House Passes Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (216-201) and Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act (235-179); Rejects Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act (204-216)

The case for

Proponents, including Mr. Bost of Illinois, argued that the bill is about due process and protecting veterans' Second Amendment rights, ensuring they receive the same constitutional protections as non-veterans. They asserted that the previous VA policy of automatically reporting veterans with fiduciaries to NICS was discriminatory and based on the false assumption that financial incompetence equates to dangerousness. They highlighted that over 200,000 veterans were reported under this practice, with less than 800 successfully appealing, and emphasized that existing legal tools are available for judges to address legitimate threats. Mr. Van Orden of Wisconsin stated that many veterans avoid VA care due to fear of losing their Second Amendment rights. Mr. Clyde of Georgia noted that the VA's determination was often made by officials lacking adequate mental health training, not by a judge. Ms. Hageman of Wyoming stressed that the bill restores due process protections afforded to every other American citizen. Mr. Crank of Colorado argued that denying a right based on financial management is unconstitutional, comparing it to denying First Amendment rights. Ms. Boebert of Colorado stated that the Second Amendment is not optional for veterans who fought for the country's freedoms. Mr. Bost also noted broad support from various veterans' organizations and civil liberties groups, including the ACLU and NRA, for the bill.

The case against

Opponents, including Mr. Takano of California, argued that the bill puts politics above policy and endangers veterans' lives, particularly given the high rate of veteran suicide by firearms. They contended that VA decisions to assign fiduciaries are based on diagnoses of severe mental illness or injury, not just an inability to balance a checkbook, and that these conditions are associated with elevated risks of dangerousness to self and others. Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida stated that the current law helps protect veterans deemed mentally incapacitated from owning guns and potentially harming themselves, and that the bill would permanently tie the VA's hands. Ms. Morrison of Minnesota, a physician, emphasized that putting time and distance between a firearm and a person in a mental health crisis is essential, and that the bill lacks safeguards for veterans with severe impairments. Opponents also argued that the claim of veterans losing rights for seeking care is false, as the Veterans Health Administration has no role in NICS reporting, and that robust due process already exists for appeals. Mr. Takano also noted that the Department of Justice and VA have already unilaterally interpreted the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act not to apply to VA, rendering the bill's practical effect moot while continuing to spread misinformation.

The case for

Proponents, including Mr. Bost of Illinois and Mr. Barrett of Michigan, argued that the bill provides long-overdue, historic increases in benefits for catastrophically injured veterans and Gold Star families. They highlighted the stories of Sharri Briley, a Gold Star spouse, and Eric Edmundson, a severely brain-injured veteran, to illustrate the financial hardships faced by these families. They stated the bill would provide a $10,000 annual increase for severely disabled veterans and an additional 1.5 percent to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) over 2 years for survivors. They also emphasized the expansion of VA home loan eligibility to National Guard and Reserve members with at least 14 days of active duty. Proponents asserted the bill is fiscally responsible, fully paid for by extending current home loan fees and pension caps, and is supported by over 20 veterans service organizations.

The case against

Opponents, including Mr. Takano of California and Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida, expressed strong support for increasing benefits for catastrophically injured veterans and survivors, but vehemently opposed the bill's funding mechanism. They argued that the bill creates an "impossible choice" by raising costs on one set of veterans (through increased VA home loan fees) to pay for benefits for another. Mr. Takano pointed out that the proposed increase in refinancing fees (almost three times what was contemplated in 2020) would make homeownership and refinancing more expensive, especially for active-duty servicemembers and veterans facing record foreclosures. Ms. Wasserman Schultz called the pay-for a "triple fee increase" and a "flatout lie" that it was required, suggesting that Congress could waive paygo rules as it does for other spending. Opponents also noted that the bill's DIC increase is minimal compared to their proposed legislation (Caring for Survivors Act) which would raise benefits by 25 percent.

The case for

Proponents, including Mr. Steil of Wisconsin and Ms. Malliotakis of New York, argued that the bill is a necessary step to advance the construction of a long-overdue museum dedicated to the history of American women, especially as the nation approaches its 250th birthday. They emphasized the importance of honoring women's pivotal roles and contributions throughout U.S. history, from Rosie the Riveter to suffragists and code breakers. Ms. Malliotakis clarified that the bill provides more specific site designation than previous versions and that the provision allowing presidential alteration is a safeguard against unforeseen construction issues. She also defended the inclusion of "biological women" language as ensuring clarity for a women's museum and refuted claims of unilateral presidential control over the National Capital Planning Commission, noting the President only appoints 3 of 12 members. Ms. Lee of Florida stressed the importance of preserving women's stories for future generations, particularly her daughter, and highlighted historical Republican support for women's rights.

The case against

Opponents, including Mr. Morelle of New York, Mr. Takano of California, and Ms. Randall of Washington, expressed disappointment that the bill was politicized, departing from a previously bipartisan effort. They criticized the omission of the National Museum of the American Latino, which was originally paired with the women's museum. They strongly objected to the provision granting the President "unprecedented, unilateral, and unchecked authority" to designate an alternative site, arguing it undermines congressional intent and could lead to political interference in museum curation. They also condemned the insertion of language limiting the museum to "biological women," calling it an "ideological poison pill" intended to erase trans women from history and a "harmful provision." Mr. Morelle questioned why the bipartisan version of the bill, with 231 cosponsors, was not brought to the floor, and argued that the Smithsonian's experts, not politicians, should curate the museum.