All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 26, 2025 16:51-18:23 - CSPAN
01:31:52
Hearing on Veterans' Second Amendment Rights
Participants
Appearances
e
eli crane
rep/r 02:59
n
nancy mace
rep/r 00:47
|

Speaker Time Text
unidentified
It's a process, a process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
Democracy in real time.
This is your government at work.
This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including NIDCO.
Where are you going?
Or maybe a better question is, how far do you want to go?
And how fast do you want to get there?
Now we're getting somewhere.
So let's go.
Let's go faster.
Let's go further.
Let's go beyond.
MIDCO supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
And now to a hearing on allowing veterans to purchase or own firearms while relying on someone else to manage their VA benefits.
Retired military personnel, veterans advocates, and policy researchers testify here before a House Veterans Affairs subcommittee.
All right, Mr. Self, there's no making fun of the chairman when I'm in control of the gavel.
I'd like to welcome the new members of the subcommittee and those returning members.
It is absolutely a privilege to be the chairman again for Disability Assistance, and my good friend Morgan McGarvey from Kentucky's 3rd District is now our ranking member.
So happy to have you here, sir.
Today, okay, so today we are going to take a closer look at how the Department of Veterans Affairs seems to fail to give veterans any due process before violating their constitutional right to bear arms.
According to regulations issued by VA and the Department of Justice, VA must report to the FBI National Incident Criminal Background Check System, or the NICS list, the name of any veteran who needs help from a fiduciary to manage their finances because of a disability.
These veterans sacrificed to protect the Constitution due process.
Excuse me.
These veterans sacrificed to protect the Constitution due process and Second Amendment rights of every American.
Yet for over two decades without any due process, VA bureaucrats have stripped over 250,000 veterans with fiduciaries of their constitutional right to possess and purchase firearms.
These practices have wrongfully prevented veterans with fiduciaries from owning.
See me after class, sir.
You good to go, Mr. Reynolds?
All right.
This practice, okay, so for over two decades, I'll repeat this, over 250,000 veterans with fiduciaries with fiduciaries have the constitutional right to possess and purchase firearms.
These practices have wrongfully prevented veterans with fiduciaries from owning firearms, whether to be protect themselves and or their families.
VA reports these veterans to the NICS list without any ruling by any judge that they are a danger to themselves or others.
The VA does this without any medical findings by any medical professionals that they are dangerous to themselves or their community.
It is important to understand the VA that the VA strips veterans of their constitutional right to bear arms with zero medical evidence indicating they are suicidal, homicidal, or a threat to their community.
Under VA's current practice, at no point before VA reports a veteran to the NICS list does any medical professional ever need to say that a veteran is at a risk to themselves.
It should go without saying that there is no data to support that a veteran who is unable to manage their finances because of a disability is automatically dangerous.
In fact, advocates for mental health care emphasize that assuming anyone with a mental illness is dangerous absolutely stigmatizes mental illness itself.
Ultimately, VA incorrectly assumes without any evidence whatsoever that a veteran should be stripped of their rights to bear arms are simply because they need help paying their bills.
By comparison, in every other state and federal legal system, civilians and criminals must be proven dangerous by a judge based on evidence before they are stripped of their constitutional right to bear arms.
Veterans with fiduciaries do not get the same process.
Unlike every other American, veterans with fiduciaries must undergo a difficult appeals process where they must prove that they should be given back their constitutional right to bear arms only after they have been added to the NICS list.
This means that veterans are subject to different rules compared to every other American, even though veterans fought to protect our American constitutional rights.
Since March 9th of 2024, VAA has been temporarily prohibited from using any funds to report a veteran assigned a fiduciary to the NICS list without a court ruling that the veteran is a danger to themselves or others.
This hearing will reveal that Congress must pass a permanent piece of legislation or legislative solutions to protect veterans' constitutional due process.
This hearing is not about guns or demand.
It's about affording veterans with the same due process rights every other American is afforded.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and thank you, Dr. Reynolds.
I appreciate you traveling all the way from Alabama, sir.
With that, I will yield to the ranking member for his opening remarks.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I truly am looking forward to working with you.
I've enjoyed our relationship over the last few years and enjoyed the relationship you had with my predecessor, Representative Pathas.
And one of the things that we have talked about several times is that no matter where we find ourselves outside these walls, we agree.
We agree that our veterans deserve our care.
They have earned our care.
They have been made both a legal and a moral promise.
And it is our job on this committee to make sure that we live up to that promise.
And I look forward to working with you to do so.
I know today's hearing is also a little bit tricky.
It is a little bit tricky because as someone with family members in the military, veterans in my family, all around the community, I understand that veterans do oftentimes have and enjoy owning firearms.
We also know the incredibly sobering statistics around veteran mental health and veteran suicide.
Our job on this committee is not to enter into the hot-button political topics of the day, but to figure out how to best take care of our veterans.
These statistics are truly sobering.
Today, the most at-risk group in the entire country for death by suicide are white men over 50 who served in the military and own a firearm.
73 percent of veteran suicides involve firearms.
We also know that death by firearm is the most lethal common method of suicide, and male veterans are 41 percent more likely to use a firearm and suicide attempts than non-veterans, and female veterans are 39 percent more likely to use a firearm and suicide than non-veterans.
This is something we have to continue to be aware of and work on in this committee.
In fact, on Tuesday, Senator Blumenthal asked incoming VA Secretary Doug Collins in his confirmation hearing if he would commit to find ways to reduce firearm suicides by veterans.
Doug Collins said, quote, I will look to fix anything that takes the lives of our veterans.
That means we have to talk about it too.
We have to lessen the very real stigma around seeking mental health.
I told you this is tricky.
We know veterans want to enjoy owning firearms.
We don't want them to not seek care out of a fear that they will lose access to that firearm.
At the same time, we cannot talk about death by suicide with these statistics without talking about the firearms themselves.
I understand, I empathize with our veterans and others who feel there's an unfairness to the current system.
But we have to be willing to talk about this in a way of where the rubber meets the road.
We're talking about a very specific subset of veterans, veterans who have gone in for medical care, medical care, who have been diagnosed with conditions such as schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, dementia, other conditions severe enough that they are no longer able to handle their own affairs.
In fact, we have a 2018 study by Swanson that found that veterans with a fiduciary are, quote, at significantly higher risk of suicide compared to other veterans.
So we're not just talking about veterans who are more at risk for suicide than the general population.
We are talking about a population within the veterans that is at a significantly greater risk for suicide.
17 veterans right now, 17 veterans a day, are dying by suicide.
So we cannot ignore these facts and these studies.
The chairman and I joked about this for a minute beforehand, and we don't need another study papering the wall of the VA.
But this is worth our attention and worth finding out exactly what's going on.
Because in this situation we're in today, we are finding ourselves, I fear, too much talking about the politics and not the policy.
So I want to make this a little more concrete as we step into it.
What happens?
If you are a veteran in Louisville, Kentucky, how does the rubber meet the road?
How is this going to impact you?
And the reality is, if you're a veteran going in for health care, and it's not by going to a mental health appointment, so if you're going in to get this determination and you're going in for mental health care as a veteran, that is not how you end up here.
A veteran who goes in for mental health for schizophrenia, for Alzheimer's, for PTSD, for any of the things we've talked about, that is not how you end up here in the situation we're discussing today.
You can be found not to be competent in a medical proceeding, but this only kicks in after you apply for a disability benefit because of that condition.
So this happens when the vet applies for benefits.
As part of the benefit application process then, the VA records and compiles the medical evidence.
This is the first step.
So what happens?
You go in, there's a person who administers a disability benefits questionnaire that the veteran community knows as the DBQ.
And it can indicate that a veteran may require, not shall may require, a fiduciary.
Then there's a second layer of review that kicks in.
And the initial findings are reviewed by claims processors trained to evaluate this medical evidence.
If there is enough medical evidence to get the claims processors to determine that they cannot manage their own affairs, then the file goes to the fiduciary program.
It's during that process that the VA is required by law to notify veterans of the proposed determination with respect to their competency.
So you've already had a layer of review, then it goes to another layer of review and another layer of review, which will notify you that there's a potential determination of your competency.
At any point in this process, after you've been notified or before, you can actually offer additional or contrary evidence.
You can appeal the VA's decisions.
In fact, there are at least six avenues for appeal.
On the chart behind me, you can see through these, and we're happy to talk about ways with the majority.
If we can make these notices and appeals more accessible to vets, more accessible to them, figure out how they can get through this process.
Again, we want to make sure we are taking care of our veterans.
So, once this determinant of incompetency has been made, there have been notices for contrary evidence, it's gone through several layers of review, then you are determined to be incompetent to handle your own affairs.
And the VA complies with the Administrative Procedures Act, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, and the 21st Century Cures Act in their notifications to veterans about the ramifications of this decision.
That is when you get reported to NICS.
It is my understanding, however, that even if we take away the notification to NICS, that does not automatically give you the right to own a firearm.
You have already been deemed incompetent to handle your affairs.
You've already had a condition serious enough you can't handle your own affairs, and you are still incompetent under other laws and are unable to own a firearm.
This prohibits the notification to NICS, which then the practical effect of that is you are unable to buy a new firearm.
It has nothing to do with existing firearms, which, when you get into the depths of this, and we were talking about this yesterday, Mr. Chairman, your fiduciary might keep you from buying that firearm anyway, because they are in control of your money and can determine how your money is spent because you've applied for this disability benefit after you've gotten your care.
So, let's take a step back.
We look at this underlying process, and I will readily admit the process can be frustrating, it can be confusing, and maybe we need to do some work on this to better protect our veterans.
There's always room for improvement.
I think we can point out some fault lines in the current process, and I know that there are veterans who feel this process is failing them.
Those are fair and perhaps essential questions that we should ask about the fiduciary program right now, and we don't always have the firm evidence to answer.
So, I wanted to kind of set the stage today, say that no matter what the issue is, we here on the minority side stand ready to work with the majority to ensure the care of our veterans, to make sure that they are getting the care they need, to reduce that number so that veterans are no longer the most at-risk group for suicide in our entire country, and to do the work of this committee, which is again to take care of them and keep them safe.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to doing that with you and look forward to today's hearing.
Thank you, Ranking Member.
I ask unanimous consent for non-committee members to participate in accordance with committee rules.
I ask unanimous consent that the following members be permitted to participate in today's subcommittee hearing: Representative Van Orden of Wisconsin and Representative Mr. Eli Crane from Arizona.
Without objection, so ordered today's panels include witnesses from Congressional Research Service as well as veteran advocates.
Our lead witness from Congressional Research Service is Dr. Jordan B. Cohen, analyst in firearms policy.
Welcome, sir.
Dr. Cohen is joined by Dr. Scott Simandera.
Don Ailton.
Simandera.
Simandera.
Yeah.
Tavia Tameda.
Sorry, buddy.
Analyst in disability policy and congressional research services.
Today's panels also include Mr. James McCormick, past National Commander of the Military Order of the Purple Heart.
Welcome.
Dr. Wayne Reynolds, National Treasurer for Vietnam Veterans of America, sir.
Welcome again.
Ms. Nancy Springer, Associate Director of National Legislative Service at Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.
Welcome, ma'am.
And Master Sergeant Michael Tott Washington, U.S. Marine Corps retired of the Everytown Veterans Adversary Council.
Welcome, sir.
Thank you all for your service.
I ask that the witnesses on our panel please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Thank you and let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
Dr. Cohen, sir, you are now recognized for five minutes to deliver your opening statement on behalf of the Congressional Research Service.
Chairman Lattrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and distinguished members of the committee, my name is Jordan Cohen and I am a CRS analyst in firearms policy.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today.
I will summarize my formal written statement with these remarks and I will focus on the Department of Veterans Affairs reporting requirements for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, otherwise known as NICS.
Joining me is my colleague Scott Simandera and we will be available to answer your questions.
NICS is a national name check system for federal firearms licensees otherwise known as FFLs.
It is used to confirm that a person is not prohibited from legally buying, selling, or possessing a firearm.
Section 102 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 requires all FFLs to request a background check through NICS on prospective buyers before completing a firearms transfer.
NICS reporting refers to the process for federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement departments and agencies to report persons ineligible according to federal law to own a firearm to NICS.
That federal law is 18 USC 922G and it lists the nine classes of people who cannot buy, sell, or possess a firearm.
These classes include but are not limited to felons in possession, persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, unauthorized immigrants and non-immigrant visitors, people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship, and persons that are, quote, adjudicated as a mental defective, end quote.
The class, persons that are adjudicated as a mental defective, does not require an order or finding from a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority to be added to NICS.
ATF Regulation 27 CFR, Part 47811, notes that this determination can be made by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and it includes persons who lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs.
Under the VA regulations, the VA has the authority to determine if a beneficiary in a VA program is mentally incompetent.
The VA's regulations provide the following definition of mental incompetency, quote, a mentally incompetent person is one who because of injury or disease lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage their own affairs, including disbursement of funds without limitation, end quote.
Thus, any person determined by the agency to be mentally incompetent because they need a fiduciary to receive disability benefits payments would in turn be reported to NICS because they would be, quote, adjudicated as a mental defective.
This determination of mental incompetency by the VA is made without any order from a court or judge or finding that the veteran is a danger to themselves or others.
As the end of 2023, there was 270,851 active entries in NICS submitted by federal agencies for having been, quote, adjudicated as a mental defective.
Of these, 264,893, or 97.8%, were submitted by the VA, though not necessarily all were because of the need for a fiduciary to manage their financial affairs.
For veterans appealing the mental incompetency determination, Section 101C 2A of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act requires that each Federal Department or agency that makes mental health adjudications or commitments to mental institutions establish processes in which reported individuals can apply for relief from the aforementioned disability.
Beneficiaries requesting relief, though, are not entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the evaluation of a request for relief.
The policy of the VA is to deny a request for relief if evidence shows the beneficiary would be a danger to themselves or others if relief were granted.
The VA must grant relief if clear and convincing evidence shows that, one, this beneficiary is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public, and two, that granting relief will not be contrary to the public interest.
A provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 prohibits the VA from expending any appropriated funds in FY 2024 to report any person to NICS based on mental incompetency without, quote, an order or finding from a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that the beneficiary is a danger to themselves or others, end quote.
This provision was extended by the two continuing resolutions enacted in 2024 and it will expire on March 14, 2025, unless extended through additional legislation.
In addition, this provision does not require removal of names that are already reported to NICS.
This concludes my brief remarks.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you, sir.
The written statement of Dr. Cohen will be entered into the hearing record.
Mr. McCormick, sir, you are now recognized for five minutes.
Harvey and esteemed members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss a critical issue that impacts our veterans, the constitutional violations within the Veterans Affairs Fiduciary Program related to reporting of veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
You know, our President just gave an inauguration speech where he stated that we need to have a common sense revolution.
And I would say that this would be one of those areas that I hope that reaches his desk, because this is not only a matter of common sense, it's also a matter of due process.
What part of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed do bureaucrats not understand?
You know, I listen to members of Congress rail about due process on many other areas, but not for veterans.
And this is truly a due process issue.
The very people who serve, lead, and in many cases die for the rights of every other citizen are denied this basic right.
This process allows veterans to lose their Second Amendment rights without due process and based on administrative processes and decisions of policy, not due process and definitely not constitutional law.
But it goes deeper than that.
There are other violations involved.
The First Amendment, veterans may avoid seeking VA benefits or mental health care due to fears of being reported, infringing on their right to petition the government.
The Second Amendment we're talking about, you can strip a veteran of their gun rights without basic due process, and that's for any citizen without a DD 214.
The Fourth Amendment, reporting veterans without judicial oversight violates their privacy acts.
The Fifth Amendment, veterans lose their rights without due process.
14th Amendment, veterans are treated unequally, lacking the same protection as non-veterans.
These violations erode trust and fail to help our veterans, contributing to the stigma that discourages them from seeking necessary help.
This fear can be devastating, exacerbating, and it also aggravates suicide rates.
The current system does not effectively address the mental health challenges veterans face, nor does it reduce the alarming suicide rates.
Why should veterans be punished for seeking help?
We're not a substandard group of citizens.
We deserve the same rights and the due process as any other citizen in America.
My family has a long history of service.
My grandfather was wounded in World War II.
His brother was killed in Korea.
My father was wounded twice in Vietnam.
He died at 52 years of age of cancer related to Agent Orange.
I served in two combat theaters of operation, wounded multiple times, and I gave you two of my sons to serve this country, and both of them served in combat.
We have sacrificed, yet we are denied the basic fairness of due process and constitutional rights afforded to non-veterans when it comes to this.
I urge this committee to act swiftly to correct these violations and restore trust in our system so that these veterans will actually seek help because they are worried about losing their rights or being stigmatized as being some kind of a crazy maniac that can't be trusted with a weapon when just a few months before, in some cases, they were patrolling the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq with grenades and rifles and everything else.
We have to do better.
Lastly, to my fellow veterans and your family members, do not let the fear of losing your constitutional rights keep you from seeking help when you need it.
We have your six.
If you are a veteran or you know a veteran that's in crisis, I encourage you, I implore you to reach out for help.
Support is available 24-7.
Simply dial 988 and press 1 or text 838-255.
I thank you for your time, and I welcome your questions.
Thank you, Mr. McCormick.
The written statement will be entered into the hearing record.
Dr. Reynolds, sir, you are now recognized for five minutes.
Chairman Lafaront, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of this panel, I feel so humbled to be able to sit here and speak to you.
I'm just a poor country boy from Alabama.
I'm Dr. Reynolds, but my PhD is in statistics.
My son is a physician.
I'm also a practicing nurse.
I became a nurse after I retired as a school superintendent.
I'm 78 years old.
In Vietnam, I was a combat medic on a helicopter.
I've dealt with tragedy, trauma, and death for more than any human being should have.
When I finished my education and career, I went and I became an ER trauma nurse because I wanted to treat people and care about people.
And I'm here representing a myriad of Vietnam veterans and age groups over 50.
I'm 78.
And I want to tell you that we are being treated improperly.
I heard about all the steps that VA goes through.
I can tell you that's a farce.
Ask any veteran who's gone through the myriad of problems just to get a mental disability.
It's horrendous.
And the older you are, the harder it is to get, even with the presumptives that you've got.
But today I want to bring you my professional expertise, but also my personal story.
Stories shared by thousands of veterans to shed light on the injustice perpetrated on the VA fiduciary program and its unconstitutional impact on all veterans' life.
Specifically, I want to highlight the program's flaws.
Flawed practice of linking financial incompetency with dangerous and devastating consequences it could have on veterans' lives and livelihood.
Under the VA fiduciary program, a veteran can be deemed mentally incompetent if it determines it cannot manage its financial programs.
So does a millionaire be less threatening than a person of poverty?
It's a gross injustice and it's a bias against people of lower income.
I came from a family of lower income.
That's not their fault.
I'm the oldest of 12 children.
I grew up in poverty.
I happened to achieve and was fortunate.
I got my achievement because I was in the Army and I went and used the GI Bill to finish my degree.
Determination is almost often made without judicial oversight, without medical oversight.
Can I imagine me having, as a nurse, a technician, a clerk, a person that takes the people into the OR, into the ER, determine whether they get medical care or not?
That's ridiculous.
And that's what we're doing.
We're allowing VA clerks to make important decisions that affect life perpetually.
I spent decades working in education and finance.
As a professional in these fields, I can unequivocally say the financial struggles are mismanaged do not correlate.
Statistically, they do not correlate with any propensity for violence or dangerous behavior.
Poor people or people aren't violent.
That's a terrible thing to put on our society, and certainly I don't agree.
It's unfair and unconstitutional.
Allow me to speak about my personal experience.
I returned from Vietnam in 1969 as a 21-year-old mature person, I guess, who had seen hundreds of deaths.
When we picked them up on a helicopter, we brought people back in pieces.
I worked in a hospital for some time, and it was devastating.
But I didn't have any money.
I relied on the GI Bill when I came back to the University of Georgia to pursue my degree.
I didn't have any money.
I took part-time jobs working in the library.
If somebody had looked at my financial situation and reported me as this agency does, I could never have gotten a job in education.
I could never, because in Alabama, I'm on the State Board, elected State Board of Education in Alabama.
We insist on a very stringent background search for everybody we hire.
We wouldn't hire me if I had that blemish on my record.
You see, my life work has been in education and finance.
And if I had been reported to the NCIs, I would not have had the opportunities I have had.
So I would just restate the incidents that we've had before.
The amendments that we're violating, the personal freedom that we're violating, and the due process rights of humanity are being violated, and we need to redress that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, sir.
The rent statement of Dr. Reynolds will be entered into the hearing record.
Ms. Springer, you are now recognized for five minutes.
Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding this important topic.
The VFW strongly supports protecting the constitutional rights of veterans assigned Department of Veterans Affairs fiduciaries and preventing inappropriate assignment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.
However, underneath this constitutional rights issue lay a process that stakeholders could substantially improve to both safeguard veterans and ensure due process.
Conversation with a former VA field examiner, now a VFW employee, yielded several actionable suggestions based on her experiences in the field.
Accordingly, the VFW offers the following recommendations.
After VA sends a veteran the proposed incompetency determination letter, require a second medical exam to confirm or refute that proposal and to assess the veteran's probability to cause harm.
Not being able to manage one's finances did not necessarily imply a veteran is a danger to self or others or could not responsibly own and use firearms.
Require VA field examiners to operate in two-person teams while conducting in-person interviews.
To conduct an effective interview, VA field examiners must meet the veteran in his or her environment.
Our VA field examiner informed us that this meeting place could range from a veteran's job site to a home.
However, the homes she visited included homeless tent encampments in Skid Row in Los Angeles with significant safety concerns.
A team would enhance the examiner's personal security and encourage interviews in the veteran's domain, contributing to a more accurate assessment of the veteran's mental state and probability to harm self or others.
Reassess all COVID-era fiduciary assignments.
Our VA field examiner informed us that they routinely conducted virtual interviews during COVID.
A virtual interview, while understandable during a public health emergency, makes it more difficult to detect vital verbal and nonverbal cues that are instrumental to detecting a mental health ailment or to telltale signs of someone likely to harm himself or others.
Revise all VA letters that inform veterans of VA's proposed fiduciary assignment.
Simply and directly explain the significance of the fiduciary assignment, its relationship to NICS referral, and the veterans' appeal rights.
Also, VA must send the letters in a timely manner to notify the veteran prior to the field interview.
Our VA field examiner was often the one informing the veteran of the fiduciary assignment, its relationship to NICS referral, and the consequent restriction on firearms purchases and ownership.
Some veterans reacted angrily when they realized the loss of Second Amendment rights.
In one case, a veteran placed a firearm on the table during the interview to intimidate the VA field examiner, putting her in a potentially dangerous situation while merely doing her job.
And as a last step, require a judicial review prior to NICS referral to guarantee due process before infringing on veterans' constitutional rights.
However, veterans can challenge VA's proposed incompetency determination by requesting a hearing before VA or by submitting additional evidence.
Alternatively, veterans can petition VA for relief on the firearms prohibitions imposed by the law.
Few veterans exercise these options, and ones that do are rarely successful.
According to a July 2023 Congressional Research Service report, in fiscal year 22, there were 135 hearings on incompetency determinations, 24 of which resulted in competency.
The same report noted that VA processed 33 petitions of relief of firearms prohibitions but did not grant relief in any of these cases.
However, 11 veterans who petitioned for relief were determined to be competent and were subsequently removed from NICS.
The experiences of our VFW service officers and our former VA field examiner corroborate these statistics.
In the case of the VA field examiner, her familiarity with the overall process allowed her to intervene and successfully halt inappropriate NICS referral for some beneficiaries.
However, none of her beneficiaries has successfully appealed a NICS referral.
Unfortunately, because of the existing process, some of our VFW members are hesitant to use VA health care.
They fear inadvertently making a disqualifying statement or disclosing a disabling condition that could ultimately prohibit their possession or purchase of a firearm.
We want our members to use VA health care.
Unfortunately, this stigma could unnecessarily deprive them of their earned benefits and compromise their health.
However, the process changes we propose could preserve the fiduciary program for deserving beneficiaries while simultaneously safeguarding veterans and preventing inappropriate NICS referrals.
Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, this concludes my testimony.
I welcome any questions from you or members of the subcommittee.
Thank you, ma'am.
The written statement of Ms. Springer will be entered into the hearing record.
Master Sergeant Washington, sir, you're now recognized for five minutes.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Master Sergeant Michael Washington, United States Marine Corps retired.
I'm a proud veteran, the second of four generations of Marines and numerous other branches of the service in my family.
I served as an infantry platoon sergeant and counterintelligence agent for 23 years.
As a civilian, I spent three decades as a Seattle firefighter.
And now I'm a mental health counselor serving veterans and first responders, many of whom are veterans themselves.
Thank you for allowing me to speak with you today.
On 14 June 2008, as I prepared to go on a fire response on Engine 16 in Seattle, a white government-issued Chevy suburban with two Marines in the front seat suddenly arrived at the station.
I knew instantly that they were there to inform me that my son, Sergeant Michael T. Washington of Gulf Company 2nd Battalion 7th Marines, had been killed in action in Afghanistan.
My world stopped.
I didn't know how to feel his loss.
I tried to man up as dictated by my culture.
My long-dormant PTSD, an accumulation of childhood traumas, tragedies witnessed as a firefighter in my four combat tours erupted like a psychological Mount St. Helens.
Rather than talk, I drank and I fought, which were acceptable responses in my generational and professional cultures.
Eventually, mentally exhausted, I sought an end to the pain.
I engaged in risky behaviors, especially riding my Harley-Davidson through red lights, hoping for an instant end to my suffering.
Finally, I sought release by leaping to my death from a nearby bridge.
And just as I was about to go over the railing, I heard my son's voice, plain as day.
It said, Dad, your story doesn't end here.
You have work to do.
I soaked in his voice and his message, and after a few minutes, walked off the bridge, never to return to suicidal ideation.
I wasn't fixed by a long stretch, but I was no longer suicidal.
But had I had access, easy access to a firearm, I would never have had that chance.
I wouldn't be able to do the work I do now to help other veterans and first responders.
We are experiencing an epidemic of veteran suicides.
More than 6,400 veterans died by suicide in 2022.
More than 73% involved firearms.
This should be an urgent call to action to stop this epidemic.
To do that, we must do something about access to firearms in moments of crisis.
The background check system is the best tool we have to prevent access to a firearm, but it's only as strong as the information that's in it.
When information is left out, people cannot have guns that can get them.
For 30 years, until last March, the VA provided information on certain veterans not allowed to have guns under federal law to the background check system with due process protections in place.
These were veterans the VA had diagnosed with serious mental health disorders.
Of the veterans who died by suicide in 2022, more than 1,500 had been diagnosed with a mental health or substance abuse disorder.
Last March, Congress effectively blocked the VA from providing this information to the background check system.
There's now a growing number of veterans the background check system knows nothing about, the exact cohort at risk.
Congress should think twice before continuing to block the VA like this or taking other steps to undermine this important tool.
But I also want to address other access interventions.
Like the continuum of force in the military, these are also a continuum.
Some are about creating time and space between someone in a crisis and a gun, secure storage in and outside the home, or giving the keys to gun safes and lock boxes to someone else.
Others are about preventing access like state-level do-not-sell lists and extreme risk laws.
Veteran suicide is a public health issue, not a political one.
Both parties understand that.
President Trump and President Biden both took steps to reduce veteran suicide, including firearm suicides.
This bipartisan work must continue.
I am humbled to be of some small service to this cause, the cause that I'm proud to say everyone in this room is dedicated to.
My son gave what Abraham Lincoln called his last full measure of devotion to this country and what it stands for, and I aim to continue the fight in his name.
I am and I remain at your service.
Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you, sir.
My sergeant Washington's statements will be entered into the record.
We now move to questioning.
I recognize myself for five minutes.
Dr. Cohen, the Supreme Court says that the government must have a very good reason for stripping Americans of their constitutional right.
Does the VA, in your opinion, does the VA have good reasons to strip our veterans of their Second Amendment right?
So when it comes to legal scholarship, I can reach out to one of the CRS legislative attorneys and report back.
But I've got you right here in front of me.
It's all you, buddy.
I, in terms of legal issues, do not, it is not my expertise.
But what I can say is that the VA, since the 1990s, since the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and since the ATF recognized VA policy and VA interpretation of regulations regarding the NICS system to be accurate, and that's how the VA has done it.
In many ways, that could be considered to have been done because of either beliefs and underlying causes between being in the fiduciary program, being somebody who needs fiduciary to manage their disability benefits.
It also could be done in terms of like viewed as an automization issue in the sense that once the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed, these agencies were not given unlimited funds to hire like something like a quote-unquote NICS reporter.
And so a lot of agencies just try to make the policy as seamless as possible, the reporting as seamless as possible.
And the FICS NICS Act of 2018 also very much emphasized that agencies should do their best to automatize reporting to NICS and to kind of take any thought really out of it and just have a very systematic approach.
Mr. McCormick.
Yes, sir.
So when it comes to the fiduciary process with the VA, Mr. McGarvey and I have absolutely been digging in to a very deep hole trying to figure out at the granular level the problem set here.
The waters are extremely muddied.
From start to finish, can you walk me through?
Because we have in a sense that by the time the veteran gets to the fiduciary threshold, there has been a process in place that has picked apart every single aspect of that veteran's life.
I'm like, okay, we're here.
My concern is, and what we don't know, and it's like, and what the ranking member says, is like, what really happens?
Can you give me, in your opinion, is there enough, Is there enough meat on the bone from start to finish?
Because veterans' rights are just as important as any other American's rights.
So the fact that this is happening and we don't have the processes in place that we think are there, can you walk me through, in your opinion, what that looks like?
I can walk you through in my knowledge of seeing other people go through the process.
Many times the information flow from the VA back to the veteran is not consistent.
So there are many veterans that are in there asking for assistance, whether it be for a mental issue or whether it be for a physical issue, and then they run into an issue with finances, managing their own money.
Then they end up in a position to where they are reported.
And as far as this lengthy process that was just brought up in the beginning of this, that's the first that we've really seen.
But I can tell you that I have a very close personal interaction with this where a young man was placed on this list and inadvertently was denied a job as a police officer and denied the right to purchase a firearm.
Now, that was quite a shock to that person, quite a shock to his dad.
Did he say at any time that he was aware that that was going to be the circumstances of a fiduciary?
No, sir.
He had no idea.
Ms. Springer, could you back that up when the veterans receive their VA notices?
It seems like there's an inadequate explanation on exactly where they're headed.
Can you add some amplifying information, please?
Yes, certainly.
And I'm referring to an actual proposal of incompetency letter from one of our case files.
Yes, ma'am.
So I have some real data here.
I will compliment VA in that on the second page, though, they do have a heading that says, how this decision could affect you.
I do think VA could rewrite these letters just a little bit more.
VA has a problem with letters going to veterans, and it takes you five or six lawyers in order to get through it.
I got that.
But in that letter right there on that second page, would you read me that?
There's a heading on the second page that says, how this decision could affect you.
And that decision is referring to VA considering if this person should be deemed incompetent and then have a fiduciary.
And it's very wordy.
Under federal law.
It could be or will be.
It is.
Could you say again, please?
Could be or will be.
How this decision could affect you.
What I'm referring to is what's called a proposal of incompetency.
So that's one of the first steps in the process.
So VA is proposing to the veteran that you may be incompetent and you may ultimately get a fiduciary.
And it allows the veteran to respond to this letter within a 60-day period.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yes.
Mr. McGregor, sir, you are recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And first of all, I want to thank everyone for their service, your continued service to our country.
Master Sergeant Washington, please know we are especially grateful to you and sorry, terribly sorry for your loss.
I think what then you're hearing from me and the chairman is we want to make sure that this process is also working for our veterans and that there is clear information.
I want to also point out a couple of things here after the testimony that you all correct me.
We've been asking.
We want to get this right.
When you go through this process, through the disability process because of incompetency in particular, we have not found a single instance of a veteran who has had their firearm confiscated because of this issue alone.
And so, just I do think it's important for some, because we don't want veterans not seeking treatment under the idea that that might happen.
It has never happened.
And if we are wrong, please tell us when that has happened and why.
I also want to talk a little bit about the constitutionality of this, only because this is the first time in my tenure in Washington that on the dais and on the panel, I'm the only lawyer.
Every time there's always more lawyers at the table, and I just want to say that this provision has never been found to be unconstitutional.
And there has been lots of litigation around firearms.
There are lots of think tanks and there are lots of groups out there who are interested in bringing these types of lawsuits.
And so while there might be different opinions on the constitutionality of it, the fact is that under the current law in the United States, it is not unconstitutional.
So I just want to clear that up as well.
I want to talk a little bit about what goes on in the NICS database currently.
And Dr. Cohen, for you, I just want to summarize.
The VA's determinations, it is a lengthy process.
By the time you are determining competent and then looking for a disability benefit for that incompetency, which is what we are talking about here today, the VA's determinations are based on the medical evidence of record and not arbitrary, correct?
The medical record does play a role in the process.
It is the part of the process, right?
They are here because they have gone in for treatment.
They have been deemed incompetent.
Now they are looking for a disability because of that incompetence.
And so, yeah, the medical record plays a big part of this.
And I want to reiterate that the VAT is speaking through.
Actually, it's my terms.
Oh, please, please.
Doctor, you're not recognizing me.
I want to reiterate that the VA did not make up this idea to report beneficiaries deemed mentally incompetent.
And they are obligated to do so under the Gun Control Act of 1968, mentioned in your report, Dr. Cohen, and the Brady Act.
And what we are talking about here today and the Kennedy Amendment does not change or repeal either one of those laws.
Is that correct?
It does not repeal the Gun Control Act or the Brady Act.
So I just want to point out that when we are talking about this process, we are talking about protecting veterans, we are talking about all these sorts of things.
A lot of this is window dressing.
There are other things in play, and you can disagree with them, but this is what's actually happening and what's going on behind it.
I have just a little bit of time left, and I want to focus again on the health of our veterans, because what we're all trying to do here is do what is best for our veterans.
Mr. Sergeant Washington, I want to thank you again for sharing your story.
You talked a little bit about some of what happened in your own life.
Can you elaborate on your experience with service-connected disabilities and how some of we might be able to go about mitigating some of those risk factors you experienced in the next 36 seconds?
Yes, sir.
My experience actually was pretty streamlined because I think the government was in the mode of clearing the backlog.
That's just my opinion.
There was a backlog of PTSD claims and things like that through the VA.
So I felt that my process went fast and was well served.
I talked to a mental health professional who listened to my story and then gave his opinion.
And that's what it looked like.
So it seemed to work out pretty well in my case.
I know that's not everybody's case.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Thank you, sir.
Ms. Mace, you recognize for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and honored to be here today serving on your committee.
I was the first one here, by the way.
And I want to thank everyone who is here with us this afternoon.
Thank you for your service.
Thank you for sharing your personal stories of pain.
It's very difficult for me to hear that as a mom.
It's very tough.
So I want to thank you all today.
nancy mace ▲ ● ▼
It's very clear to me the VA's definition of mentally incompetent has nothing to do with mental health and everything to do with the simple fact that veterans need help balancing their checkbooks.
It's a stigma to assume veterans are dangerous or suicidal simply because they have a mental illness.
unidentified
Every veteran with a mental illness deserves to be treated like an individual with individual needs.
nancy mace ▲ ● ▼
And we can't make sweeping policy changes based on harmful generalizations about disabled veterans, and policies must be based on real evidence.
unidentified
And the VA's fiduciary program fails to consider any evidence of dangerousness and fails to provide veterans with due process.
We've got to correct it.
Now, I actually think it's great that there's only one lawyer on this subcommittee.
And that were no offense.
nancy mace ▲ ● ▼
You spent a lot of time and money in law school, I'm sure, but I think it's a good thing that we have, that not everybody here is an attorney, that we can ask some of the basic, most common sense questions about policies for our veterans.
unidentified
We have many veterans on this committee who can also get into the heart of it.
Under current VA procedures, veterans' rights are stripped from them by a purely administrative rather than judicial process.
Under these procedures, veterans' rights are unjustly stripped from them, and Congress must right this wrong.
nancy mace ▲ ● ▼
And we must also make sure that the VA is working for our vets and not against them.
unidentified
So my first question is for Ms. Springer today.
nancy mace ▲ ● ▼
Do you think there may be survivors of military sexual trauma who hesitate to seek VA mental health care because of the risk the VA could strip them of their rights?
unidentified
Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
I would broaden that to actually just all veterans in general, our VFW members, not just specifically MST survivors, because of the perception, whether true or not, that if they say the wrong thing, if they present a disability and condition, it could go from there to the NICS incompetency determination, then to a fiduciary assignment, and then to NICS.
My next question is for Dr. Simandera.
Is it difficult for veterans to prove they are not dangerous in order to convince the VA to remove them from the NICS list?
I think you've seen these statistics that when we get to this question of whether the veteran is a danger or not, that really only comes into play if the veteran applies or files a petition for relief of disability, of which, according to statistics that we've seen from the VA, very few veterans, meaning less than 100 a year, do that.
At no other point in this process, from the very beginning to the determination of incompetency to all of the appeals up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, et cetera, none of that addresses the issue of whether the veteran is a harm, potentially a harm themselves or others.
It's only if you file the petition for the relief of disability, then VA looks at a number of factors to determine that level of risk.
Okay.
Captain McCormick, my question for you today.
Do veterans receive due process before the VA reports them to NICS?
Absolutely not.
And what roadblocks do veterans experience in the appeals process?
Multiple.
It's a timely and it's a costly process that, you know, you're asking a veteran to go and fight to re-secure the very rights that they serve to defend and protect.
So you're stripping them of a constitutional right.
That's a fact.
And then you're asking them, well, you got an opportunity.
You can go and fight for it.
Well, I guess we could pull you over, arrest you for something, and say, well, you can always fight to get your right of freedom back.
And I think that's the issue, is the level of fairness and the lack of due process as far as the judicial process.
It's just ultimately unfair.
Does it erode trust in the VA for veterans?
100%.
100% erodes trust in the VA.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you, Ms. Mays.
Ms. Dexter, you recognize for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you first to you and Ranking Member McGarvey for having this important hearing.
I very much appreciate it.
And to our witnesses, thank you all for your service and for being here.
It's extremely important.
As a former VA health care physician, I witnessed firsthand the importance of having a well-functioning system, and you've highlighted some of the challenges to that.
I also witnessed the devastating impacts of access to firearms for our veterans, many of whom were struggling with mental health conditions and not getting the care that they needed or the advice that they needed.
The one thing that I really want to elevate from Master Sergeant Washington's compelling and heartbreaking testimony is that moment of time that he was given that opportunity to turn back.
And what we know is that people with access to firearms will, in that moment of despair, lose that opportunity to turn back.
I take care of people in the intensive care unit.
These are folks who have survived, and almost none of them are firearm victims.
So my first question, Master Sergeant Washington, is can you comment on whether it would benefit veterans to ensure that every VA health care provider receives lethal means safety counseling training?
Personally, I think absolutely that would be beneficial.
Just to give the information, if I understand your question, just counseling, right?
Counseling.
Yeah.
To get the information that, you know, here's some of the risk factors.
Here's what's going on.
Here's what's of danger to you.
Why wouldn't anybody want to hear that?
Why would that be harmful?
Thank you, Master Sergeant Washington.
And would it also be beneficial for community care providers to receive this training?
Again, I think that would be a bedrock, just getting that information straight from the beginning.
My mantra is training, safety, and accountability with firearms.
Training, safety, and accountability with firearms.
100% agree.
Not talking about taking them away, but making sure people are safe.
Not at all.
Very good.
And in preventing veteran suicide, Master Sergeant Washington, as you have said, veteran suicide is an epidemic in this country.
It is unacceptable in my mind.
It's a tragedy that an average or more than 17 veterans die per day of suicide.
We have to do better by our veterans, and I think we're all in agreement in that.
It'll require, again, putting that time and space in that moment of the lowest point in someone's life and an action they could take.
Based on your personal experiences, how can the VA and VSOs work together to provide veterans that time and space and make meaningful progress in addressing veteran suicide rates in this country?
Well, that's a great question.
I think part of it is what we are doing right now, having these hard conversations.
Right now, I'm hearing two very opposite ideas of what the system looks like and what it's doing and what it's not doing.
So I appreciate that we're here having the conversation.
And also in my spoken testimony, we are about safety and securing our weapons.
And if somebody is in crisis, being able to turn their weapons over to a friend or a colleague, a trusted advisor, or to the VFW, just getting them out of their hands so they don't make that permanent decision for that temporary problem.
That's what it's all about.
And so there's a number of fronts that we move forward on to protect our veterans, some of whom, like myself, have been in those dark times and where we are literally, quite literally on a bridge.
Thank you so much.
I just want to state that as we discuss next in the fiduciary program, it's really important that we remain laser focused on the goal of ensuring our veterans and their families are protected from harm and really appreciate the testimony today without a yield back.
Thank you.
Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Silph, sir, you're recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make sure I'm in the right hearing.
We've heard a lot of issues here, but the memo that I was given says we are correcting VA's violations of veterans' due process and Second Amendment rights.
Is that what this hearing is about?
Thank you.
Dr. Cohen, for you, are there other groups of Americans that have similar processes that do not constitute what most of us consider the constitutional high bar to take away one's Second Amendment rights?
Are there other groups of Americans that have this same low bar?
So just clarification for my own purposes, are you asking, like, are other...
We treat veterans one way.
Is there another group of Americans that we treat the same way without judicial or medical review?
Right.
So because of 18 U.S.C. 922G, the nine classes, a lot of the classes are, by definition, require some sort of judicial review or court order.
So, for example, like.
The question is real simple.
Is there another group of Americans, another class of Americans that are treated like our veterans?
Yes or no?
I mean, like.
I don't think so.
Who would like to answer that question?
Yes, sir.
Dr. Reynolds?
I don't think so.
I suspect that is the answer.
Thank you so much.
May I clarify?
No, just in case.
We have heard some things here about settled law.
When was, and this may be for Dr. Cohen as well, when was the last time the Supreme Court ruled on this issue?
The Warren Court?
As I mentioned earlier, I don't cover legal issues at CRS, so I can't.
Exactly.
Exactly.
So we are in a constitutional issue here that we are discussing.
And as far as I know, the Supreme Court's never ruled on it.
We need to, Dr. Cohen, if I heard your testimony right, you are satisfied with the legal procedure to do this.
When I looked at your written testimony, I heard your spoken testimony.
You are satisfied, if I understand you right, that this is proper.
I have not given an opinion as such.
I am just straightforward saying this is how the process works.
I'm not saying the process is good, bad, or otherwise, just that this is what the process looks like.
And I'm not sure who this should go to.
Probably Captain McCormick, I would guess.
Is it true that we put, and I want to remind people of what the NICS is, because I heard some mental health issues, mental health mentioned earlier.
This is the national instant criminal background check system.
We need to remember what this is, criminals.
So I think, Captain McCormick, do we put veterans into this national instant criminal background check system with absolutely no evidence that they are a danger to anyone?
Yes, sir, you do.
And you also label them as a criminal because you put them on that list.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Self.
Mr. Crane, sir, you're recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to wave on to this committee today.
Thank you to you guys for showing up.
Let's just get this straight right now.
What is this hearing that we're having really about?
eli crane ▲ ● ▼
It's really about whether or not unelected bureaucrats can strip away Second Amendment God-given rights from our veterans if they need help managing their finances or their assets.
unidentified
Is that correct?
I think it is.
This is wrong in so many ways.
eli crane ▲ ● ▼
And what I'm hearing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say is that, well, we're concerned about veteran suicide.
And so since most of them are committing suicide with firearms, we need to have measures and tools to take those firearms away from them.
unidentified
That's what I'm hearing.
What about civilians that are committing suicide and using firearms?
eli crane ▲ ● ▼
Are we going to also argue in this body that they should have their firearms and their Second Amendment rights taken away from them?
unidentified
I looked up fiduciary, and here's a quick summary definition.
eli crane ▲ ● ▼
Someone who is legally obligated to act solely in the best interest of another party managing their assets or affairs.
There are many people I know, and I'm sure many of you know people out there that need help managing their assets or their affairs.
I'm sorry, but I don't remember in the Constitution where it says if somebody needs help managing their assets or their affairs, that they should have their Second Amendment rights taken away from them.
And when it comes to suicide, a lot of these individuals, a lot of veterans, and there's four of us on this panel right now that are not only veterans, but we're all from the special operations community who I think are against this will tell you this right now.
Many of our veterans that are struggling with PTSD and have some of these issues that we're talking about here today, one of our biggest issues is fear and trauma because we thought we might lose our life or we lost our life in battle against other people with guns.
If you want to increase veteran suicide, take some of these issues who are afraid, isolated, and alone and take away their ability to defend themselves.
unidentified
That's a really good way to actually increase what these guys say that they're trying to stop.
All right.
I want to ask you guys a question.
eli crane ▲ ● ▼
At any point, does the VA have to establish that a veteran is a threat to themselves or a danger to others when administratively reporting a veteran with a fiduciary to NICS, which again is the national instant criminal system?
unidentified
No.
No.
Okay, thank you.
Does having a fiduciary alone mean that someone is mentally incompetent or mentally deficient?
No.
Is there any data?
Hold on.
eli crane ▲ ● ▼
Is there any data correlating having a fiduciary or being associated with increased risk of homicide or suicide?
unidentified
No.
No.
eli crane ▲ ● ▼
Those three quick answers right there show the American people exactly what's been taking place here.
unidentified
Violation of Second Amendment rights without due process.
eli crane ▲ ● ▼
Captain McCormick, is it due process to have unelected bureaucrats making a designation about a veteran's mental state or need of a fiduciary?
unidentified
Is that due process, sir?
No, sir, it's not.
eli crane ▲ ● ▼
Why do you think it's important that for our constitutional God-given rights to be stripped of us?
unidentified
Why do you think it should be necessary to have due process, sir?
Well, so that we can ensure that that doesn't happen.
Because if it happens to us, it looks like we're almost in this socio-class that they're testing this on almost.
And I'm not trying to be, you know, have a conspiracy theory, but we're the only class of citizens that they do this to.
Yeah.
And my colleague, Mr. Self, over here, believe you're special forces, is that right, Mr. Self?
Yeah.
He brought up, is there any other class of people that's treated this way?
No.
Why is it fair for veterans to be treated this way?
Not.
It's unfair.
eli crane ▲ ● ▼
How many veterans have lost their Second Amendment rights, to your knowledge, Mr. McCormick, because of these overreaching VA regulations?
unidentified
I think the number was just over 270,000, sir.
Yeah, that's what I saw as well.
eli crane ▲ ● ▼
And that's why this is my bill, H.R. 496, that would not only stop the VA from doing this in the future, but would restore the God-given constitutional rights to these veterans.
unidentified
We need to get behind this.
eli crane ▲ ● ▼
And I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of them who are not veterans, would take it maybe from the veterans up here who are saying, hey, this isn't the way to do it.
unidentified
And Mr. Washington, God bless you, sir.
Thank you for your service.
And I am dearly sorry for the loss of your son.
I mean that.
But Mr. Washington himself said when he was feeling suicidal, what did he say?
He was running red lights on his motorcycle, hoping that somebody would end it quickly, or he was thinking about jumping off a bridge.
So let's be really clear in here right now.
If we're going to have tough conversations, let's have tough conversations.
There are numerous, countless ways to commit suicide.
Taking firearms and constitutional rights from veterans away is not going to help.
It's actually going to hurt our veteran community.
Thank you.
I yield back.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Greene.
Dr. Morrison, you recognize for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses, both for your service and for being with us today to talk about this important issue.
I'm a physician by training, and my husband is an Army combat veteran, a former Army Ranger.
So veteran suicide is an issue that concerns me deeply and greatly.
And I'm genuinely interested, and I apologize that I had to step away to another hearing.
But I am genuinely interested in hearing from each of you, if there's time, what is the single biggest, most important thing that Congress could do to decrease veteran suicide?
Can I comment?
Please.
Create more efficiency in the VA for treating the problems we have medically.
You are a physician.
I am a nurse.
You didn't hear that.
But you were not here.
But I can tell you, I am a professional educator.
I am a statistician.
You don't deal with the problems at the root level.
You drive people to suicide.
I am, in 1993, I face the intention of committing suicide by taking secondall because of my relationship.
I got it.
I got 300 secanols from my friends.
And suicide and weapons are tangential, but not the problem.
I took 25 years to get my disability.
I've been all the way to Federal courts here in Washington and a lot because of my ability to be politically and socially astute and get my way.
Veterans are ignored.
Veterans are suffering.
People will say to me, thank you for your service, but they don't act.
The bureaucracy that exists in veterans and the idea that a clerk may, the testimony was made earlier, that yes, medical testimony goes into the determination, but a medical person doesn't do it.
Nobody with psychological training does it, and that's the error of this whole thing.
We're turning it over to inept, ill-trained, and bureaucrats.
And I resent that as a combat meta.
It's stupid.
Thank you, sir.
Others?
I would just echo with what he said.
Again, when you talk about the meaning of this whole hearing, it's about due process.
You're stripping these veterans of their dignity.
You're stripping them of their right to their Second Amendment right that they serve to protect and defend.
That's not helping at all.
That's hurting more than it's helping.
You're preventing them from getting jobs.
My own son can't become, you know, he had a job that he was supposed to become a police officer.
Now he can't become a police officer.
Why is that?
Well, because he went to combat, served this country.
He had some problems and he came back and he got some counseling.
Again, the stigmatization, the over-stigmatization that we are all unstable, crazy, and all of these other things that I have heard since I've returned from my combat tours in 2004, 2005, 90, 91, and we can just go down the pike, has always been, are you okay?
Are you okay?
Just because I get upset or just because we happen to disagree on something, we are not unstable.
We are okay.
We just need to be treated like every other citizen in this country.
My God, I got shot three times in combat fighting for this country.
And you know, for me to come back and for you to even entertain the thought of taking away my constitutional freedom, that's not common sense.
That is not right.
We need to fix this.
Thank you, sir.
Other ideas for what Congress could do to decrease veteran suicide?
So we favor overhauling this process in my opening statement.
We would include a medical screening as part of this process to determine the veteran's propensity to harm self or others and a judicial review before Nick's assignment.
So I have two components.
We have control over the process because underlying the constitutional rights issue is a process and a process can be improved and that's what we propose to improve it is have a medical component, make sure that person, as much as you can, is not a dangerous self or others, and before Nick's assignment, have a judicial review and define all those terms, define how this would go in statute.
Thank you.
Mr. Washington?
Well, I think in my opinion, I work with law enforcement first responders as well as veterans, and it really is about changing that stigma about mental health and seeking mental health counseling.
And we are starting to make inroads.
It is a giant supertanker that we are trying to turn in a different direction.
And that is slowly happening.
It is not moving as fast.
And I know results are not the same across the board, but we keep fighting that fight in the general sense.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you again for your service, and I yield my time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ma'am.
Mr. Man Orden, sir.
Five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Cohen, is the Veterans Affairs Administration a law enforcement agency?
No.
Okay, good.
We cleared that up.
I have had, with the passing of Senior Chief Mike Day, I've had 21 of my friends commit suicide, 21 of them.
Those are all Navy SEALs.
You didn't read about them.
And they all died because of spiritual wounds that they received by serving our country.
And so, Dr. Reynolds, you are right.
The problem is we are not treating the root cause.
Mr. Crane is right.
You are welcome.
Keith is right.
Everybody over here when we are talking about this issue is correct when they are saying we are not addressing the problem that we need efficiencies in the VA.
And I want to read something to you.
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records.
They are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the divinity itself.
It can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
Alexander Hamilton wrote that in 1775, and this is what he's saying.
He is saying that either you believe that our constitutional rights are given to us by God and simply articulated to us in the Constitution, or you don't.
And if you believe that to be true, that makes them immutable.
And if something is immutable, it cannot be erased.
It cannot be erased by the hand of man.
It could only be erased by the hand of God.
So what unfortunately is taking place is that the Veterans Affairs Administration is essentially playing God because they are trying to remove something that is immutable.
And words have meaning.
Our country is based on this document.
And our country is nothing without this document.
We are.
And Mr. McGarvey, who I respect tremendously, I just got to tell you something.
When you say the medical record is the one thing, now we've got a doctor here.
Morgan, you were Corman, weren't you, before?
Okay, we're both medics, right?
When you see a patient, you write something called a SOAP note.
And the S in the SOAP note stands for subjective.
Then it's objective, then it's assessment appliance.
So every single one of these medical records that we're looking at, the first thing in there is a subjective view by the health care provider about the person.
So if it's subjective, it can't be objective because that's the next line in the SOAP note.
So when we look at that document, a medical record written by a human hand, it's subjective and it's not immutable.
So philosophically, we either have to say we're going to treat our veterans like the apex of creation that they are and respect them, or we're not.
And I'm not willing to take away a veteran's right.
We fought to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
We did not fight to have a bureaucrat be able to subjectively remove our constitutional rights.
You are welcome, sir, and thank you for your service.
Master Sergeant Washington, my wife and I, Sarah Jane, lost our sweet Sydney last year.
And I know what it means to lose a child.
And there's no darkness at the end of that tunnel.
And I'm very sorry, very thankful that your son spoke to you on that bridge.
But we do have to understand, and we have to think globally about this, and know that we are going to lose more veterans by degrading them, by treating us like children, than we will from them committing suicide with a firearm.
And, sir, you have my deepest condolences, and I thank you for your son's sacrifice and for your service.
And without, I yield back.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bergman, sir, you recognize five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, in listening, I don't know there's anything else to be said unless you want to change small dog to puppy or happy to glad and pick pepper from fly manure.
In the end, you get two piles and you can't tell which is which.
So how many people are left to talk, Mr. Chairman?
Somewhere possibly the second round.
Okay.
All right.
Well, the point is, just as a data point, sometimes this microphone is used to put out our message in such a way that it's not exactly adding to the goal of helping veterans.
It's adding to our social media presence and all that.
I get it.
You know, if we took away microphones and cameras, you know, in this venue, we'd have a lot more interesting, I think, and more productive conversations.
But that's just the bias of one of the three, and I repeat, three remaining Vietnam veterans in Congress.
I mean, as I look to my left and right here, I see, you know, Iraq, Afghanistan, veterans who have served with great honor under great duress.
Well, there's only three of us left in Vietnam.
And, you know, Mike Thompson from California, Jim Baird from Indiana, and me.
All that means is we've been around a long time.
And we saw in our country, when we came back, we weren't welcomed back.
We saw that the country as a whole saw the mistakes made of the 60s in not welcoming us back.
We got it right after Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and after Iraqi freedom and enduring freedom and all of that.
So we as a society with a conscience and understanding that everything we have comes from God to include especially our rights, not bureaucrats.
We have an opportunity here as this committee sets the framework for holding the Veterans Administration accountable to the higher standards necessary to maintain the rights and the freedoms of all of our veterans because if they have them, it's going to spread out across our population to help others, especially family members who have suffered the loss as well.
The only thing we can do in this committee is ask questions, set the stage, and set the momentum.
It's going to be up to all of you in the trenches to get it done.
But now I'm just going to stop here because I don't want to waste time.
And as a Marine, I'm basically frugal.
Some might say cheap.
I don't waste money, yours, mine, or anybody else, and I don't waste ammunition.
But we have to continue to press the message that our veterans need every bit of assistance, not necessarily help, but assistance to enable them to live their own productive lives, however much time is left.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to yield back because, again, I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said.
Thank you, General.
Mr. Sophie, you got two.
Thank you to every one of you for coming.
Thank you for your service, Mr. Washington.
God bless you, and I'm very sorry for your loss.
Ranking Member, you said you want to enter something into the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We would please ask unanimous consent to enter the following letter from Every Count for Gun Safety into the hearing record.
Mr. Jackson.
Thank you to all the witnesses testifying before us today and revealing how crucial it is to end VA's practice of violating the constitutional due process and Second Amendment rights of veterans with fiduciaries.
With that, I yield for the ranking member for your closing statement, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One moment, Mr. Ranking Member, sorry.
I apologize.
Mr. Crane, yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, can I enter my bill, H.R. 496, into the official record without objection?
Mr. McGarby, sir, you're recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you once again, everyone, for your service for being here today.
As I said at the top of my hearing, I hope it truly is my hope and my desire that we can work together to address any and all of the shortcomings at the VA with regards to this and any process, which I have to do with our Veterans Care.
For example, Captain McCormick, the idea that someone is falsely reported is something we've got to look at and how that happens.
I know that the Chairman and I have talked a lot about where do we get to the core of this issue.
I think it's also worth pointing out again today that when you look at what we are doing, we are talking about pre-existing laws.
And those laws, like the 1968 Gun Control Act, like the Brady Law, have not been found unconstitutional.
Even if passed, the law we are talking about today would still leave veterans with a determination of mental incompetency that under current law would keep them from going and purchasing a new firearm.
It's just that this amendment would keep it from being reported to NICs.
So there's a lot of work that we have to do here.
The effort requires thoughtful analysis, what the program does, what it does not do, what it entails, and an honest attempt to bridge these data gaps and a sincere admission of policymakers what we know and what we don't know exactly of how the rubber meets the road for the veterans.
I want to again emphasize this is about veteran safety.
We are not just talking about all veterans.
We are talking about veterans, a very select subsect of veterans who have not only been deemed incompetent but are claiming a disability benefit because of that incompetence.
This is the subsection we are talking about.
And the only published studies we could find, and we were looking for the studies and the data, show that this particular group is at a higher risk for suicide than the normal veteran population.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that everyone on our side stands ready to work with you on improving all aspects of the fiduciary program and to protect our veterans' health in a way that balances their need for treatment and a protection of their rights.
I yield back.
Thank you, sir.
To the members, once again, thank you for your service.
All of my veterans are in the committee room today.
Thank you for your service.
We will, myself and the committee, will break this down to parade rest.
We will find where the problem sets exist, where the collision points are.
We'll make clarifications and we will move legislation to make sure that our veterans are treated like every other human being in this country because they absolutely have those rights.
I ask unanimous consent that all members have the right to have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials.
Without objection, so ordered.
adjourned house speaker mike johnson has invited president trump to address a joint session of congress on tuesday march 4th In his letter to the President, the Speaker writes, America's golden age has begun.
Thanks to your strong leadership and bold action in the first days of your presidency, the United States is already experiencing a resurgence of patriotism, unity, and hope for the future.
To that end, it is my distinct honor and great privilege to invite you to address a joint session of Congress to share your America First vision for our legislative future.
We'll have live coverage of that March 4th speech on C-SPAN, online at c-span.org or with C-SPAN Now, our free video app.
Tonight on C-SPAN's Q&A, part two of our interview with historian Nigel Hamilton, author of Lincoln vs. Davis.
He talks about the military faceoff between these two American presidents during the Civil War and the impact the Emancipation Proclamation had on the war's outcome.
From that moment, the 1st of January 1863, the South was doomed.
Until then, Jefferson Davis had been allowed by Lincoln to frame the war as a noble, white Southern fight for independence.
Pure and simple.
But from the moment that Lincoln said no, you, Jefferson Davis, and your commander-in-chief, Robert E. Lee, have attacked the North, which is what they did in September of 1862.
It's the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, if you like.
Once you attack the North, you change the whole game.
Nigel Hamilton with his book, Lincoln vs. Davis, tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's QA.
You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington and across the country.
Coming up Monday morning, Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute analyzes President Trump's return to the White House and potential second-term challenges.
Then Politico White House reporter Adam Cancrin reports on White House News of the Day and previews the week ahead.
Also, auto reporter Jeff Gilbert of WWJ News Radio discusses executive actions dealing with the electric vehicle industry.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now or online at c-SPAN.org.
This week on the C-SPAN Networks, the House is out as House Republicans hold their annual retreat.
The Senate will be in session as they continue to hold hearings for several of President Trump's cabinet nominees, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump's nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary.
He'll appear before the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on Thursday.
Also on Thursday, Kash Patel will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee as he seeks to become FBI Director.
Then Tulsi Gabbard, Mr. Trump's nominee for Director of National Intelligence, will appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Watch this week live on the C-SPAN Networks or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
Also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered Democracy.
It isn't just an idea.
It's a process.
A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
Democracy in real time.
This is your government at work.
This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
▲
Export Selection