
H.R. 6047 is named in honor of two patriotic Americans. Sharri Briley
persevered after her husband, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Donovan Lee
``Bull'' Briley, was tragically killed in action when his Black Hawk
went down in Mogadishu. In the face of hardship, she continued raising
their daughter and providing for their family after his great
sacrifice.
Sergeant Eric Edmundson suffered a severe brain injury when his
vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb in Iraq. His injuries have left
him unable to speak, walk, or work, and his family provides full-time,
around-the-clock care.
I have had the privilege to meet and share time with Sharri, Eric and
his family, and families throughout this process. Eric Edmundson and
his family were here in Washington, D.C., just yesterday meeting with
Members of Congress. Sharri Briley is here this week and joins us in
the Capitol today.
I can honestly say that we wouldn't be at this point without their
strength, dedication, and hope.
One thing that Sharri Briley told me as we were talking about this is
that when she suffered this great tragedy, it was widows from the
Vietnam and Korean war generation who stood up to help lead her through
this process, and she is standing today to lead that effort on behalf
of the generations of Americans who will follow behind her in hoping to
lead and increase this benefit.
This bill, named in honor of these families to increase support for
survivors like Sharri and Eric, the catastrophically disabled, and Gold
Star families, is critically important. Some will be eligible for an
additional $10,000 a year to cover their expenses through a special
monthly compensation for the catastrophically injured. For the first
time since 1993, more than half a million surviving spouses, parents,
and children will receive an additional disability indemnity
compensation to help cover their needs as they continue without their
loved ones.
In addition to that, we are expanding the VA home loan to National
Guard and Reserve component, men and women who signed on the dotted
line to serve our country, so that they can have an opportunity at the
American Dream and build their own home.
My wife and I were fortunate to qualify for a VA home loan to buy our
family home together years ago, and that is a benefit we want to extend
to more families.
I thank Chairman Bost again for his work on this bill. It is
reminding me of an experience I had in basic training. We would line up
beside our bunks before going to bed at night and recite the
``Soldier's Creed,'' and there is a line in the ``Soldier's Creed''
that said that the brave soldiers of the past would be proud of me.
I know I am proud of the sacrifice that Sharri Briley, Eric
Edmundson, and their families have made on behalf of this country, and
I think we stand here, on the eve of Memorial Day, proud of the efforts
we are taking to build upon the benefits that they so desperately need,
and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6047.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman has referred to moments when I was chair of
the Veterans' Affairs Committee when we did look at pay-fors related to
increasing the interest rate reduction refinance program.
We did pass a bill out of the House in 2020 that would have increased
the interest rate reduction refinance loan fees by one-fourth of a
percent, but it did not become law. When you strip away all of the
context around that bill, you can try to set up a gotcha--you did what
we are trying to do--but the reality is that we are in a much different
situation now.
First, the proposed increase in 2020 returned to current levels just
after a few years. Representative Barrett's and Chairman Bost's
proposed increase replaces the current level with their new fee level.
It is not a temporary change. It is a permanent increase.
Today's proposed increase is almost three times what was contemplated
back in 2020. That translates into $2,500 to $3,000 more in fees that
veterans would have to pay under Representative Barrett's plan. That
cost doubles when the veteran has to pay interest on that fee increase.
Also back in 2020, home loan mortgage and refinance rates were at
record lows. Fees had much less of an impact on veterans' abilities to
lower their housing costs. Today, interest rates are so much higher.
Many more veterans are facing foreclosure. As I said, 10,000 veterans
in the past 12 months, and thousands and thousands of veterans are in
jeopardy of losing their homes in the coming months.
The Trump administration has gotten rid of VASP, as I said, with the
cheerleading done by the chairman and Representative Van Orden. VASP
was the last-ditch program to keep veterans and their families in their
homes. It has been a year, and the replacement, the partial claims
program, which I supported in instituting, has still not been rolled
out yet, and it won't be rolled out for several months. Meanwhile, we
will see more veterans foreclosed upon.
Refinancing, therefore, is currently the last line of defense in
keeping veterans with distressed loans in their homes. Representative
Barrett is proposing that we raise costs at this very moment, in this
financial environment and when this Congress has passed a
reconciliation bill costing billions and billions of dollars that were
not offset. Mind you, the $70 billion that the Senate was hoping to
send over here, the Republican Senate, that this House presumably would
have also approved of, the Republican majority, that $70 billion will
not offset.
We are also looking at potentially a $1.5 trillion defense budget
increase, and there is talk about $1 billion on the President's
ballroom.
How do we justify taxing veterans to access their own benefits? How
do you justify that?
Let me just say that I offered an amendment. I offered an amendment
to pay for this bill not with the money that would have gone to other
veterans. I had an amendment that would have delayed for 3 years the
implementation of a big, bad, ugly bill tax break we were giving to
very wealthy people--people with $15 million to pass on to their heirs.
We wanted to delay the tax break that rich people get when they want to
pass on their wealth to their heirs. We would delay that for 3 years.
That would pay for the cost of this bill.
That amendment was rejected. I think that very wealthy people benefit
from the bravery and the courage of our military servicemembers. It is
not too much to ask the wealthiest people of our country to bear the
cost of paying for the catastrophically disabled veterans.
I think the American people would countenance that much better than:
Let's take away the ability for our servicemembers who are currently
serving in the waters surrounding Iran, or our veterans--we shouldn't
be asking them to have to pay more in home loan fees for benefits that
they thought they were getting when they signed up.
{time} 1450
It is the choices that we are making that bother me here. I don't
think we should be doing something that is very, very worthy by
charging one set of veterans to pay for another set.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies on the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the ranking
member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee in opposition to
the offset in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I was stunned to see this pay-for included in this bill
and so disappointed that no one included appropriators in this
discussion, but I was not surprised.
The benefits expansion that this bill would make are worthy changes
that we absolutely should pass as a supplemental monthly allowance of
$833.33 for severely disabled veterans requiring aid and attendants.
That is an issue we haven't addressed since 1993.
I wish that we could have worked on this issue last week when our
appropriations bill was on the House floor, or the month before when
the bill was before the Appropriations Committee. Instead, House
Members are going to
[[Page H3705]]
take a vote that will rob Peter to pay Paul. When we are talking about
our veterans, that is just plain wrong.
This bill triples VA home loan fees, which amounts to hundreds or
thousands of dollars on each home loan, which will make homeownership
even harder for veterans. When a veteran refinances their home loan,
they will get hit with this tripled fee, which will be cost prohibitive
for many veterans.
Republicans are increasing, tripling fees for one group of veterans
to pay for benefits for another. Do you know what I find the most
despicable, though? It is that the veterans and their families were
told that this pay-for was required or the bill would not become law.
That is a flatout lie, and I speak as an appropriator and someone who
understands the paygo rules.
At some point, if you recall, my friends on the other side of the
aisle, we thought it was going to be tonight, but we will likely push
that to next week or when we come back, you are going to push through a
partisan spending bill that would include billions of dollars in
spending that is completely unpaid for because the paygo rule would be
waived, just like every point of order.
That is what you could do in this bill, but instead you are saddling
one group of veterans with tripled fees to get a home loan to pay for
benefits for the other, and that is why I must rise in opposition
today.
This benefits expansion should be passed. It should. I firmly believe
that we must honor our commitment to our veterans at every step, but
let me be very clear: The precedent that we are being asked to set is a
dangerous one. We will not take from one group of veterans to give to
another, no matter how small we claim the pay-for would be.
Chairman Bost and Ranking Member Takano, I would ask that we all get
together and meet--Chairman Carter, myself, and the two of you--to talk
about how we can accomplish this in a bipartisan way. We should not
waste any of the House's time because the House and Senate are going to
need to conference on MILCON-VA bills, and I want to make sure that
this issue is addressed in that bill.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, when this bill drops the painful
triple fee increase, you will have my vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, when this
bill drops the painful, triple fee increase on VA home loans, you will
have my vote. In the meantime, I must strongly urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on this bill.
This is completely unnecessary. The pay-for is not required. They
could waive it just like they do on nearly every other bill. I would
ask my friends on the majority side to seriously reflect on what this
precedent would mean for our veterans in the future.
We should not be tripling the cost of a VA home loan to pay for
benefits that are sorely needed and deserved, but it is completely
unnecessary to hit one group of veterans. Coming from a party that says
they are against fee and tax increases, this is pretty shocking. It is
unacceptable, and it doesn't have to be this way, and you know it. I
urge a ``no'' vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Newhouse). Members are reminded to
direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find it deeply disingenuous for some of my colleagues
to suggest Republicans are willing to pay for war but unwilling to pay
for veterans.
As chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am closely
aware of the true cost of war. We see it in disability compensation, in
survivor benefits, in prosthetics, in mental health care, and in long-
term care of catastrophically disabled veterans. Those costs exist
because brave men and women answered the Nation's call and came home
carrying the physical and invisible wounds of war. The VA budget
continues to grow because America continues to honor the promises made
for those who serve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Van Orden), my good friend, who knows and understands what it is like
to stand in the gap for the rights of this Nation.
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Mr. Speaker, I am currently working with the
appropriators to try to allocate some money for acting lessons for my
colleagues so that some of their arguments could be more believable
because they simply are not.
Let me explain what the VASP program did. There were unelected
bureaucrats under the Biden administration who decided to start buying
loans from lending institutions. That is not a VA home loan. It is a VA
home loan guarantee. They did this without authorization. They did it
contravening the will of Congress to the tune of $6 billion, projected
to be $16 to $20 billion.
Here is how incompetent the Veterans Administration was under the
previous administration. The VA bought the loans from a lending
institution and lowered the interest rate to 2\1/2\ percent. The rest
of the American public paid for that because the lending institution
was made whole. Then the VA had to contract back with the institutions
they just bought the loan from to service the loan because they didn't
know how to do it.
That is why that program went away. It would have tanked the entire
VA home loan guarantee. We want every Active-Duty servicemember,
veteran, and future veterans to have access to that program, and the
VASP program would have destroyed it.
I corrected the problem with the partial claim bill. What it did was
simply aligned the home loan guarantee program with other Federal home
loan guarantees. That was it. It was an elegant solution, and it is
done. It will be implemented next month on the 15th.
Yes, there were veterans who lost their homes during this period of
time, and that is very, very unfortunate. It truly is. My heart goes
out to them, but we must make sure that we understand this program has
to go on in perpetuity, and that is what we have done.
Let's talk about what we are actually here for today. There are
profoundly handicapped veterans who need 24-hour care. Their caregivers
need help, and they need to be able to live in dignity. That is what
this bill is doing, and I strongly support Mr. Barrett for doing this.
This should have been done years and years ago, but it simply was not.
The offset for this, on average, will cost $8 a month for a second
home loan or a refinance. That is less than a cup of coffee at
Starbucks. I am absolutely willing to pay that for my fellow veterans,
100 percent, $8 a month increase to refinance or use your veteran home
loan guarantee benefit a second time.
There is not a single member of the United States military that is
off the coast of Iran that wouldn't willingly pay $8 a month to make
sure that our catastrophically handicapped veterans get what they need
to live in dignity because that could be them tomorrow.
I find these arguments by my dear colleagues on the other side
completely disingenuous. They are bamboozling the American public to
think that we do not support our veterans. That is simply wrong. This
should be an apolitical--not bipartisan--argument. It should be
apolitical. Every single American should support this because fewer
than 1 percent of American citizens serve in the military now, and my
fellow veterans deserve what we can provide to them so that they can
live in dignity.
{time} 1500
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do think the gentleman doth protest too much. The gentleman
cheerleaded and encouraged Secretary Collins to end the VASP program
over a year ago, forthwith. He is now on the floor arguing to take away
the last remaining tool that veterans who have distressed properties
have to hang on to those properties, which is the ability to refinance
their homes under the VA home loan program. He is advocating for the
passage of a bill which will admirably address the catastrophically
disabled, but cause veterans who are in distressed homes higher costs
in refinancing.
Let me explain further. Veterans are experiencing record
foreclosures. Unfortunately, it is not hard to explain
[[Page H3706]]
exactly why. It is because of the Trump administration's assault on the
VA loan assistance options.
Just months into the Trump administration's second term, President
Trump and Secretary Collins, at the urging of Chairman Bost and
Chairman Van Orden, ended the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase
program, otherwise known as VASP.
The VASP program was a lifeline offered to veterans by President
Biden that served as a last resort option for veterans before
foreclosure. The program worked. For inane, extreme ideological
reasons, Chairman Bost and Chairman Van Orden urged Secretary Collins
to end the VASP program.
It is no surprise that foreclosures for veterans have doubled since
that action. Ten thousand veterans have lost their homes in the last
year, and tens of thousands more are set to be foreclosed upon in this
Trump economy.
The majority might claim that their partial claims law, which was
finally enacted last fall, is the answer. The gentleman from Wisconsin
says that it is going to be implemented next month. We will see. I hope
he is right, but I believe that the law is still months away from being
implemented. Based on the rollout, it is unlikely to save many of the
veterans at risk due to limitations in the program and the delays in
rollout.
At the very least, they could have urged Secretary Collins to
continue the VASP program until the partial claims program was ready.
But no, oops, it is unfortunate, says my colleague from the State of
Wisconsin, that 10,000 veterans had to lose their homes.
Now, what brings us to this moment? With VASP gone and partial claims
not ready for prime time, the only last true option for veterans is to
refinance their loans so they can get current on their outstanding
payments.
This very legislation we are considering right now puts that relief
further away. Refinancing will become more expensive, which makes it no
longer a viable option for many veterans. Veterans have less options
than they did a year ago, and this bill will reduce those options even
more.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).
Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to oppose H.R. 6047.
For years, I have worked with Gold Star families to address the
overdue need to increase benefits for surviving spouses of
servicemembers and veterans who have given their lives in service to
the United States of America.
This bill does not go far enough. The rate for dependency and
indemnity compensation, or DIC, has been minimally adjusted since the
Department of Veterans Affairs established the benefit in 1993.
The current DIC rate is lower and has more stringent rules than other
Federal survivor programs. H.R. 6047 falls short of modernizing this
program.
My bipartisan Caring for Survivors Act increases benefits and
broadens eligibility in a comprehensive way to ensure families receive
the financial compensation and support they deserve.
First, my bill would raise DIC benefits by more than $450 per month
per recipient, compared to the nominal $16 being proposed in H.R. 6047.
My Caring for Survivors Act would increase DIC benefit payments by 25
percent. The bill we are debating today would only have a 1-percent
increase in the first year and cap out at 5 percent overall. Second, my
bill also reduces the timeframe a veteran must be disabled to qualify
for DIC benefits from 10 years to 5 years.
Together, these provisions would help surviving spouses who depend on
DIC benefits to cover their basic expenses and make ends meet.
Supporting our veterans and military families is an intentional
choice that we have the ability to make. Updating DIC benefits for the
first time in decades would be an incredible show of support for
surviving family members of our veterans who died in the line of
service.
Generally, I wouldn't oppose legislation that I care so deeply about
and have attempted to address for so many years, but as we have heard,
this bill pays for that minimal 5-percent increase by taking money from
veteran housing loans. That is a problem that also needs to be
addressed.
I agree that veterans should be a priority. Why are we providing only
a 5-percent increase instead of the 25 percent they deserve?
While I oppose H.R. 6047, I look forward to working with my
colleagues to modernize DIC benefits, advance the Caring for Survivors
Act to the floor, and have eventual passage so that veterans and their
surviving families can get the benefits that they have earned.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Sharri
Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act.
Central Arkansas is home to many of our brave veterans and Active-
Duty servicemembers stationed at Little Rock Air Force Base and the
Arkansas National Guard headquarters at Camp Robinson.
It is also home to Sharri Briley, the devoted surviving spouse of
Donovan Lee ``Bull'' Briley, an Army Special Operations Black Hawk
helicopter pilot tragically lost in Operation Gothic Serpent, known to
all Americans as ``Black Hawk Down.''
Sharri is our Gold Star family voice for the people of Arkansas.
Central Arkansas and our Nation have benefited significantly from
Sharri Briley's work, which helps families of deceased servicemembers.
This bill is partially named after her because of that leadership.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill, which increases
benefits for catastrophically injured veterans, their families, their
survivors; raises survivor benefits by an extra 1.5 percent over 2
years; and expands VA home loan program eligibility requirements,
importantly, Mr. Speaker, for the Guard and Reserves from 90 days of
Active-Duty service to 14 days of Active-Duty service.
This bill is fiscally sensible and supported by over 20 veterans
groups across this land, including the VFW and The American Legion.
This bill honors our Nation's promise to care for our veterans, their
survivors, and their families. I urge support on both sides of the
aisle.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
closing.
Mr. Speaker, I have been searching my memory to recall such righteous
indignation about costs when we prosecute wars.
The rhetoric about the true cost of war is very different. In fact,
it is nonexistent. No one is prepared to handcuff our military at a
time when they need equipment. Yet, the individual consequences of war
can last a lifetime, and we must take them into account.
After 250 years, we have more than enough historical data to
understand that the cost of these wars does not end at the last
appropriation marked for battle.
We already promised to care for veterans. In this case, that means
their families, as well. Congress should not turn away or hide from
that fact. If we are to support the cost of starting and sustaining
war, we must acknowledge the financial cost of supporting those
veterans it creates when they come home.
We need to stop treating our work in Congress as something out of the
``Hunger Games,'' that someone must suffer so that someone else can get
what they need, that we need to force schoolchildren, small business
owners, and veterans to compete for help from their government. We on
our side of the aisle are not going to play that game with the benefits
our veterans have earned.
{time} 1510
We should provide funding to give veterans who have gone to war for
this country healthcare and benefits. In fact, if you want to continue
to increase funding for defense spending and military aid, I would say
that you should be required to consider the long-term cost of taking
care of the servicemembers whom we are sending into harm's way.
I personally would never ask for offsets for funding for the
equipment our troops need because it is the right thing to do, just
like taking care of veterans is also the right thing to do. I hope that
our country and this Congress will not perpetuate a double
[[Page H3707]]
standard when we discuss funding and support for our servicemembers and
for our veterans and their families. America deserves better.
Again, I will conclude by saying we should be taking care of the
catastrophically disabled veterans of our country. It has been too
long. They have gone without for too long, but we should not be asking
other veterans to do that work. We, the American people, should be the
ones who foot that bill, not our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate earlier in the debate the interest rate
reduction and refinancing loans. That was all brought up, and I
appreciate my colleague's comments on the interest rate reduction and
refinancing loans.
I would also like to make it known that the ranking member is correct
that he has not had legislation to increase the rates to the level that
this bill is intending to do.
However, during the 116th Congress, the ranking member proposed an
amendment to the bill on the floor that would have increased the same
refinancing piece we are discussing today. Now, although the rate may
not be the same, the concept is the same. I note that the small
increase reference piece is the only change that we make after the
mark-up version of this bill, which has been done, and that is to cover
the cost incurred by expanding the VA home loan program to the National
Guard and Reserve, which they wanted, by the way.
The ranking member is making this partisan when it does not need to
be.
Instead of focusing on the delivery and an increase to the veterans
and surviving spouses, those people who the VA really is focused on
taking care of, regardless of who authored the bill, the ranking member
has chosen to turn it into a political exercise, and I wonder why.
Earlier in a discussion on the committee's future, the Ranking Member
Takano himself stated: We want our gavel back. That is what it is
about. The statement speaks for itself.
This bill is not about committee gavels. This is not about partisan
advantage. It is about thousands of American families who have waited
long enough for the VA benefits to increase.
My fellow GOP colleagues and I are fighting for them, not the gavel.
There are 22 veterans service organizations that agree with this.
Mr. Speaker, you have heard from my colleagues on this side of the
aisle. Two of them were veterans. I am a veteran.
Why do we agree with it?
It is because we understand.
We also understand the rules of the House. With no disrespect for the
ranking member and the other people who spoke, they never raised their
hands. We did. We are asking to help those who need the help, and this
is the way to do it today.
In the future, if we want to increase it and we want to work towards
a larger amount, which I believe they deserve, both of the groups that
are mentioned in this, the families who survived and those who have
received the most heinous and most difficult wounds that they have to
suffer through the rest of their lives, then we will do that, but this
is the bill before us today.
I am going to say this, and I will say it to the Members on the other
side of the aisle: If you want to go home on Memorial Day weekend and
go out there and stand in the parade and tell everybody how great you
are for our veterans and vote ``no'' on this, you had better think
about it. You had better think about it.
I am going to tell the other side; the veterans and their voices here
have spoken. They want this bill.
Mr. Speaker, if they choose to vote ``no,'' then they can answer to
those veterans.
I am going to stand for them. I am going to stand for them because I
am a grandson of a veteran; a son of a veteran; a nephew of a veteran,
who had to have a lot of these services that we deal with in the VA; a
son who still serves; a grandson who is going to have to receive some
of these benefits; and another grandson who is serving at this time. I
don't know what his career is going to be in the field, but it is
possible that he could have to have this support too.
Is it personal to me?
You bet it is, Mr. Speaker. This is an important bill. It is
important to the families who receive these benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it. I
encourage all of my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
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.
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. TAKANO. 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.
____________________