Mike Bost

Mr. BOST

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Lieutenant Colonel Matthew A. Lamb, United States Marine Corps, a native of Connersville, Indiana, who is retiring after more than 25 years of faithful service to our Nation. Lieutenant Colonel Lamb enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve in May of 2000 as a field radio operator and deployed with the 5th Battalion, 11th Marines during Operation Iraqi Freedom, earning the Combat Action Ribbon. He commissioned in May of 2006 as an adjutant and later deployed to Kabul, Afghanistan, as a G-1 mentor to the 201st Corps of the Afghanistan National Army. Over the two decades, he commanded a recruit training company at MCRD San Diego and served in key staff billets at MCRD Paris Island, Headquarters Marine Corps, and the United States Marine Corps Forces South. He is a distinguished graduate of the Marine Corps Command and Staff College and holds a degree from the University of Indianapolis and Syracuse University. His final tour brought him to Capitol Hill as deputy director for House Affairs in the Marine Corps Office of Legislative Affairs, where he served as the Corps' principal interlocutor for the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I had the privilege of working with him directly. I wish him well in his retirement, and I thank him for his service. Semper Fidelis.

Mr. BOST

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1300, I call up the bill (H.R. 1041) to amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to the Department of Justice for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 1041, as amended.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, H.R. 1041, as amended, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. The choice before the House today is clear: whether those who defended our freedom deserve the same constitutional protection as nonveterans. This past February, President Trump and Secretary Collins answered that question with a resounding yes. VA overturned a longstanding policy of automatically reporting veterans and beneficiaries to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, also called NICS, simply because they needed help managing their VA benefits. VA reported them not because they committed a crime or because a judge or a medical professional determined they were a danger to themselves or others. VA reported them to NICS simply because they needed help managing their benefits. That was the policy for over three decades, Mr. Speaker. I have been working on this issue for 10 years because I know that this interpretation of the law is wrong. That is why I have long- championed this bill, as well as my bipartisan provision in this, the yearly VA appropriation bill, to prohibit VA's fiduciary program from reporting veterans' names to NICS. This is a bill about due process. Most importantly, it is about protecting our veterans' Second Amendment rights. It is time we put a permanent end to the practice of treating our veterans' Second Amendment rights as an option and pass H.R. 1041. This bill would codify the policy rider that was included in the MILCON appropriation bill that passed the House last week. As a veteran and sportsman, I believe it is a gross violation of due process to say that a veteran with a fiduciary should be treated as a second-class citizen. Our veterans raise their right hands to defend the constitutional rights of American citizens. I know because I was one of them, and I took that responsibility seriously. Yet, when the question came before our committee on whether it would defend their rights, Ranking Member Takano and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate fact that some Members in this Chamber plan to defend this discriminatory practice. Generally, a civilian cannot lose their Second Amendment rights without involvement from a judge, but veterans did for three decades. Democrats would prefer they continue to. A veteran goes to the VA to ask for help, and the VA bureaucracy answers ``yes,'' but only in exchange for your Second Amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, that is not due process. This is an antigun, antiveteran agenda. If a veteran poses a legitimate threat to themselves or others, judges already have legal tools available to them. Let me say that again. Judges already have legal tools available to them. A veteran should receive the same rights as every other American. There is also something else that I want to raise: the false assumption that disabled veterans are dangerous and the harmful assumption that the capacity to manage your finances has any bearing on dangerousness or that you are dangerous, as well. Those sorts of cartoon-like simplifications cause those with disabilities to face extra hurdles when exercising their rights. It is unacceptable, and, as a veteran, I am not going to stand for it anymore. There is no evidence that these veterans are more dangerous to themselves or others simply because they need help managing their benefits. Holding veterans to the evidence-less standard is outrageous. Frankly, it paints the veterans' mental health issues in a way that should concern everyone. Over 200,000 veterans were reported to the NICS list under this practice. Let me say it again: 200,000 veterans. Secretary Collins and President Trump worked with DOJ to change that, wiping the list clean. I want to be clear that no person, veteran or otherwise, reported to NICS by a State judge, law enforcement agency, or other reporting bodies for any other reason was removed. At committee markup, Democrats also offered amendment after amendment designed to delay and weaken this bill. They wanted more studies. Mr. Speaker, I am tired after 10 years of delays. Democrats want a system where veterans are presumed guilty and a system where veterans are forced to prove their innocence. In America, constitutional rights are God-granted rights. Veterans should never have to choose between assistance and preserving their constitutional rights, and veterans with disabilities should not be discriminated against. This Congress has a responsibility to protect veterans' rights just as fiercely as they protect any other American's rights. This Memorial Day, let us not just remember those veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice. Let us also remember the freedoms and the people who they sacrificed it for. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 1041, as amended, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran, I find this argument offensive, that veterans with fiduciaries are dangerous. This is simply not true. There is no evidence provided that veterans with fiduciaries are any more violent, suicidal, or dangerous than nonveterans. Yet, Democrats continue to push the idea that veterans who need help managing their finances should be treated as though they were presumed dangerous. Now, he can say that that is not the case, but there are over 200,000 people who would argue differently. Incompetence in financial ability is not and should not be something that should take away your Second Amendment right. Yes, veterans struggle with suicide and mental health greater than the rest of the population. Yes, those financial hardships often face negative thoughts, but the problem facing the veterans are separate and distinct. They deserve to be treated as such. That is why we have a VA that spans everything from healthcare to benefits. If someone is truly a danger to themselves or others, there are medical and legal professionals who can stand by and address these issues just like it is for those people who are nonveterans. H.R. 1041 does not change that fact. It simply dispels harmful stereotypes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden), my good friend, who has been a veteran who served beside veterans, his combat brothers and sisters, and knows what veterans face.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we should go ahead and listen to what was actually said whenever we said that they actually were having some mental problems, the issue where the ranking member actually said that we only take it away and then they have an appeals process, and that that appeals process is a great appeals process. Mr. Speaker, 240,000 veterans have had their rights taken away, and through the appeals process, less than 800 got them back--less than 800. He also said that some of them might not want to have their Second Amendment rights. There is nothing in our Constitution that forces you to use your Second Amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, constitutional rights do not become less important simply because ignoring them is convenient. In fact, moments like these are when the constitutional protection matters the most. My colleagues say we should respond with more studies. That is what they want, more studies. A peer-reviewed study is not standing for the rights granted to every American citizen of our Nation. Who should keep their rights more than the people who stood up and fought for them? Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen to what the previous speaker just said. She explained that if someone has a mental health condition or someone has these other concerns, that she would offer an amendment to that. However, let me explain to you that if we grant them their constitutional rights, Mr. Speaker, they already have that ability. They already have that ability and their constitutional rights would be treated exactly the same as a person that does not serve in the military and does not go to the VA. Someone can see that if they had a problem, then they could take and raise that before a judge, not before a bureaucrat. Let me explain this again. This is not about gun rights. This is not about dealing with our veterans that might commit suicide or anyone else that might commit suicide. This is about the constitutional right of a veteran who has fought for those rights that a bureaucrat has the power to take away their ability to have that Second Amendment, which is in the Constitution. Now, they might not agree with that Second Amendment and that has been debated here several times. But now to continue to carry on and use this law to take away the rights of people who fought for their rights, how ridiculous is that? How ridiculous is it going to be to go back for Memorial Day and tell their veterans, I was there for you. We took away your rights. I think that is ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank).

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, House Democrats claim that H.R. 1041, as amended, would harm vulnerable veterans. That is simply false, but just don't take my word for it. Organizations who represent millions of veterans and their families support this. In fact, the bill is supported by The American Legion, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, Mission Roll Call, the Black Veterans Empowerment Council. All of these groups, and countless others, veterans organizations across this Nation support this piece of legislation, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and many others. Why? It is because they understand that this is about the rights of the men and women who stood in the gap to make sure you can keep yours. This bill is also supported by Second Amendment groups, including: Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, the National Association for Gun Rights, the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Importantly, H.R. 1041, as amended, is supported by the civil liberties groups and organizations who advocate for the elderly and those with disabilities, including the American Civil Liberties Union, not necessarily a conservative group, the National Disability Rights Network, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Association of Mature American Citizens Action, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, and the Disability Rights, Education & Defense Fund. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree, and even Ranking Member Takano can admit that it is not every day that many of these groups come united together, especially probably the NRA and the ACLU. Their support shows how discriminatory the practice that the VA has been doing for over the last three decades has been by reporting to the next unit anyone who seeks fiduciary help from the VA. Mr. Speaker, most of the people who have spoken on the Democrat side of the aisle would carry other laws that would take away your Second Amendment right. Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing the gun law here, though I would. I am arguing the rights of our veterans for due process, the same as someone who never raised their hand. Why should someone have their rights improperly and without due process be taken away because they chose to stand up for this Nation? I am going to tell you this wasn't for political purposes. I have been carrying this bill for a long time. This weekend, you are going to have to go back to your districts, and you are going to have to talk about the fact that: I am there for you, my veterans. Thank you. I am there for you, but I don't think you are worth your constitutional rights, even though you served to defend them. Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that has wrongly occurred in this Nation for way too long. I thank the administration for getting it straightened out. We are not saying that someone that is a veteran and is a danger to themselves or a danger to other people can't go through the process like everybody else and say, okay, we do need to go ahead and look over their ability to have that Second Amendment right. That is why we have the NICS list. But whenever the NICS list is overburdened, matter of fact, with our veterans at the percentage that it is, something is wrong. Something is wrong. This bill has been a longtime coming. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from many of those organizations that I mentioned previously: The American Legion, National Disability Rights Network, National Rifle Association of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and American Civil Liberties Union. The American Legion, Office of the National Commander, Washington, DC, April 29, 2025. Hon. Mike Bost, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Bost: On behalf of the American Legion 1.5 million dues paying members, I write to express our full support for H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, as amended. This legislation is a necessary step toward restoring the constitutional rights of countless veterans who, despite having honorably served our nation, have been unjustly denied their Second Amendment rights. For far too long, veterans who required the assistance of a fiduciary for managing VA benefits--often due to physical or age-related issues--were reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without any due process or judicial review. These individuals were wrongfully categorized as mentally defective, not based on a court ruling, but simply on administrative decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs. H.R. 1041 corrects this miscarriage of justice by prohibiting the VA from transmitting personally identifiable information to the Department of Justice for inclusion in NICS unless a judge or magistrate has determined the individual to be a danger to themselves or others. This preserves the fundamental principle of due process--an essential safeguard for any constitutional right, especially one as central as the right to keep and bear arms. The bill rightly recognizes that being assigned a fiduciary does not equate to being a danger to oneself or others and therefore should not serve as grounds to restrict firearm ownership. Importantly, this legislation requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify the Attorney General that the basis for all prior reporting of veterans to NICS solely due to fiduciary status does not apply or no longer applies. This notification will, in turn, trigger the FBI to update the NICS database accordingly ensuring that those who were wrongfully reported will be removed. It is critical to note that veterans who are on the NICS list for other legitimate legal reasons, such as a state court finding dangerousness, will remain unaffected by this correction. This bill does not jeopardize public safety. Instead, it upholds the balance between protecting communities and respecting the rights of those who served our country with courage and sacrifice. The assumption that a veteran is incapable or dangerous simply because they require fiduciary assistance is not only unfounded--it is deeply disrespectful and discriminatory. We urge members of Congress to support and pass the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act to ensure that no veteran is stripped of their rights without a fair and impartial judicial process. For God and Country, James A. LaCoursiere, National Commander.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, my message to all Members is really clear: Support this bill. Support the constitutional rights of those people who fought for those constitutional rights for you. As I said, this has gone on long enough. I think that a person who knows and understands this issue will stand up for their veterans and support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOST

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1300, I call up the bill (H.R. 6047) to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the dollar amounts for the payment of certain disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation under the laws administered by the Secretary, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 6047, as amended.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6047, as amended, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, introduced by my friend and fellow veteran, Representative Tom Barrett. I will speak to you today about some of the great Americans this bill will impact. Sharri Briley is the survivor and spouse of Chief Warrant Officer 3 Donovan ``Bull'' Briley, an Army Special Operations pilot killed in 1993 in Somalia. Most Americans would be more familiar with the movie adaptation of that harrowing day, the film ``Black Hawk Down,'' but for Sharri Briley, this was not Hollywood. This was her husband and the father of her then-5-year-old daughter. Donovan gave his life in defense of freedom, the type of sacrifice we will commemorate on Memorial Day. This legislation would provide the first meaningful increase in survivor benefits for families like Brileys since 1993. Over 500,000 survivors like Sharri receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation from the VA. DIC is a monthly payment of $1,700 meant to help supplement lost income after a servicemember's death. It has only been adjusted for inflation over the last 30 years, but this bill would add an extra 1.5 percent to the DIC over the next 2 years. I also will discuss Sergeant Eric Edmundson. When Eric was 25, his vehicle was destroyed by an IED on the Syrian border. His spleen ruptured. His kneecap shattered. His spine fractured, and he sustained traumatic brain injury. For 30 minutes, Eric's heart stopped beating. Eric was transported to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to recover, but his injuries left him unable to walk or speak. For the past 20 years, his parents, Edgar and Bethany, and his wife, Stephanie, have been Eric's full-time caregivers, supporting Eric as they work together to raise Eric's two kids. Despite these injuries, his family has empowered him to live as full a life as possible--hunting, painting, spending time with his children, and going to church. As the Edmundson family recently wrote in an op-ed for Stars and Stripes: ``Two incomes vanished. The expenses multiplied. When a service-connected injury permanently removes earning capacity, the math doesn't bend for patriotism.'' This bill recognizes that and would provide a $10,000 increase to the 7,000 severely disabled veterans like Eric, many of whom require 24/7 around-the-clock professional medical care. Veterans like Eric receive the three highest tiers of disability compensation called R1, R2, and T. Many of these veterans will never work again and cannot perform basic tasks. Eric's family dedicate their lives making sure Eric, one of our Nation's most wounded soldiers, continues living with dignity. Mr. Speaker, this bill is for families like the Brileys and the Edmundsons. As the families put it in their recent op-ed, the circumstances are different, but the consequences are the same: ``The cost of military service does not end when the ceremony and the headlines fade. It echoes through decades--through college tuition bills, medical equipment invoices, mortgage payments, retirement plans that must be deferred or abandoned altogether.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the op-ed referred to published in Stars and Stripes. [From the Stars and Stripes, May 18, 2026] Congress Is Debating the Details. Our Military Families are Living the Consequences (By Sharri Briley and Edgar ``Ed'' Edmundson) One of us lost her husband, Army Chief Warrant Officer Donovan ``Bull'' Briley, when he was killed in action in Somalia in 1993. In a single moment, I became a Gold Star widow--raising our children while trying to build a future shaped by grief and the long financial shadow that follows permanent sacrifice. The folded flag did not close a chapter; it began a lifetime of responsibility. The other nearly lost his son. Eric Edmundson suffered a severe brain injury while serving in Iraq. He cannot walk. He cannot speak. He requires constant, round-the-clock care. He will never return to work--and his parents cashed in their retirement to care for him. Two incomes vanished. The expenses multiplied. When a service-connected injury permanently removes earning capacity, the math does not bend for patriotism. Our circumstances are different, but the consequence is the same: the cost of military service does not end when the ceremony and the headlines fade. It echoes through decades-- through college tuition bills, medical equipment invoices, mortgage payments and retirement plans that must be deferred or abandoned altogether. That is why the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2025 matters and why Congress must act. The legislation offers a long overdue increase in compensation for the most catastrophically wounded and ill veterans and offers a down payment on desperately needed increases to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for survivors. In plain terms, it would update benefits that have not kept pace with the true cost of severe injury or loss of life. As reported by Military Times, the proposal would add roughly $10,000 annually for veterans with the most severe disabilities and modestly increase monthly survivor benefits--an adjustment long overdue as living and care costs continue to rise. What is being considered in Washington may look like numbers on a page. To families like ours and so many other Americans, it is the difference between a road toward stability and a financial cliff. The impact of service is not confined to two households. A landmark Rand Corp. study estimates that 14.3 million Americans are caring for wounded, ill or injured service members and veterans. More than 500,000 Americans are navigating life as surviving spouses. The ripple effects of war extend far beyond the battlefield--and far beyond a single generation. For decades, compensation for the most catastrophically disabled veterans and survivor benefits have not been meaningfully adjusted to reflect modern realities. Catastrophic injury is permanent. Widowhood caused by war is permanent. The obligations do not shrink with time--they compound. Accessible housing must be maintained. Specialized equipment must be repaired or replaced. Therapy continues. Children grow up. Savings are stretched thin. None of this is abstract. It defines daily life. We recognize that lawmakers have a responsibility to examine how legislation is structured and funded. That scrutiny is part of governing. But delay is not neutral. Every year that passes without modernization forces those living with the most severe consequences of service to absorb costs that were never meant to be borne alone. This is not about comfort. It is about dignity. It is about ensuring that a veteran who cannot walk or speak can live with security. It is about ensuring that a surviving spouse can raise children without wondering whether gratitude from a nation will translate into financial stability. We are grateful--for survival, for sacrifice, for the honor of loving those who served. But gratitude does not pay a mortgage. It does not fund adaptive equipment. It does not replace lost earning power. Service members are not wounded as Republicans or Democrats. They are wounded as Americans. The promise to care for them--and for those who live with the lifelong consequences of their service--should rise above party lines just as clearly. This legislation now stands before leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives. The question is not whether the need exists--it does. The question is whether Congress will act with the urgency that lifelong sacrifice demands. Because the financial cliff facing those most profoundly affected by war--like our families--is not rhetorical. And once stability is lost, rebuilding can take years, if it is possible at all. Our loved ones answered the call without hesitation. It is time for our leaders to do the same--not with speeches, but with action that honors veterans, survivors and the enduring cost of service. It is time for Congress to pass the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2025.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, this bill would also expand VA home loan eligibility to members of the National Guard and Reserve who have at least 14 days of Active-Duty service at a 1 percent higher rate. Today's Guard and Reserve deploy along Active-Duty servicemembers. They deserve a broader access to VA homeownership opportunities, as well. Mr. Speaker, I also will address the offsets in this legislation because there has been a great deal of misinformation surrounding them. The fact is that House Republicans chose to follow the House rules and the law. We fully paid for this legislation so that we could get this bill done because promises made to veterans should be promises Congress can keep and not show votes or fake outrage to get clicks and votes. Now, let me be clear about what this bill will not do. This bill will not eliminate or harm the VA Home Loan Program. It would also not impose a loan fee on any disabled veteran, and it would not eliminate zero percent down on a VA home loan. Instead, this bill contains two bipartisan offsets that would extend current home loan fees and would extend the current cap on certain veterans' pensions who are in government-funded nursing care. It also increases the home loan funding fee that families would pay when refinancing by a small amount. During the 116th Congress, then-Chairman Takano supported and voted in favor of a similar funding fee proposal on refinancing VA home loans. I find the arguments against our similar proposal today insincere. It reeks of the type of politics our veterans don't deserve. Mr. Speaker, I am a veteran. If I thought that this bill would harm veterans, you can trust I would not bring the bill to the floor. But, as the saying goes, don't take my word for it, because over 22 veterans service organizations support this legislation as written. Let me repeat: The veterans groups like the VFW, The American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, and many others support the bill. These organizations represent millions of veterans and military families who support this legislation because they know these families cannot afford to wait another decade for Congress to act. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a joint letter from 20 veterans organizations supporting the bill. February 9, 2026. Hon. Mike Bost, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Mark Takano, Ranking Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman & Ranking Member: As the second session of the 119th Congress begins and the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs continues its work providing for the needs of our nation's ill and injured veterans, their caregivers, and survivors, we write to share our strong support for the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act. As you proceed with discussions around this bill, we urge you to remember those with whom the bill is intended to help--veterans with the profoundest of injuries and the survivors who have lost their loved ones. Provisions in this important legislation would increase the amount of Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) by $10,000 annually for the most severely disabled veterans and raise the rate of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) by a total of 1.5 percent over a period of two years for the surviving family members of deceased servicemembers and veterans. SMC is arguably the most important ancillary benefit for veterans with severe, service-connected disabilities. To be clear, given the extreme nature of the disabilities incurred by most veterans in receipt of SMC, we do not believe that the impact on quality of life can be totally compensated for; however, SMC does at least provide these veterans an opportunity to have the financial resources to accommodate their individual needs. DIC is intended to protect against survivor impoverishment after the death of a service-connected veteran. These monthly payments were intended to provide surviving spouses with the means to maintain some semblance of economic stability after the loss of their loved one. DIC is also an indemnity payment from the government for the loss of life. Unfortunately, without an immediate increase, many survivors who, in many cases were once caregivers, face a financial cliff with catastrophic results. This legislation represents an initial downpayment on what is truly owed to veterans' survivors, and we are committed to continuing to work to bring DIC in parity with other federal survivor benefits. Congress established the baseline rates for these crucial programs decades ago and updating them is long overdue. The time to act is now. For decades, the veteran community has urged Congress to strengthen these critical support programs and increasing SMC and DIC would be the first step in helping our most severely disabled and their survivors. Passing this important legislation will provide critical relief to these communities and we look forward to your swift action. Sincerely, Paralyzed Veterans of America; Elizabeth Dole Foundation; Wounded Warrior Project; Disabled American Veterans; Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors; Military Officers Association of America; Jewish War Veterans of the USA; Vietnam Veterans Association; Quality of Life Foundation; Gold Star Wives of America, Inc; Commissioned Officers Association of the USPHS; AMVETS; The Independence Fund; Military Order of the Purple Heart; Blinded Veterans Association; Fleet Reserve Association; Marine Corps League; Gold Star Spouses of America; Armed Forces Retiree Association.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, additionally, I include in the Record a joint letter from ROA, MCRA, and EANGUS in support of expanding VA home loan programs to include Guard and Reserve members with 14 days of Active Duty. January 13, 2026. Hon. Tom Barrett, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Barrett: On behalf of the members represented by our respective organizations, thank you for your leadership in offering the Home Affordability for Guard and Reserve Act as an amendment to H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2025. This amendment expands VA home loan eligibility to Reserve and National Guard servicemembers who are currently ineligible under law. Specifically, it broadens the definition of ``active duty'' to include qualifying service under Title 10, Title 14, and Title 32 orders, as well as training duties, and applies retroactively to service performed on or after September 11, 2001. Further, eligible individuals who have completed at least 14 days of qualifying service and remain in the Reserve or National Guard may access VA home loans, subject to an additional 1 percent funding fee. Our organizations support this amendment. However, if the broader package does not advance, we urge you to move your amendment forward under regular order as a standalone measure. At the same time, we reaffirm our longstanding support for provisions that guarantee equal fees for all servicemembers. Introducing different fee structures based on component or category of service risks creating inequities and discrimination within the program. Accordingly, we urge a thorough review of the proposed additional fee in Section 3 of the amendment, along with the broader fee adjustments in the bill, to evaluate their impact on the VA home loan program's purchasing power, solvency, and the break-even horizon for veterans when refinancing. Without such scrutiny, these changes risk diminishing the program's affordability and pricing out the very servicemembers it was designed to support. Should the review conclude that these adjustments make housing under the program unaffordable or significantly extend the break-even horizon in a way that compromises the program's intended flexibility, we strongly recommend reconsideration and appropriate corrective action. Thank you again, Congressman, for your leadership. We appreciate your attention to these concerns and stand ready to assist in moving this amendment forward. Respectfully, John B. Hashem, Major General, USA Retired, Executive Director, Reserve Organization of America. Paul K. Hopper, Colonel, USMC Retired, National President, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Association. John D. Gipe, Command Sergeant Major, USA Retired, Executive Director, Enlisted Association of the National Guard.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, veterans deserve more than speeches. They deserve results. If you support these benefit increases, then you need a serious plan to pay for them, because simply saying that someone else will figure it out later, that is not real leadership. Mr. Speaker, this bill comes down to a simple question: When America sends our soldiers off to war, the result sometimes is life-changing injuries, grieving spouses, and full-time caregivers. Will this country stand behind them later in the years? Again, I ask my Democrat colleagues: If veteran groups support the bill, then why in the world don't you? Mr. Edgar Edmundson testified before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and he asked Congress to stop the politics and get this done. Mr. Speaker, families like the Edmundsons and the Brileys deal with the reality most Americans never see. The Brileys answered the call to serve. The Edmundsons answered the call to serve. Now, Congress must answer their call. This legislation, these families, and the thousands of families like them, we have your back. It is a distinct honor to advance this bill just before Memorial Day. I urge all Members to support H.R. 6047. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate my colleagues for suddenly wanting to be fiscally responsible, I do not appreciate my colleagues implying that the home loan funding fee as an offset is unnecessary or inappropriate. Finding a way to pay for expenditures and benefits is not an option. It is a requirement. May I remind my colleagues and Ranking Member Takano that he has supported dozens of bills that contain the home loan funding fee. My colleague has also submitted a manager's amendment on the floor to increase fees for refinancing loans in the 116th Congress. While the offer used by the ranking member only increased fees, refinancing loans by 0.5 percent and 0.85 percent, and was only a temporary increase, the concept still remains the same. This legislative body has long understood that fiscal responsibility is not separated from caring for our veterans and their survivors. It is part of that responsibility. The House has repeatedly relied on adjustments to the VA home loan funding fee to pay for veterans' benefits expansions. Members on both sides of the aisle have voted for that approach many times. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I don't just pay lipservice to the veterans and survivors who we serve. I get things done for them. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if my colleagues across the aisle would stop caring about political wins and focus on getting a win for the most deserving population of veterans and surviving spouses, so let's get the bill paid for and across the finish line. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barrett), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find it deeply disingenuous for some of my colleagues to suggest Republicans are willing to pay for war but unwilling to pay for veterans. As chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am closely aware of the true cost of war. We see it in disability compensation, in survivor benefits, in prosthetics, in mental health care, and in long- term care of catastrophically disabled veterans. Those costs exist because brave men and women answered the Nation's call and came home carrying the physical and invisible wounds of war. The VA budget continues to grow because America continues to honor the promises made for those who serve. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden), my good friend, who knows and understands what it is like to stand in the gap for the rights of this Nation.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate earlier in the debate the interest rate reduction and refinancing loans. That was all brought up, and I appreciate my colleague's comments on the interest rate reduction and refinancing loans. I would also like to make it known that the ranking member is correct that he has not had legislation to increase the rates to the level that this bill is intending to do. However, during the 116th Congress, the ranking member proposed an amendment to the bill on the floor that would have increased the same refinancing piece we are discussing today. Now, although the rate may not be the same, the concept is the same. I note that the small increase reference piece is the only change that we make after the mark-up version of this bill, which has been done, and that is to cover the cost incurred by expanding the VA home loan program to the National Guard and Reserve, which they wanted, by the way. The ranking member is making this partisan when it does not need to be. Instead of focusing on the delivery and an increase to the veterans and surviving spouses, those people who the VA really is focused on taking care of, regardless of who authored the bill, the ranking member has chosen to turn it into a political exercise, and I wonder why. Earlier in a discussion on the committee's future, the Ranking Member Takano himself stated: We want our gavel back. That is what it is about. The statement speaks for itself. This bill is not about committee gavels. This is not about partisan advantage. It is about thousands of American families who have waited long enough for the VA benefits to increase. My fellow GOP colleagues and I are fighting for them, not the gavel. There are 22 veterans service organizations that agree with this. Mr. Speaker, you have heard from my colleagues on this side of the aisle. Two of them were veterans. I am a veteran. Why do we agree with it? It is because we understand. We also understand the rules of the House. With no disrespect for the ranking member and the other people who spoke, they never raised their hands. We did. We are asking to help those who need the help, and this is the way to do it today. In the future, if we want to increase it and we want to work towards a larger amount, which I believe they deserve, both of the groups that are mentioned in this, the families who survived and those who have received the most heinous and most difficult wounds that they have to suffer through the rest of their lives, then we will do that, but this is the bill before us today. I am going to say this, and I will say it to the Members on the other side of the aisle: If you want to go home on Memorial Day weekend and go out there and stand in the parade and tell everybody how great you are for our veterans and vote ``no'' on this, you had better think about it. You had better think about it. I am going to tell the other side; the veterans and their voices here have spoken. They want this bill. Mr. Speaker, if they choose to vote ``no,'' then they can answer to those veterans. I am going to stand for them. I am going to stand for them because I am a grandson of a veteran; a son of a veteran; a nephew of a veteran, who had to have a lot of these services that we deal with in the VA; a son who still serves; a grandson who is going to have to receive some of these benefits; and another grandson who is serving at this time. I don't know what his career is going to be in the field, but it is possible that he could have to have this support too. Is it personal to me? You bet it is, Mr. Speaker. This is an important bill. It is important to the families who receive these benefits. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOST

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3482) to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish an online program through which an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs may schedule an appointment for a covered veteran with a non- Department health care provider under the Veterans Community Care Program, and for other purposes, as amended.