>> we stay on capitol hill now to take you live to a house veterans affairs subcommittee hearing on secondment rights for veterans. live coverage here in c-span3. >> fuel examiners to operate in two-person teams while conducting interviews. to conduct an effective interview the field examiners must meet their environment. our field examiner informed us that this meeting place could range from a jobsite to a home. the home she visited included

homeless encampments in skid row in los angeles, significant safety concerns. it would enhance personal security, encourage and -- and probability of harming themselves or others. reassess all covert-era fiduciary assignments. our field examiner informed us they conduct virtual interviews during covert. a virtual interview during a public health emergency makes it more difficult to detect verbal and nonverbal cues that are instrumental to detecting a mental health ailment or the telltale signs of someone likely to harm themselves or others. revise all v.a. letters that inform of produce area assignment. simply and directly explained the importance of fiduciary assignment and the veterans appeal rights. also v.a. must send the letters in a timely manner, notify the veteran of a field interview.

our examiner was often the one informing the veteran of the field assignment. and consequent restriction on firearms purchases and ownership. some veterans reacted angrily when they realized loss of their second amendment rights. in one case the veteran paste -- placed a firearm on the table, putting her in a dangerous situation while doing her job. as a last step required judicial review prior to next referral to guarantee due process before infringing on veterans' conch -- constitutional rights. veterans can challenge determination by requesting a hearing before v.a. by submitting additional evidence. tentatively veterans can petition for the relief of firearms but is cash prohibitions. better -- really successful. according to a july 2023 progression research service report fiscal year 2022 there were 35 hearings on determinations. 24 of which resulted in

competency. the same report noticed that 33 petitions of relief did not grant relief in any of these cases. however 11 veterans who petition for relief were determined to be, 10 and were removed. experiences of our service officers and field examiner corroborate these statistics. the case of the field examiner familiarity with the overall process to successfully halt an inappropriate referral for some beneficiaries. weber, none of the beneficiaries have successfully appealed. because of the existing process some of our members are hesitant to use v.a. health care. they fear making a disqualifying statement could ultimately prohibit their possession of a firearm. we want members to use v.a. health care. unfortunately this stigma could deprive them of the armed benefits that could compromise their health. the process changes we propose to preserve the program for

deserving beneficiaries while safeguarding veterans and preventing inappropriate referrals. chairman luttrell, this concludes my testimony. i welcome any questions from you or the members of the subcommittee. rep. luttrell: mr. washington, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> good afternoon, chairman, luttrell, and members of the subcommittee. my name is master sergeant michael washington. i am 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, encounter religion -- counterintelligence agent. i spent three decades as a seattle firefighter. and now i am 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 14th of june 2008, as i prepared to quantify response on engine 16 in seattle a white government-issued chevy suburban with two marines arrived at the station. i knew instantly that they were there to inform me that my son, sergeant michael t. washington, had been killed in action in afghanistan. our world stopped. i did not know how to feel his loss. i tried to man-up, as dictated by my culture. long-dormant ptsd, an accumulation of childhood traumas, tragedies witnessed as a firefighter, erected like a psychological mount saint helens. rather than talk i drank him and i fought. which were acceptable responses in my generational and professional cultures. eventually mentally exhausted i settled into the pain. i engaged in risky behaviors, especially writing my harley davidson through red lights,

hoping for an instant end for my suffering. finally i saw it relief by leaping from a nearby bridge. 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 message and after a few minutes walked off the bridge, never to return to suicidal ideation. i was not fixed by a long stretch, but i was no longer suicidal. had i had easy access to a firearm i would never have had that chance. i would not 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 6004 hundred veterans died by suicide in 2022. more than 72% 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 is only as strong as the information in it. and information is left out people cannot have guns that can get them. for 30 years the v.a. 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 are veterans the v.a. diagnosed with serious mental health disorders. of the veterans who died by suicide in 2020 two more than 1500 had been diagnosed with a mental health or substance abuse disorder. last march -- effectively blocked the v.a. from providing this information. there is 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 v.a. 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. somewhere creating time and space between a crisis and a gun. secure storage in and outside the home. given the keys to gun safes and lockboxes to someone else. others are about preventing access, like state level do not sell lists, and extreme risk laws. veterans 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 suicides. this bipartisan work must continue. i am humbled to be of some small service to this cause. because that i am 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 remain at your service. thank you again, and i look forward to your questions. chair bost: mr. washington's statements will be entered into the record. i recognize myself for five minutes. dr. cohen, the supreme court says the government must have a good reason for stripping americans of their constitutional right. does the v.a. have good reasons to strip our veterans of their second amendment right? >> when it comes to legal scholarship i can reach out to one of the legislative attorneys and report back, but line chair bost: i've got you right here in front of me. it is all you, buddy. >> i come in terms of legal issues, it is not my expertise. what i can say is the v.a. since the 1990's, since the passage of the brady handgun prevention act

and since the atf recognized to be a policy and v.a. interpretation of regulations regarding the system to be accurate, that is how the v.a. has done it. in many ways that could be considered to have been because of either beliefs in underlying causes between being in the program, somebody who needs disability benefits. it also could be done in terms of an automation issue. once the prevention act was passed these agencies were not given unlimited funds to hire something like a "knicks reporter," so a lot of agencies try to make the policy as seamless as possible. the fix nics act emphasized that agencies should do their best to autumn at ties reporting to

nics, and take any thought out of it and have a very systematic approach. chair bost: mr. mccormick. when it comes to the fiduciary process of v.a. -- i have absolutely been digging into a deep hole trying to figure out at a granular level the problems here. the waters are extremely muddy. from start to finish, can you walk me through -- because we have in a sense, by the time a 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. we are here. i concern is, and what we don't know and what the ranking member says is, what really happens? can you give me, in your opinion

is there enough meat on the bone from start to finish, or because a veteran's rights are just as important as any other american's rights. the fact that this is happening and we do not have the processes in place there, can you walk through what that looks like? mr. mccormick: i can walk you through my knowledge of seeing other people go through the process. many times the information flow from the v.a. back to the veteran is not consistent. so, there are many veterans that are camino, in their asking for assistance, whether it be for a mental issue or whether it be for a physical issue. and they run into an issue with finances, managing their own money. then they end up in a position where they are reported and as far as this lengthy process that was just brought up in the beginning of this, that was the first we have 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. that was quite a shock to that person into his dad. chair luttrell: was he aware that was going to be the circumstances of a fiduciary? mr. mccormick: he had no idea. chair luttrell: ms. springer, can you back that up when the veterans receive their v.a. notices, it seems there's an adequate explanation where they are headed. do you have some information please? ms. springer: i am referring to an actual proposal and a letter from one of our case files. i have some real data here. it will come limit v.a. -- complement v.a. how this decision could affect you. i think v.a. could rewrite these

letters a little more. chair luttrell: v.a. has a problem with letters going to veterans. i got that. in that letter on the second page when he read me that? -- you read me that? ms. springer: "how this decision could affect you." that is v.a. considering the person should be deemed competent and have a fiduciary. it is very wordy. chair luttrell: could be or will be? ms. springer: could you say again please? ms. springer: this decision could affect you. i'm referring to a proposal of incompetency. that is one of the first steps in the process. v.a. is proposing to the veteran you may be incompetent and get a fiduciary. it allows the veteran to respond to the letter within a 60-day period. chair luttrell: thank youchair luttrell:. >> i want to thank everyone for

their service, continued service to our country. we are grateful to you and terribly sorry for your loss. what you are hearing from me and the chairman's they want to make sure this process is also working for our veterans. that there is clear information. i want to point out a couple of things after the testimony and you will correct me. we want to get this right. when you go through this process, the disability process because of incompetency, we have not found a single instance of a veteran who had their firearm confiscated because of this issue alone. i do think it's important -- we don't want veterans not seeking treatment under the idea that

might happen. it has never happened. if we are wrong, please tell us one that has happened and why. i want to talk 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. i want to say this provision has never been found to be unconstitutional. there has been lots of litigation around firearms. there are lots of think tanks and lots of groups out there interested in bringing these types of lawsuits. 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. i want to clear that up as well. i want to talk about what goes

on in the nics database currently. dr. cohen, i want to summarize. v.a.'s determinations, by the time you're determining competency and looking for a disability benefit for that incompetency, v.a.'s determinations are based on the medical evidence of record and not arbitrary, correct? dr. cohen: medical record does play a role in the process. rep. mcgarvey: they have gone in for treatment. they have indeed incompetent. now they are looking for disability because of the incompetence. the medical record plays a big part of this. >> congressman -- please. chair luttrell: you are not recognized. rep. mcgarvey: i want to reiterate the v.a. did not make

of this idea to report beneficiaries deemed mentally incompetent. they are obligated to do so under the gun control act of 1968 and the brady act. what we are talking about today and the kennedy amendment does not change or repeal those laws, is that correct? dr. cohen: the kennedy amendment does not repeal the gun control act. rep. mcgarvey: when we talk about the process, about all the sorts of things, a lot of this is windowdressing. there are other things in play -- you can disagree with them but this is what is actually happening and what is going on behind it. i have a little bit of time

left. i want to focus on the health of veterans. we are trying to do what is best for our veterans. sergeant washington, thank you for sharing your story. you talked about what happened in your own life. can you elaborate on your experience connected to disabilities and how we can mitigate the risk factors you ask. stte? -- you experienced? sgt. washington: my experience was pretty streamlined. i believe the government was in the mode of clearing the backlog. that is my opinion. there was a backlog of claims and things like that through the v.a. i felt 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. that is what it looks like.

it seemed to work out well in my case. i know that is not everybody case. rep. mcgarvey: high-yield back. chair luttrell: ms. mace. rep. mace: thank you for sharing your personal stories of pain. it is difficult for me to hear that as a mom. it is tough. it is clear to me the definition of mentally incompetent has every thing to do with the simple fact that veterans need help balancing the checkbook's. it is a statement to assume veterans are dangerous or suicidal because they have a mental illness. every veteran deserves to be treated like an individual with individual needs. we can't make sweeping policy changes based on harmful generalizations about disabled veterans. policies must be based on real evidence. the v.a.'s fiduciary program

failed to consider evidence of dangerous and prevails -- fails to provide due process. it is great there is only one lawyer on the subcommittee. no offense. you spent a lot of time and money on law school. it's a good thing we have -- not everyone is an attorney. we can ask basic, most commonsense 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 v.a. procedures, veterans rights are stripped by a ministry to process. veterans rights are unjustly stripped from them and congress must right this wrong and make sure that the v.a. is working for our vets and not against them. my first question is for ms. springer. could there be survivors of military sexual, who -- trauma? ms. springer: i would broaden that to all veterans in general.

vfw members and survivors. the perception, whether true or not, that if they say the wrong thing or present the disability and condition, it could go from there to the nics incompetency determination and the fiduciary assignment. rep. mace: is it difficult for veterans to prove they are not dangerous to convince the v.a. to remove them from the nics list? >> you have seen the statistics that when we get to this question of whether the veteran is a danger or not, it only comes into play if the veteran applies or files a petition for relief of disability. of which, statistics we have seen from the v.a., very few veterans -- less than 100 year do that.

at no other point in this process, from the very beginning to the determination of incompetency to all the appeals up to the u.s. court of appeals for veterans claims, etc., none of that addresses the issue of whether the veteran is a harm -- potentially a harm to themselves or others. it is only if you file the petition for the relief of disability. then v.a. looks at a number of factors to determine that level of risk. rep. mace: captain mccormick, do veterans receive due process before the v.a. reports them to nics? captain mccormick: absolutely not. rep. mace: what roadblocks do they experience in the appeals process? captain mccormick: it is a timely and costly process. you are asking them to secure

the rights. they are stripping them of a constitutional right. you are asking them, well, you can go and fight for it. i guess we can pull you over, rusty for something and say you can always fight to get your right of freedom back. i think that is the issue, the level of fairness and the lack of due process as far as the judicial process. it is ultimately unfair. rep. mace: does it erode trust? mr. mccormick: 100%. rep. mace: high-yield back. chair luttrell: thank you. ms. dexter, you are recognized for five minutes. rep. dexter: thank you for having this important hearing. to our witnesses, thank you for your service and for being here. it is really important. as a former v.a. health care

physician who witnessed firsthand the importance of having a well-functioning system, you have highlighted some of the challenges to that. i witnessed the devastating impacts of access to firearms for veterans. many of whom were struggling with mental health conditions and not getting the care that they needed or advice they needed. the one thing i really want to elevate from master sergeant washington's compelling and heartfelt testimony is that moment of time he was given, the opportunity to turn back and what we know is that people with access to firearms in that moment of despair lose the opportunity to turn back. i take care of people in the intensive care unit. these are folks who have survived. almost none of them are victims. my first question, master

sergeant washington, is can you comment on whether it would benefit veterans to ensure every v.a. health care provider receives safety counseling training? sgt. washington: personally, absolutely that would be beneficial. just to give the information. if i understand your question, just counseling, right? to get the information. here are some of the risk factors. here is what is going on. here is what is of danger to you. why wouldn't anybody want to hear that? why would that be harmful? rep. dexter: would it be beneficial for community care providers to receive this training? sgt. washington: i think that would be of bedrock, just getting the information straight from the beginning. my mantra is training, safety and accountability with firearms. training, safety and accountability with firearms. rep. dexter: 100% agree.

not talking about taking them away but keeping people safe. in preventing veteran suicide, master sergeant washington, veteran suicide is an epidemic in this country. it is unacceptable in my mind. it is a tragedy that more than 17 veterans diaper day of suicide. we -- die per day of suicide. it will require 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 v.a. and bso's work to provide time and space and make meaningful progress in addressing veteran suicide rates in this country? sgt. washington: part of it is what we are doing now. having these hard conversations. i'm hearing two very opposite ideas of what the system looks like and what it is doing and not doing. i appreciate we are here having

the conversation. my spoken testimony, we are about safety and securing weapons. if somebody is in crisis, turning their weapons over to a friend or colleague or trusted advisor, to the vfw, just getting them out of their hands so they do not make the permanent decision for a temporary problem. that is what it is all about. there are a number of fronts we move forward on to protect our veterans. some of whom, like myself, have been in those dark times and where we are literally on a bridge. rep. dexter: thank you so much. as we discussed the fiduciary program it is important we remain laser focused on the goal of ensuring our veterans and families are protected from harm. i really appreciate the testimony today. high-yield back. chair luttrell: mr. self, you are recognized for five and it. rep. self: we have heard a lot

of issues here. the memo i was given says we are correcting v.a.'s violations of veterans' due process and secondment rights. is that what this 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 amended rights? are there other groups of americans that have this same low bar? dr. cohen: just for clarification for my own purposes, are you asking -- rep. self: do you treat veterans one way and treat another group the same way without judicial or medical review?

dr. cohen: right. because of 18 usc 922g, the nine classes, a lot of the classes are by definition requiring some sort of judicial review or court order. rep. self: the question is simple. is there another group of americans, another class of americans that are treated like our veterans? dr. cohen: i mean -- rep. self: who would like to answer that question? dr. reynolds: i don't think so. >> may i clarify? rep. self: no. we have heard some things about -- this may be for dr. cohen as well. when was the last time the supreme court ruled on this issue?

the warren court? dr. cohen: as i mentioned, i don't cover legal issues at crs. rep. self: exactly. we are in a constitutional issue here that we are discussing. as far as i know the supreme court has never ruled on it. we need to -- dr. cohen, you were satisfied with the legal procedure to do this. i looked at your written testimony and heard your spoken testimony. you are satisfied, if i understand you right, that this is proper. dr. cohen: i have not given an opinion as such.

i am straightforward saying this is how the process works. i'm not saying the process is good, bad or otherwise. this is what the process looks like. rep. self: i'm not sure who this should go to. probably captain mccormick i would guess. is it true we put -- i want to remind people of what the nics is. i heard some mental health issues -- mental health mentioned earlier. this is the national instant criminal background check system. when need to remember what this is. criminals. i think captain mccormick, do we put veterans into this national instant criminal background check system with absolutely no evidence they are a danger to anyone? mr. mccormick: you do, and you label them as a criminal because you put them on that list. rep. self: thank you very much,

mr. chairman. high-yield back. chair luttrell: mr. crane, you are recognized for five minutes. rep. crane: thank you to you guys for showing up. let's get this straight. what is the hearing we are having really about? 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. is that correct? i think it is. this is wrong in so many ways. what i'm hearing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say is that we are concerned about veteran suicide. since most of them are committing suicide with firearms, you know, we need to have measures and tools to take those firearms away from them. that is what i'm hearing. what about civilians that are committing suicide and using firearms?

are we going to also argue in this body they should have their firearms and second amendment rights taken away from them? i looked up fiduciary. here's a quick summary definition. 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 you know people out there that need help managing their assets or affairs. i'm sorry but i don't remember in the constitution where it says if so many 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, veterans -- there are four of us on this panel now that are all from the special operations community who i think are against this and will tell you this now. many veterans that are struggling with ptsd and have some of these issues we talking about here today, one of our biggest issues is fear and trauma because we thought we

might lose our life or lost our life in battle against other people with guns. if you want to increase veteran suicide, take these issues who are afraid, isolated and alone and take away their ability to defend themselves. that is a really good way to actually increase what these guys say they are trying to stop. i would ask you guys a question. at any point does the v.a. have to establish a veteran as a threat to themselves or danger to others when administrative the reporting of veteran with a fiduciary tip nics -- to nics? no. thank you. does that mean someone is mentally incompetent or mentally deficient? >> no. rep. crane: is there any doubt a correlating fiduciary with increased risk of homicide or suicide? >> no.

rep. crane: those three quick answers show the american people what has been taking place, violation of second amendment rights without due process. captain mccormick, is a due process to have unelected bureaucrats making a designation about a veteran's mental state or need of a fiduciary? is that due process? mr. mccormick: no, sir. it is not. rep. crane: why do you think it should be necessary to have due process? mr. mccormick: so that we can ensure that does not happen. if it happens to us -- it looks like we are almost in this socio-class -- they are testing this on almost. i'm not trying to be or have a conspiracy theory but we are the only class of citizens that they do this to. rep. crane: my colleague, mr. self, i believe you were special forces.

he brought up -- is there any class of people treated this way? why is it fair for veterans to be treated this way? mr. mccormick: it is unfair. rep. crane: comedy veterans have lost their second amendment rights because of these -- how many veterans have lost their second amendment rights because of this overreaching v.a. regulation? mr. mccormick: just over 270,000. rep. crane: that is why this is my bill, hr-496, that would not only stop them from doing this but restore the god-given constitutional rights to these veterans. we need to get behind this and i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many who are not veterans, would take it from the veterans up here who are saying, hey, this isn't the way to do it. mr. washington, god bless you, sir. thank you for your service. i'm sorry for the loss of your son. i mean that. mr. washington himself said when he was feeling suicidal, what did he say?

he was running red lights on his motorcycle hoping that someone would ended quickly -- end it quickly or jump off a bridge. 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 going to hurt our veteran community. high-yield back. chair luttrell: dr. marcy. >> 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 and might husband is a former army ranger. veteran suicide is an issue that concerns me deeply and greatly. i'm genuinely interested -- i apologize i had to step away to another hearing. i am genuinely interested in hearing from each of you.

what is the single biggest most important thing that congress can do to decrease veteran suicide? >> can i comment? create more efficiency in that v.a. for treating the problems we have medically. you are a physician. i am a nurse. you did not hear that. i can tell you i'm a professional educator. i'm a statistician. you don't deal with the problems at the root level. you drive people to suicide. i am -- in 1993, i faced the intention of creating suicide by taking sectional. i got it. i got 300 secinols from my friend. suicide and weapons are tangential but not the problem. i took 25 years to get my disability. i have been all the way to federal courts in washington.

a lot because of my ability to be politically and socially this dude and get my weight -- astute and get my way. veterans are suffering. people say thank you for your service but they don't act it. the bureaucracy that exists -- the idea that a clerk -- the testimony was made earlier. yes, medical testimony goes into the determination. a medical person does not do it. no one was psychological training does it. that is the error of this whole thing. we are turning it over to annette, ill trained -- inept, ill trained bureaucrats and i resent that as of combat medic. it is stupid. rep. morrison: thank you, sir. others? >> i would echo what he said. when you talk about the meaning of this whole hearing, it's about due process. you are stripping these veterans

of their dignity. stripping them of their right to their second minute rights. they served to protect and defend. that is not helping at all. that is hurting more than it is helping. you are preventing them from getting jobs. my own son, he had a job. he was supposed to become a police officer. now he can't become a police officer. why? he went to combat and had some problems and he came back and got some counseling. again, the stigmatization that we are all unstable, crazy and all these other things i have heard since i returned from my combat tours in 2004, 1990, it's are you ok, are you ok? because i'm upset we happen to disagree. we are not unstable. we are ok. we just need to be treated like every other citizen in the

country. my god, 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 away my constitutional freedom, that is not common sense. that is not right. we need to fix this. rep. morrison: other ideas for what congress can do to decrease veteran suicide? >> we favor overhauling the process. in my opening statement. we would include a medical screening as part of the process to determine the veteran's propensity to harm self or others and a judicial review before nics assignment to have two components. we have control over the process. underlying the constitutional rights issue is a process and it can be improved. that is what we propose to improve it, have medical component. make sure the person, as much as you can, does not a danger to themselves or others and before nics assignment defined the

terms and how this would go in statute. rep. morrison: thank you. mr. washington? sgt. washington: i think in my msgt. washington: i think, in my opinion, i work with veterans, first responders, and it is about changing that stigma about mental health, and we are starting to make inroads. we are -- it is a giant supertanker 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. rep. morrison: thank you, sir. thank you, again, for your service, and i yield my time, mr. chair. chair luttrell: thank you. >> thank you, sir. dr. cohen, is the veterans

affairs a law enforcement agency? dr. cohen: no. >> good, we cleared that up. 21 of my friends have committed suicide. 21 of them. those were all navy seals and marines. and they all died, in terms of spiritual wounds they received by serving our country. so, dr. reynolds, you are right. the problem is, we are not treating the root cause. mr. crane is right, everybody over here when we are talking about this issue is correct in saying we are not addressing the problem. and i want to read something to you. the sacred rights of mankind are not supposed to be romish for an old apartment and rusty -- all

parchments -- rummaged through in old parchments. they cannot be obscured by mortal power. alexander hamilton wrote that in 1775. he is saying i very you believe 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 as immutable, it cannot be raised. it cannot be raised by the hand of man, he can only be erased by the hand of god. what is unfortunately taking place as the veterans affairs administration is essentially playing god, because they are trying to remove something that is immutable. words have meaning.

our country is based on this document, and our country is nothing without this document. mr. mcgarvey, who i respect tremendously, when you say the medical record is the one thing, ok, we are both medics, right? when you see a patient, there is something called the soap note, and the s in the soap note stands for objective. every single one of these medical records we are looking at, the first thing is a subjective view by the health care provider about the person. if it is subjective, it cannot be objective. when we look at that document, the medical record written by human hand, it is objective and it is not immutable. philosophically, we either 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 am not willing to take away a veterans rights. 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. 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 is to lose a child. i'm very thankful that your sons spoke to you on that bridge, but we have to understand and we have to think globally about this and know that we will have to -- we are going to lose more

veterans by degrading them and treating them like children than we will buy them committing suicide by firearm. thank you for your sun's sacrifice and for your service. with that, i yield back. chair luttrell: thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. unless you want to change a small dog the happy to glad, in the end, you get two piles come and you cannot tell which is worse. how many people are left, mr. chairman? ok. well, the point is, this is a data point. sometimes this microphone is used to put out a message in such a way that it's not exactly adding to the goal of helping veterans, it is 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 would have a lot more interesting and productive conversations. but that is just the bias of one of the 3 -- and i will repeat, three remaining vietnam veterans in congress. i look to my left and right here, i see, you know, iraq, afghanistan, veterans who served under great honor, great duress. only three of us left to serve in vietnam. jim baird from indiana and me and albert's. when we came back, we were not welcome back. we saw that our country as a whole saw the mistakes made of the 1960's and not welcoming us back.

iraqi freedom, enduring freedom, and all of that. we are a society with a conscience and understanding everything we have comes from god to include especially our right, not bureaucrats. we have an opportunity here. as we come of this committee, set the framework for holding the veterans administration accountable 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, but i'm going to stop here, because i don't want to

waste time. as a marine, i'm frugal, i don't waste money, i don't waste ammunition. but we have to continue to press the message that our veterans need every bit of assistance who enable them to live their own productive lives, however much time is left. with that, mr. chairman, i'm going to yield back. i'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said. chair luttrell: thank you, general. >> thank you to each one of you for coming, thank you for your service, mr. washington, and god bless you for your loss. i have something to enter into the record. >> thank you, mr. record. we would like to add this. >> without objection.

>> we want to end v.a.'s process of violating second amendment rights and judiciary. i yield to the ranking member for your closing statement. rep. mr. mcgarvey: thank you, mr. chairman. wait a minute. >> mr. chairman, can i enter my bill? chair luttrell: without objection. rep. mcgarvey: thank you. as i said at the top of the hearing, it is truly my hope and my desire that we can work together to address any and all of the shortcomings at the v.a. with regard to this and any project. for example, captain mccormick, the idea that someone is falsely reported, we have to look up,

and 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 that when you look at what we are doing, talking about pre-existing laws, and those laws of the 1968 gun control act 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 under current law we keep them from going in purchasing a new firearm. it is just that this amendment would keep it from being reported to -- so there's a lot of work. the effort requires thoughtful analysis. policy makers, what we know and

what we don't know exactly about how it works. i want to again emphasize this is about veteran safety. we are not just talking about our veterans, we are talking about veterans come a very select subset 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 suicides than the normal veteran population. i want to advertise, mr. chairman, that everyone on our side stands ready to work with you and improving the programs and protect our veterans' health in a way that balances the need for treatment and protection of their rights. i yield back. chair luttrell: thank you, sir. to the members, once again, thank you for your service.

so my veterans in the committee room today, thank you for your service. we welcome myself and the committee, will break this down to parade rest. we will find where the problem exists, where the collision points are, we will make clarifications, and we will move legislation to ensure our veterans are treated like every other human being in this country, and they absolutely have those rights. i ask unanimous consent that all members have the right to have five legislative days to have remarks and extraneous materials. without objection, so order. adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indistinct conversations]

friday is the 52nd annual march for life rally in washington, d.c. the event will include house speaker mike johnson, florida governor ron desantis, and other pro-life advocates. watch the rally live from the national mall at noon eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video out, or online at c-span.org. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline pulled makes it easy to quicket