something for every c-span fan. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered, we are funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> we are just getting started building one hundred miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. charter communications sports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >> hearing on allowing veterans to purchase or own part-timer while relying on someone else to manage their va benefits, retired military personnel and

policy researchers testify here to help veterans affairs committee. >> all right seems to fail to give veterans due process before violating their right to bear arms. according to regulations, the v.a. must report to the fbi's background system 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 and the second minute rights of every american, but v.a. bureaucrats have stripped 250,000 veterans of their right to possess and purchase firearms. these actions have prevented veterans with fiduciaries from owning -- see me after class, sir --good to go, mr. reynolds? i will repeat this. over 200 50,000 veterans with fiduciaries have a constitutional right to possess and purchase firearms. these practices have prevented veterans with fiduciaries to own

firearms. v.a. reports these veterans to the nix list without a ruling from any judge that they are a danger to themselves or others. the v.a. does this without any medical framing for many professional. it's important to understand the v.a. strips veterans of their constitutional right to bear arms with zero medical evidence indicating they are suicidal, homicidal or a threat to their community. at no point is a medical professional at any point saying that they are a danger to themselves or others. advocates emphasize that assuming anyone with a mental illness is dangerous stigmatizes mental illness itself. also the v.a. incorrectly assumes without evidence that the veterans should be stripped

of their right to bear arms because they need help paying their bills. 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 right to bear arms. veterans with fiduciaries do not get the same process. unlike every other american, veterans with fiduciaries must undergo a difficult process for they must prove they should be given their constitutional right back only after they have been added to the nix list. this means that veterans are subject to different rules compared to every other american even though veterans fought to protect our constitutional rights. since march 9 of 2024, v.a. has been temporarily prohibited from using funds to report any veteran assigned to a fiduciary to the nix list without a court ruling. this hearing will reveal that congress must pass a permanent piece of legislation or

legislative solutions to protect veterans due process. this hearing is not about guns on demand but affording veterans with the same due process rights every other american is afforded. i am looking 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, mr. chairman. i am looking forward to working with you. i have enjoyed our relationship for the last four years and enjoy the relationship you had with my predecessor. one thing 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 and have earned our care. they have been made both a legal and amoral promise and it's our job on this committee -- and a moral promise and it's our job on this committee to make sure we live up to that. the 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 around the community, i understand that veterans often times have and enjoy owning firearms. we also know the incredibly sobering statistics around veteran mental health and 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. the 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% 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% more likely to use a firearm in suicide attempts than nonveterans and female veterans are 39% more likely to use a firearm in suicide the nonveterans. this is something we have to continue to be aware of and work on on this committee. tuesday, senator blumenthal asked the incoming v.a. secretary in his confirmation hearing if he would commit to ways to reduce suicide by firearm by veterans. collins said 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 real stigma around seeking mental health. i told you this is tricky. veterans want to enjoy firearms and we don't win them to not seek care out of fear they will lose access to that firearm. we cannot talk about death by suicide with these statistics without talking about the firearms themselves. 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 are talking abut a specific subset of veterans, veterans who have gone in for medical care who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, all dimers -- all dimers, severe enough that they cannot take care of themselves. a study says veterans with fiduciaries are more at risk for suicide than other veterans. we are not talking about versus the general population but a group of veterans that as compared to veterans are more at risk of suicide so we cannot ignore these facts and studies.

i joked about this for a minute before and. we don't need another study papering the walls of the v.a. but this is worth our attention and worth finding out would exactly is going on -- finding out what exactly is going on. i fear we are too much talking about politics and not the policies. let me make this a little more concrete as we step into it. if you are a veteran in louisville, kentucky, how does the rubber meets the road? how will this impact you? the reality is if you are a veteran going in for health care and it's not by going to mental health appointments, so if you are going in to get this determination, that's not how you end up here. a veteran who goes in for mental health for schizophrenia, any of the things we talked about, that's not how you end up here in the situation we are discussing today. you can be found not to be confident 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. it's part of the benefit application process. the v.a. 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 is 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 were reviewed by claims processors trained to evaluate this medical evidence. if there is enough medical evidence to get the claims processes to determined 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 6 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 determine 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 and their notifications to veterans about the ramifications of this decision. that is when you get reported to nicks. it's my understanding, however, that even if we take away the notification to nicks, 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 nicks, 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 noncommittee 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. doctor cohen is joined by doctor scott simondera. the nail it i'd say close enough simandera, simandera, yeah, ta tomato. sorry, buddy. analysts 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 topp washington, us marine corps retired of the everytown veterans adversary council. welcome, sir. thank you, 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're 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. doctor cohen, sir, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver your opening statement on behalf of the congressional research service. chairman luttrell, ranking member of 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 simendera, 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 us citizenship, and persons that are 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 nis. 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. 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 nicks 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. it is the end of 2023, there was 270,851 active entries in nics submitted by federal agencies for having been adjudicated as a mental effective. 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 101c2a of the nic improvement amendments act requires that each federal department or agency that makes mental health adjudications or commitments to mental institutions established 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 1, this beneficiary is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public, and 2, 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 nis based on mental incompetency incompetency without 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. 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're now recognized for 5 minutes. >> chair 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 listened 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, bleed, and in many cases die for the rights of every other citizen are denied this basic right. this process allows veterans to lose their 2nd amendment rights without due process and based on administrative processes and decisions of policy, not due process and not 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 2nd 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 5th 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 aggravate suicide rates. the current system does not effectively address the mental health challenges veterans face, nor does it reduced 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 and 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 6. 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 5 minutes. >> i 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 is horrendous, and the older you are, the harder it is to get even with the presumptives that you've got. but today i will 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 dangerousness and devastating

consequences it could have on veterans' lives and livelihoods. 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 as a nurse, a technician, a clerk, the 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 affects life perpetually. i spent decades working in education and finance. as a professional in these fields, i cannot unequivocally say the financial struggles are mismanaged do not, do not correlate. statistically, they do not correlate with any propensity for violence or dangerous behavior. poor people. or people the economic aren't violent. that's a, 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. immature person i guess who's seen hundreds of deaths. when we picked them up on a helicopter, we brought people back in pieces.

i worked. in the 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 to this 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, 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 instance that we've had before, the amendments that were 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 written statement of dr. reynolds will be entered into the hearing record, ms. springer. you're now recognized for 5 minutes. >> chairman latrell, ranking member of 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 the 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 the 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 home 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, contribute to a more accurate assessment of the veteran's mental state and probability to harm himself 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 nick's 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 nick's referral, and the consequent restriction on firearms purchases and ownership. some veterans reacted angrily

when they realized the loss of their 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 nick's referral to guarantee due process before infringing on veterans' constitutional rights. however, veterans can challenge va's proposing competency determination by requesting a hearing before va by submitting additional evidence. alternatively, veterans can petition va for relief of the firearms prohibitions imposed by the law. few veterans exercise these options, and the 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 incompetency. 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. experiences of our vfw service officers, our former va field examiner corroborate these statistics. the case of the va field examiner, her familiarity with the overall process allowed her to intervene and successfully halt inappropriate nic's 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 healthcare. unfortunately, the stigma could unnecessarily deprive them of their earned benefits and compromise their health. however, the process of changes we propose to preserve the fiduciary program for deserving beneficiaries while simultaneously safeguarding veterans and preventing inappropriate mix referrals. chairman latrell, 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 5 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 2nd 2nd of 4 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 3 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 issue chev 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 golf company 2nd battalion, 7th marines have been killed in action in afghanistan. my world stopped. i didn't know how to feel was lost. 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 4 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 engage in risky behaviors, especially riding my harley davidson through red lights, hoping for an instant end to my suffering. finally, i sought released 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 6400 veterans died by suicide in 2022. more than 73% involve 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 1500 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 locked boxes of 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.

master sergeant washington's statements will be entered into the record. we now move to questioning. i recognize myself for 5 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 nic 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 atomization 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 tried to make the the the policy as seamless as possible. the reporting is seamless as possible, and the fix nick act of 2018 also very much emphasized that agencies should do their best to automatize. reporting to next and to kind of take the any thought really out of it and just have a very systematic approach. >> mr. mccormick.

>> yes sir. so when it comes to the fiduciary fiduciary process with the va. and mr. mcgarvey and i have absolutely been digging into a very deep hole trying to figure out at the granular level the problems set here. the waters are extremely muddied. from start to finish. can you, can you walk me through because we have, we have one 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 and like, ok, 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 your, in your opinion, is there enough? is there enough meat on the bone

from start to finish, or because veterans' rights are just as important as any other americans' rights. so the fact that this is, this is happening and we don't have the processes in place that we think are there, can you, can you walk me through in your opinion what that looks like? >> i can walk you through in my my knowledge of seeing other people go through the process that many times the information flow from the va back to the veteran is not consistent. so there are many veterans that are, you know, 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, you know, 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 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, can you, can you back that up when, when, when the veterans receive their va notices, it seems like there's an inadequate explanation on exactly where they're headed. can you had some clarifying 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 5 or 6 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 this person should be deemed incompetent and then have a fiduciary. and it's very, it's very wordy. under federal law -- >> could be or will be? >> it is. oh, 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. that's 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. >> ok, thank you. >> mr. mcgar, sir, you're recognized for 5 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 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. um, 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. um, 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 that, if we are wrong, please tell us when that has happened and why. um, 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. uh, every time there's always more lawyers at the table, and i just want to say that, uh. 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, 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. um, i want to talk a little bit about what goes on in the knicks 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 and incompetent and then looking for a disability benefit for that that incompetency, which is what we're talking about here today, the va's determinations are based on the medical evidence of record and not arbitrary, correct? >> medical record does play a role in the process. >> it's the part of the process, right? they're here because they've gone in for treatment. they have been deemed incompetent. now they're 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 va's -- >> excuse me. excusing. >> sorry, you're not recognized. >> i want to reiterate that the va did not make up this idea. to report beneficiaries deemed mentally incompetent.

uh, and they're obligated to do so under the gun control act of 1968, mentioned in your report, dr. cohen, and the brady act. and what we're talking about here today and the kennedy amendment. does not change or repeal either one of those laws, is that correct? >> oh, it does not repeal the gun control act or the brady. >> so i just want to point out that when we're talking about this process, we're talking about protecting veterans, we're talking about all these sorts of things. this is 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 on the health of our veterans because what we're all trying to do is do what is best for our veterans. 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 that my process went fast and was well served, and i talked to a mental health professional who listened to my story and then gave gave his opinion. and that's 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 are recognized for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and honored to be here today serving on your committee. i was the first one here, by the way, so, um, and i want to thank everyone who's 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. it's very clear to me that 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. every veteran with a mental illness deserves. to be treated like an individual with individual needs, and we can't make sweeping policy changes based on harmful generalizations about disabled veterans, and policies must be based on real evidence. 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 we're no offense.

you spend 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 everyone here is an attorney, that we can ask some of the basic, most common sense questions about policies for our veterans. 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 and we must also make sure that that the va is working for our vets and not against them. so my first question is for ms. springer today. 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? >> thank you for the question, congresswoman. i would broaden that to actually just all veterans in general are 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 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. simendera. is it difficult for veterans to prove they're not dangerous in order to convince the va to remove them from the nics list? >> well, i think you've seen these statistics that when, 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 the 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 us court of appeals for veterans' claims, etc. 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. ok, captain mccormick, my question for you today. do veterans receive due process before the va reports them to nicks? >> 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've 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. >> ok, thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> yes, ma'am. thank you, ms. may. ms. dexter, you recognized for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, um, and thank you first, uh, 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, and for being here. it's extremely important. as a former va healthcare physician, i witnessed firsthand the importance of having a a well functioning system, and you've highlighted some of the challenges to that. i also witnessed the devastating impacts of access to firearms,

um, 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 heartfelt 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 healthcare 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 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, why, 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, i think that's, that would be a bedrock just getting that information straight from the from the beginning. my mantra is training safety and accountability with firearms. training safety and accountability with firearms. >> 100% agree. i'm not talking about taking them away, but making 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're 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's in

crisis, being able to turn their weapons over to a friend or a colleague, a trusted adviser, 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 . with that, i yield back. thank you. >> thank you, ma'am. >> i just want to make sure i'm in the right hearing. we have heard a lot of issues here. the memo that i was given says we are correcting violations to

veterans' second amendment rights. is that what this hearing is about? thank you. dr. cohen, 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 with the same low bar? >> just clarification for my own purpose, are you asking -- >> we treat veterans one way. is there another group of americans we treat the same way without judicial or medical review? >> right, so, a lot of the nine

classes are by definition requiring some sort of judicial review. >> the question is simple. is there another group of americans, another class of americans that are treated like our veterans? yes or no? who would like to answer that question? yes, sir, dr. reynolds? >> don't think so. i suspect that is the answer. >> thank. -- thank you. we have heard some things about settled law. this may be for dr. cohen as well. when was the last time the supreme court ruled on this issue? >> i do not for legal issues --

[indiscernible] >> exactly. the constitutional issue that we are discussing, as far as i know, the supreme court has never ruled on it. dr. cohen, if i heard your testimony right, you are satisfied with the legal procedure to do this. i looked into 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'm just reinforcing this is how the process works. i'm not saying it is good, bad, or otherwise, just that this is

the process. >> i'm not sure who this should go to, probably captain mccormick, i would guess. is it true that we put -- and i would remind people of what the and ics -- the nics. this is the national instant criminal background check system . we need to remember what this is -- criminals. i think, captain mccormick, we put the veterans into this national instant criminal background check system with absolutely no evidence that they are a danger to anyone. >> yes, sir, you did. you also labeled them as a criminal because you put them on that list. >> thank you very much, and mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. crane, you have five minutes. >> thank you and thank you to

you guys showing up. let's get this straight right now -- what is this hearing we are having really about? it is about if unelected bureaucrats can strip away second amendment god-given rights from our veterans if they need help managing their finances are assets -- is that correct? >> i think it is. >> all right. this is so wrong in some anyways. what i'm hearing my colleagues on the other of the aisle say is we are concerned about veteran suicide and since most of them are committing suicide with firearms, we need to have measures and tools to take those firearms away from them. that's what i'm hearing. what about civilians that are committing suicide and using firearms? are we going to also argue in this body that they should have their firearms and second amendment rights taken away from them? i looked up fiduciary, and here is a quick summary definition, someone who is legally obligated

to act solely in the best interest of another body managing their assets and affairs. there are many people i know and i'm sure many of you know people out there that need help managing assets or their affairs. i'm sorry, but i do not 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. when it comes to suicide, a lot of these individuals, a lot of veterans, and is more of us on this panel right now who are not only veterans but all from the special operations community, who i think are against this and will tell you this now -- any of our veterans struggling with ptsd who have some of these issues we are 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 that are in suicide, take some of these

who are afraid, isolated, and alone, and take away their ability to defend themselves. that is a good way to increase what these guys say they are trying to stop. i want to ask you guys a question -- at any point does the v.a. have to establish that a veteran is a threat to themselves or a danger to others when reporting a veteran, which is the national instant criminal system? no, ok, thank you. is having a fiduciary alone mean that someone is mentally incompetent or mentally deficient? >> no. >> ok. is there any doubt in fiduciary or being associated with increased risk of homicide or suicide? >> no. >> those quick answers right there show the american people exactly what has taken place,

the violation of rights without due process. is it due process to have unelected bureaucrats making a designation about a veteran's mental state or need of a fiduciary -- is that due process, sir? >> no, sir. >> why do you think it is important for our constitutional, god-given rights to be stripped of us? why do you think it should be necessary to have due process? >> we can assure that that does not happen. i'm not trying to be -- a conspiracy theory, but we are the only class of citizens that they do this to. >> my colleague over here, i believe you are special forces -- is that right? is there any other class of people that is treated this way? >> no. >> why is it fair for veterans to be treated this way? >> it's not.

it's unfair. >> how many veterans have lost their lives because of these overreaching v.a. regulations? >> i think the number was just over 270 thousand. >> that is what i saw as well. >> that is why my bill would not only stop the v.a. from doing this in the future but would restore god-given constitutional rights to these veterans. we need to get behind this, and i hope my colleagues on the other of the aisle, many of whom are not veterans, would take it maybe from the veterans up here who are saying, this is not the way to do it. mr. washington, god bless you, sir. thank you for your service and i'm really sorry for the loss of your son. i mean that. mr. washington himself said when he was feeling suicidal, he was running red lights on his motorcycle hoping somebody would end it or he was thinking about jumping off a bridge, so let's be clear in here right now. if we are 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 is actually going to hurt our veteran community. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses for being with us today. i'm a physician by training and my husband is a former army ranger, so veteran suicide is an issue that concerns me deeply. i'm genuinely interested, and i apologize that i had to step away, but i'm genuinely interested in hearing from each of you if there is time, what is the single biggest, most important thing congress can do to decrease veteran suicide?

>> create more efficiency in the v.a. for treating the problems we have medically. you are a physician. i'm a nurse. you did not hear that. i can tell you, i am a professional educator. i am a statistician. in 1993, i faced the intention of being suicidal. suicide and weapons are tangential but not the problem. i took 25 years to get my disability. i have been all the way to courts here and washington. had a lot because of my ability to be politically and socially astute and get my way. turns 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. the idea -- the testimony was made earlier that medical testimony goes into the determination but a medical person doesn't do it. nobody with psychological training doesn't and that's the error of this whole thing. we are turning it over to inept ill trained bureaucrats and i resent that. it's stupid. >> thank you sir. others? >> when you talk about the meaning of this whole hearing, it's about due process. you are stripping these veterans of their dignity and right to their second amendment right that they served to protect and defend. that's not helping at all.

that's hurting more than it's helping. my own son had a job that he was supposed to become a police officer and now he can't. why is that? he went to combat, served this country, came back and got some counseling. the over stigmatization that we are all unstable, crazy and all these other things i have heard since i returned from my combat tours, it has always been, are you ok? are you ok? just because i get upset or we happen to disagree. we are not unstable. we are ok. we just need to be treated like every other citizen in this country. i got shot three times in combat fighting for this country.

for me to come back and for you to even entertain the thought of taking my constitutional freedom , that's not common sense and that's not right. we need to fix this. >> other ideas on what can be done about veteran suicide? >> we would include a medical screening as part of this process. and a judicial review before next assignment. we have control over the process because underlined the constitutional rights issue is a process and the process can be improved. we oppose -- propose having a medical component and define all those terms in statute. >> thank you. mr. washington?

>> 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. we are starting to make inroads. it's a giant supertanker and we are trying to turn in a different direction and that is slowly happening. 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. i my time. >> thank you mr. chairman. is the veteran administration of law enforcement agency? >> no. >> ok. glad we cleared that up. i had 21 of my friends commit

suicide. those are all navy seals. and they all died because of spiritual wounds they received by serving our country. and so dr. reynolds, you're right. the problem is we are not treating the root cause. keith is right. everyone over here is correct when they are saying we are not addressing the problems. i want to read something to you. the sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for a long cold parchments or dusty records. they are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of divinity itself. it can never be erased or

obscured by mortal power. alexander hamilton wrote that. he is saying that either you believe that our constitutional rights are given to us by god and simply articulated 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 by the hand of man. only by the hand of god. unfortunately is taking place is that the veteran affairs administration is essentially playing god because they are trying to remove something that is immutable. and words have meaning. our countries based on this document and our country is nothing without this document. i have to tell you something.

when you say the medical record is the one thing, we have a doctor here. we are both medics. when you see a patient, you write something called a soap note and the s stands for subjective. so every single one of these medical records, the first thing is a subjective view by the health care provider about the person. so if it is subject, it can't be objective because that is the next line in the soap note. when we look at a medical record written by human hand, it is subjective and not immutable. philosophically we have to say we are going to treat our veterans like the apex of creation that they are and respect them or we are not. i'm not willing to take away

veterans right. we fought to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. we did not fight to have a bureaucrat be able to subjectively remove our constitutional rights. you're welcome, sir. and thank you for your service. master sergeant washington. my wife and i lost our sweet sydney last year. i know what it's like to lose a child and there's no into the darkness. we have to think globally about this and know that we are going to lose more veterans degrading them treating us like children than we will from them committing suicide with a firearm. you have my deepest condolences. i yield back.

>> i don't know that there's anything else to be said unless you want to change small dog to puppy or happy to glad and picked up her fly manure. in the end you get two piles and you can't tell which is which. how many people are left to talk? well the point is, just as it 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. if we took away microphones and cameras, we would have a lot more interesting and productive

conversations. that's just the bias of one of the three and i repeat, three remaining vietnam veterans in congress. if i look to my left and right here, i see iraq and afghanistan veterans. there's only three of us left from vietnam. all that means is we have been around long time and we saw in our country when we came back, we weren't welcome back. we saw that the country as a whole so the mistakes made of the 60's in not welcoming us back. who got it right after desert shield, desert storm and during freedom and all of that. we as a society with a conscience and understanding everything we have comes from god to include especially our

rights, not bureaucrats. we have an opportunity here. as we this committee sets the framework for holding the veterans administration accountable to the higher standards necessary to maintain the rights and 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 asked 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. 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 and i don't waste ammunition.

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 i'm going to yield back because i'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said. >> thank you everyone of you, thank you for your service mr. washington and god bless you. i'm very sorry for your loss. >> we would like unanimous consent to enter the following letter from every town for gun safety. >> thank you for the witnesses for testifying today. with that i yield for the ranking member for your closing statement.

>> thank you mr. chairman. >> apologize. >> mr. chairman, can i enter my bill into the official record. >> without objection. >> thank you everyone for your service for being here today. as i said at the top of my hearing, it truly is my hope and desire that we can work together to address any and all of the shortcomings at the v.a. with regard to this and any process. the idea that someone is falsely reported is something we have to look at and how that happens. the chairman and i have talked a lot about where do we get to the core of this issue. it's also worth pointing out again today that when you look at what we are doing, talking

about pre-existing laws. and those laws 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 purchasing a new firearm. it's just that this amendment would keep it from being reported to nic's. so there's a lot of work that we have to do here. the effort requires thoughtful analysis. an honest attempt to bridge these data gaps and a sincere admission of policymakers, what we know and don't know exactly about how the rubber meets the road for veterans. this is about veteran safety. we are not just talking about

all veterans but a very select subset of veterans who have been deemed incompetent and 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 show that this particular group is at a higher risk for suicide than the normal veteran population. i want to emphasize that everyone on our side stands ready to stand with you to protect our veterans health in a way that balances their need for treatment and protection of their rights. >> to the members once again, thank you for your service. to the veterans, thank you for your service. we will break this down and find where the collision points are,

we will make clarifications and move legislation to make sure of veterans are treated like every other human being in this country because they absolutely have those rights. ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to extend their remarks. without objection, so ordered, adjourned.