Ranking Member Takano's Opening Statement at Today's Full Committee Legislative Hearing

WASHINGTON, DC — Today House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Ranking Member Mark Takano (CA-39) delivered the following opening remarks, as prepared, at the start of the Full Committee Legislative Hearing to discuss concerns about the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 705) and how it could affect veterans suicide:

Thank you, Chairman Bost.  And thank you to all our witnesses for being here today.    

Speaking to H.R. 705, this bill is ill-conceived and unwarranted at best, and potentially dangerous to veterans and beneficiaries at worst. My Republican colleagues have once again eschewed evidence-based, data-driven policymaking and have instead embraced unnecessarily partisan legislating based on anecdote and soundbite. The title of the bill is a case in point. Being provocative from the start prevents us from having a real conversation about real and important policy – policy that saves lives. 

Republicans have failed to clearly identify or quantify the alleged problem they are attempting to address.  And they have yet to even figure out what their preferred statutory change is.  In fact, we have been told that the legislation we have before us today is not the version that will move to markup after this hearing. That version has yet to be seen and will not have been vetted by the Members of this Committee, VA, VSOs and other stakeholders prior to the proposed committee action next week.  So, it is clear that my colleagues have spurned any attempts at sincere bipartisan discussion on the issue at hand and have entrenched themselves in tired, and false, arguments about the rights of veterans somehow being at risk, when nothing could be further from the truth...   

First, I would like to address the idea that veterans are declining to seek mental healthcare for fear that VA will confiscate their firearms or prevent them from purchasing new ones.  I have no doubt whatsoever that this fear is real among veterans and does serve as an impediment to seeking care.  We have all heard that charge. However, the failure of my colleagues to condemn and counter the misinformation that leads to such a sentiment among veterans, is as infuriating as it is damaging. I know, as does everyone on this Committee and among the VSOs, that however real that fear is, it is also unfounded.   

Under no circumstances does VA ever confiscate anyone’s firearms. Let me be clear about this: Under no circumstances does VA ever confiscate anyone’s firearms. And seeking mental health care from the Veterans Health Administration will not result in your firearms being taken away. VA does not have legal authority to do so.  And only under a very discrete set of circumstances, for a very discrete population does the Veterans Benefits Administration report veterans to NICS. VHA never does.   

So, I ask my colleagues, and I ask the VSOs; what is your response to the veteran who expresses fear their firearms rights will be restricted?  Because if it is anything other than an unequivocal “that’s not true, go get help”, then you are perpetuating that stigma. And this bill traffics in that same disinformation, a deliberate attempt to scare veterans, which could do real harm.

Moreover, with respect to the protection of a beneficiary’s 2nd Amendment rights, there are no less than six avenues already available to a claimant for redress. How many more layers of government bureaucracy are my colleagues suggesting we add?  According to data from VA, most of those avenues for redress are not even widely used by claimants. In fact, in FY22, only 135 claimants out of roughly 22,000 who were newly assigned a fiduciary appealed the incompetency determination and only 33 sought relief from NICS reporting.  Adding more layers to this process is not necessary.  

A second argument I would like to address, is the charge that the claims adjudication process is inadequate to discern between those who require a fiduciary because they are “bad at math” and those who have a mental illness or condition that makes them a danger to themselves or others.  In many ways that distinction is immaterial.  But in general, it is clear the fiduciary process does serve as an adequate proxy determination for potential dangerousness.   

It is important to acknowledge that there are significant data gaps that exist related to the population of beneficiaries in the fiduciary program.  H.R. 705, by the way, addresses none of those data gaps which is one of its many flaws.  But here is some of what we do know… Among beneficiaries assigned a fiduciary because of a mental health condition, the most common conditions are as follows: 

• Schizophrenia – 36.5% 
• TBI – 31.2% 
• PTSD – 22.3% 
• Bipolar Disorder & Dementia – 10% 

Mr. Chairman, all these disorders are associated with elevated risk of dangerousness to self or others, suicide in particular, as are a host of other factors that are acutely concentrated in the veterans’ population.   

Moreover, we also know empirically that veterans who are found to have poor financial management abilities are also two times as likely to have substance use disorders, suicidal ideation, engage in violent behavior and be in the justice system.  So, drawing a distinction between those who simply cannot balance their checkbook and those who are more explicitly dangerous to themselves or others, is not warranted and in fact could cause more veterans to slip through the cracks.   

Mr. Chairman, suicide prevention has been VA’s highest clinical priority for years. It is a priority I share with countless others on this Committee and in the VSO community.  I am not questioning anyone’s sincerity in wanting to prevent veteran suicide.  But going back to data-driven, evidenced-based policy making, here is what we know for certain: 

• Firearms are used in over half of suicide attempts nationally. 
• Suicide attempts using firearms are lethal in over 85% of cases. 
• Firearms account for 70% of male veteran suicides and 50% of female veteran suicides. 
• Veterans are three times more likely to die by suicide than the general population. 

So, it begs the question; if we all care so deeply about preventing what is clearly an epidemic among veterans of death by suicide using a firearm, why would we pursue a bill, which addresses no clearly defined problem, the only clear result of which would be the removal of a safeguard that puts more guns, in more hands of the most vulnerable beneficiaries VA has?   

The answer, as I alluded to earlier, is simply this: politics.   

• Print
• Email
• Tweet