Mark Takano

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in cautious--I emphasize cautious--support for H.R. 3494, the VA Hospital Inventory Management System Authorization Act, as amended. Throughout my time on this committee, I have seen the importance and necessity of an accessible and efficient supply chain system. Without these tools, hospitals remain ill-equipped to handle demand. This became painfully evident during the COVID-19 pandemic when VA facilities were forced to use Excel spreadsheets to report PPE inventory up to the central office. VA patients and providers deserve a modernized supply chain, and it has yet to be proven that VA has the capacity to provide this solution. I emphasize this has occurred, regardless of which party was in charge of the Department. After a canceled procurement effort last year, VA has told us that it plans to restart its supply chain modernization effort for a fifth time. As far as I can tell, they have not done much of the work needed to avoid making the same expensive mistakes again. Representative Kiggans' bill in its introduced form would have authorized tens of millions of dollars to VA for a pilot on a program VA does not even yet have a plan for. That is millions of dollars to the Department simply with the hope that VA was ready to get it right this time. However, I am glad my Republican colleagues chose to incorporate critical accountability measures initially proposed by my colleague, Representative Nikki Budzinski, for consideration on the floor today after these measures were voted down on party lines in our most recent committee markup. With the help of committee Democrats, this bill will now ensure that the Department has critical measures in place before it embarks on implementing the untested and unproven pilot program this bill authorizes. Representative Budzinski's input requires that VA develop a comprehensive strategy for its supply chain program, a cost estimate and implementation schedule, reports on VA's internal staffing levels after support workforces were heavily depleted by the Deferred Resignation Program and other attrition, and an assessment of its recent failures in this modernization effort. These updates represent just the most basic levels of oversight and planning that VA should have done once it decided to restart this modernization effort. I am glad my Republican colleagues are joining us in pushing for the Department to conduct these necessary assessments and plans before overhauling such an important program as supply chain management. I also applaud Representative Budzinski for inserting these commonsense checks into this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 3494, the VA Hospital Inventory Management System Act, as amended. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 4446, the Focused Assistance and Skills Training for Veterans' Employment and Transition Success, or FAST VETS Act. Introduced by Veterans' Affairs Committee member Representative Dexter, the VA Veterans Readiness and Employment, or VR&E program, is perhaps the greatest resource disabled veterans have to seek a new career path, but veterans are dealing with historic wait times due to program popularity and expanded eligibility under the PACT Act. I respectfully disagree with how the chairman has framed the VR&E program and its shortcomings, but let me just proceed to the virtues of this bill. The program is incredibly important for disabled veterans because it provides a comprehensive, individualized pathway to overcome employment barriers caused by service-connected disabilities, but with wait times weeks, or even months in some areas of the country, veterans risk missing out on the program's benefits. Representative Dexter's bill would make it easier for veterans to find employment while in the program and to graduate faster from the program, freeing up counselors at VA to assist the next class of disabled veterans seeking a new career. One of the primary goals of the PACT Act was to recognize the sacrifice of so many more veterans who were injured during their time serving our Nation and to make them eligible for many of the programs offered to help them find meaningful employment such as VR&E. Now the VR&E program must keep pace with this new influx of veterans and ensure that it is meeting their needs. I thank Representative Dexter for her work on this bill, and I know she is already at work on additional solutions for the program, such as measures to maintain and support the staff at VA tasked with carrying out the program. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House and Senate as well to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter), who is the author of H.R. 4446 and who serves on our Health Subcommittee and our Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee.

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my good friend from the State of Oregon on what will become the passage of her first bill. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers. In closing, I ask my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 4446, the FAST VETS Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, Americans understand that trans people do exist and that transgender servicemembers have served our country with distinction and honor for almost a decade. They were able to do this openly. Yet, this amendment seeks to erase the existence of transgender people, whether they are servicemembers or DOD employees, by prohibiting the Secretary of Defense from collecting information about gender identity on any form or survey. Let me be clear: Trans people do exist, and their experiences matter. Nondiscrimination and inclusion are core American values. This amendment is about exclusion and erasure. Collecting data on the experiences of transgender people at the Department of Defense is critical to addressing the challenges the community faces. Every person who steps up to serve our Nation in uniform, including trans people, should be treated with the utmost respect. These servicemembers have continuously shown that they are fit, qualified, and willing to serve. This amendment would create real obstacles for transgender people by requiring DOD systems to list the wrong gender for transgender people. Discrepancies between these systems and trans people's legal documents will cause a host of issues, including complicating background checks. This administration is already forcing transgender servicemembers out of the military just because of who they are. The Americans I know honor everyone who has the courage to serve. They do not support kicking people out of the military, people we have invested time and millions of dollars in training into, just to score political points. Trump's trans military ban is cruel and shameful. Now, Republicans want to add insult to injury and try to erase trans servicemembers' existence with this amendment. Enough is enough. I am proud to stand before this Chamber and support all of our servicemembers. I will make it clear to every trans servicemember currently in the process of being forced out by this administration: My Democratic colleagues in Congress and I value your sacrifices and service to our Nation. We are, and will keep, fighting for you because you have put your life on the line for America. You deserve the same rights and treatment as every other servicemember. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Simon), my colleague.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall).

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why my colleagues across the aisle are so triggered, triggered by a piece of cloth. Yet, here we are for the third year in a row voting to ban the Pride flag from spaces at the Department of Defense. Nearly half of the House Republicans' fiscal year 2026 appropriation bills include bans on the Pride flag as well. I don't know what they think this flag does. The Pride flag did not make me gay, and it will not make DOD employees gay either. What displaying a Pride flag does do, however, is send an important signal to LGBTQI+ people that they belong. Our Department of Defense, what does it exist for but to defend America, to defend all Americans, to defend the dignity, rights, and freedom of all Americans? What the flag does do is send an important signal that LGBTQI+ people belong. Displaying Pride flags is a way for servicemembers and DOD civilian employees to show that they are committed to creating and affirming an inclusive environment for LGBTQI+ people or a way to celebrate their own identity. It does not indicate to exclude anybody else for what they may believe in. At a time when the LGBTQI+ community is under attack, displaying a Pride flag is especially important. It is particularly offensive that Republicans are seeking to ban this flag at DOD, given that one of the earliest Pride flags was created by a former U.S. military officer, Gilbert Baker. Mr. Chairman, I believe the American people are fair and they support inclusion. I think they view amendments like this one, dictating to Federal employees and troops what flags they can have at their workstations, as both ridiculous and extreme government overreach. We should be focused on strengthening our military readiness, not censoring the LGBTQI+ community and our allies. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, let me just say that I don't understand why-- to acknowledge and to allow a flag to be displayed in a workstation or to be flown during Pride month in certain areas--the other side believes that LGBTQ+ people are such a threat to recognize their service in the military. We are a country of inclusion. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave. That should include all of us. There is no reason we should think that the fact that we had a policy of inclusion and that we had Pride flags at the Department of Defense was the reason why we were falling short of our recruitment goals. There was something else going on there. This is all crazy talk, and that is why I think more and more Americans think it is the Republican Party that has gone too far with its very extreme views about LGBTQIA+ people and defense. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, for yielding. I thank him and the CPC for organizing this very important Special Order hour. Next month marks 80 years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These were the only times nuclear weapons have ever been used in war. I have to say that this memorial, this memory, this 80th anniversary milestone is not just historical, it is somewhat personal and unexpectedly so, say, beginning in 2001, 2002 when at the age of 40, 41 I made my first visit to Japan. I grew up as an American, a Japanese American. One of my grandparents, my only grandparent, my grandfather, Isao Takano, immigrated to the United States around 1916. He was born in 1898 in Japan, and he came from the environs of Hiroshima. Growing up, we would go to his niece, my second cousin or I don't know how to kind of appropriate the right sort of familial designation of who is a cousin, a second cousin, but Kikue Takagi was my grandfather's niece who married an American and lived in Anaheim and worked at Disneyland. We knew some facts, but we never in our times when we would get together for our family gatherings would we ever discuss what happened in Hiroshima. It wasn't until I was well into my adulthood on my first trip to Japan visiting Hiroshima and visiting Kikue, who was there taking care of her mother, that I learned that she was a ``survivor''; ``Hibakusha,'' that is the Japanese word for survivor, of the atom bomb. She lived in the outskirts of Hiroshima. If you have been there, it is mountainous. It is a place, a delta, with five different rivers converging, and she lived in the outskirts. She was a middle school student. On the day that the bomb dropped, she was still ill, so much so that her mother said she didn't need to go into the city center to do her public service work. The middle schoolchildren were needed to clean up the debris of the area around the downtown of Hiroshima. They were doing an urban renewal project to widen the streets. They knew, the people of Hiroshima, the political class knew that Hiroshima was a target because it was an industrial city. But little did they know that the teachers, the middle schoolteachers and the 13- year-olds who were there at the city center doing this public service work were all going to perish that day. My cousin survived because she stayed home at the behest of her mother. She had not visited any of the memorials until I had arrived in the early 2000s. And I felt a tinge of guilt for asking her to do this because she had never really sort of delved into this history by visiting the memorial museum. Riding over the bridge of one of the rivers to the museum the day that Kikue and I decided to go, she told me about how the river was not visible during the day that the bomb was dropped and the days afterward because of the number of bodies that just covered the surface of that water. When you arrive at the memorial location, you can see bottles of water that many people who attend these memorials will leave for the thirsty souls of those who perished and those who were thirsty from the August heat. I feel a deep obligation and responsibility to carry this memory forward. I remember as I crossed the bridge thinking to myself how I was personally connected by family to this historical event, that it was not something abstract. It was a moment that who I was, my identity, somewhat shifted and changed. More than 200,000 people were killed, most of them civilians. Some died instantly. Others suffered for months or years from burns, radiation, and grief. Mr. Speaker, 80 years after the erasure of two cities we have still not learned the lessons of these terrible bombings. There are an estimated 13,400 nuclear warheads on Earth today. The United States and Russia hold more than 90 percent of them. Together, we control more than 12,000 warheads, and that is more than enough to end human civilization. While the United States and Russia maintain the largest stockpiles, China is rapidly building. According to the Department of Defense, China's arsenal already has 500 operational warheads, and if current trends continue, it could surpass 1,000 by the year 2030. This growth adds to global instability and makes the case for urgent diplomacy and arms control even stronger. Yet, the most important arms control treaty still in force between the United States and Russia is set to expire in less than 200 days. If we let the New START Treaty expire, we will be left with no legal limits on the size of the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world. At the same time, we are seeing headlines about strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. These actions revive a dangerous question: Can we stop the spread of nuclear weapons through military force? I believe the answer is no. We cannot destroy knowledge with a bomb. We cannot erase a nuclear program by targeting one facility. Strikes might delay a program, but they almost always provoke retaliation and harden resolve. They do nothing to build the kind of long-term trust and transparency that actually reduces nuclear risk. That is why we need a strategy based on diplomacy, prevention, and protection. We know that this strategy can work because it did in the past. Iran's nuclear weapons program development ground to a halt under the Iran nuclear deal. It was only after President Trump ripped up the accord that Iran set itself on the pathway that it is on today. The recent strikes reinforce the military theocracy's paranoia that the only pathway to secure the regime's long-term survival is through the development of a nuclear program. Like I said before, if a nation has enough willpower and know-how, they will develop a nuclear weapon. That means that the United States' national security cannot solely rest on deterrence. We should lead by example. That means modernizing verification tools, supporting the international inspectors, and investing in the diplomatic capacity to negotiate real agreements. It also means rethinking how we can make decisions about the use of nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a role to play. We cannot stay silent while the risks grow and the guardrails fall away. The American people deserve transparency about how nuclear launch decisions are made and who is involved in making them. This is not just a matter of policy. It is a matter of survival. Mr. Speaker, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not mere tragedies. They were warnings. The people who died there cannot speak for themselves, but we can speak for the future they were denied. We can choose a path that avoids repeating the worst mistake in human history. Let us honor the lives lost not only with remembrance but with responsibility. Let's choose diplomacy over destruction, prevention over provocation, and peace over peril. Let me return back to that scene of riding over that bridge over the river with my cousin Kikue and the thought that I had that every world leader who has some control over a nuclear arsenal should make a commitment to visit Hiroshima, to walk the grounds and understand what happened there and in Nagasaki. I think that is the only way that one has the moral stature and authority to be a leader of a country that has a nuclear arsenal.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2625, the Veterans Employment Readiness Yield Act of 2025 introduced by my good friend Representative Don Davis. The Veteran Readiness and Employment program, or VR&E, offers vital services to help veterans and servicemembers with service-connected disabilities and those determined to have an employment handicap prepare for, find, and maintain suitable employment or live more independently. This bill would replace the terms ``employment handicap'' and ``serious employment handicap'' with ``employment barrier'' and ``serious employment barrier.'' Historically, the term ``handicap'' has been associated with disadvantage or burden, which does not accurately reflect our veteran population. By making this change, we acknowledge the challenges that veterans with service-connected disabilities often face in the job market. Eliminating the stigma associated with these disabilities will encourage more veterans to participate in the VR&E program, ultimately assisting them in preparing for and securing meaningful employment. The Department of Veterans Affairs requested this change, which has bipartisan support and incurs no cost. I thank Mr. Davis for his work on veterans' issues during his time in Congress. I am proud of his work to open doors at the VA for more veterans so they may access the benefits they have earned through their service. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Davis), my good friend who currently serves on the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Agriculture, the sponsor of H.R. 2625.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, we passed this bill in the House last Congress, only for the Senate to run out of time. I am hopeful that this year the Senate acts quickly to send this bill directly to the President's desk. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2625, the Veterans Employment Readiness Yield Act of 2025, and I urge all my colleagues to support it, as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, openness and transparency in the budgeting process are crucial to enabling Members of Congress to exercise our constitutional power of the purse, conducting proper oversight and ensuring that we are good stewards of the taxpayers' money. That is why I have been extremely frustrated by the lack of budget information put forward by the current administration. Just this week, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in a statement that was both insulting and condescending, said that ``it wasn't in our interest'' to release a full budget plan to the American people. Yet, we have not heard a peep of objection from my colleagues across the aisle, not even a hint that they might rise from their knees after having been browbeaten by this administration time and time again, and stand up for the constitutional prerogatives of the United States Congress, a coequal branch of government. In the context of this bill, which was proposed to demand more budget information, it is confounding. Nevertheless, here we are. To understand why we are considering this bill at this moment, we have to go back to last Congress and the end of the Biden administration. In mid-July 2024, the VA informed the committee of expected funding shortfalls for the Veterans Benefits Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. At the time, VBA was facing a projected shortfall of $2.9 billion for fiscal year 2024, and VHA was facing a potential shortfall of $12 billion for fiscal year 2025. Now, out of an abundance of caution and to ensure veterans' benefits weren't disrupted, Congress quickly passed H.R. 9468, the Veterans Benefits Continuity and Accountability Supplemental Appropriations Act, which provided VBA with additional funding of roughly $2.9 billion. The bill also included accountability measures that required additional reporting by the Secretary and an inspector general review of the circumstances surrounding the projected shortfalls. A few weeks later, on October 30, 2024, VA notified the committee that it had reviewed its calculations at the conclusion of fiscal year 2024 and determined that it would not have experienced a shortfall at VBA, and, in fact, had carryover funding in addition to the funding provided by the supplemental. VA also determined at the close of fiscal year 2024 that its projected budget shortfall in fiscal year 2025 for VHA would not be as significant as originally projected in July. Its revised estimate for the fiscal year 2025 shortfall provided on Monday, November 25, 2024, was $6.6 billion, much less than originally projected. This was largely because of higher than expected carryover and extreme belt-tightening at local VA clinics and hospitals. However, here is where paths diverge. In the wake of the passage of H.R. 9468, both VA's Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office conducted and released their respective reports on the circumstances surrounding these real and projected shortfalls. These reports though have become a bit of an inkblot test. Where I and my Democratic colleagues see an accounting process that could be improved, as all processes can be, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle see criminal behavior and a malicious intent to deceive Congress and scare veterans. I encourage the public to read these reports and judge for themselves. In one of the most egregious and politically naked overreactions I have seen in some time, the chairman sent a letter to the Department of Justice urging the Attorney General to investigate three former Biden administration officials for criminal wrongdoing in handling last year's budget shortfall. To say the least, I was shocked by this letter. We thoroughly addressed VA budget issues last year, and neither the inspector general nor GAO found any evidence of criminal wrongdoing--none, Mr. Speaker. So why call on Trump's Attorney General to revisit it? The answer seems very clear to me: political payback. This was a spurious attempt to tarnish the reputations of officials who led one of the most successful periods in VA history, marked by high veteran satisfaction, strong performance, and the largest expansion of veterans' benefits ever, by way of the PACT Act. Rather than hold President Trump and Secretary Collins accountable for the ongoing decline at VA over the last several months, my colleagues pushed a baseless investigation, a clear distraction meant to deflect from the damage being done under their watch. Nevertheless, more information is always better. As I said, we should demand transparency from whatever administration is in charge. While I find the impetus behind this bill to be retaliatory in nature, I do agree with my majority colleagues that the Trump administration budget formulation and execution process warrants scrutiny. Secretary Collins has already broken the law by redirecting funds without congressional approval. I worry that the trend will continue over the next few years. I hope my colleagues will join me in rigorous oversight of the Trump administration's approach to VA's budget. There are two other provisions in this bill I would like to discuss very briefly. This legislation would codify the Veterans Experience Office, or VEO, which was first established during the Obama administration. I appreciate that the Senate incorporated changes we had suggested to their text that would strengthen the functions of VEO so that it serves as an office truly focused on improving the veteran experience with data-driven approaches. Additionally, in the Honoring our PACT Act, Congress authorized VA to utilize critical skills incentives to attract and retain the workforce it needed to implement the largest expansion of veteran benefits in recent history. While use of those incentives has been overwhelmingly successful, VA did make some initial missteps in oversight and utilization of the awards for senior executives. These missteps were corrected during the last administration. Despite what my colleague says about investigations, the administration was quite forthcoming and transparent about those missteps. The language in this legislation would tighten the circumstances under which critical skills incentives can be used to retain high-level VA employees. While I am generally supportive of this additional oversight to ensure these awards are being used appropriately, I continue to be concerned with Secretary Collins' ability to recruit and retain the top-level talent we need for caring for veterans at VA. Earlier this month, Secretary Collins celebrated, celebrated that 30,000 VA employees will be departing the agency by the end of this fiscal year under his tenure. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? The head of an organization was patting themselves on the back for making their organization so toxic that nearly 10 percent of their workforce quits? This is something to be proud of? It is unconscionable. What is worse are the absurd assertions that veterans won't be negatively affected by such drastic reductions. There is simply no way that the delivery of veteran care and benefits will not be affected by Secretary Collins' continued efforts to demonize and demoralize the VA workforce. Again, I am pleased to see that with this bill my colleagues have finally decided to demand transparency from this administration. I wait with bated breath for their reaction when the White House simply chooses to ignore it, as they have repeatedly done with this Congress. My suspicion is that we will continue to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle hide in fear of their master, but I would love to be proven wrong. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 201, the ACES Act of 2025, offered by Senator Mark Kelly. Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking all of those who helped to get this bill to this point. Among others, I am deeply appreciative of the Military Aviator Coalition for Health and their leadership in advocating for this issue. I also thank my colleagues across the aisle, especially Representative Pfluger, the lead sponsor of the House version of this bill, for acknowledging the urgent need to address the alarming rates of aviator cancers. Mr. Speaker, this isn't a partisan issue. It is about doing right by those who served. Sadly, since we passed the House version of the bill, we have lost more aviators to cancer. The urgency here is undeniable. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer. It is abundantly clear that we must investigate and pinpoint what is driving the illnesses among this population and develop a long- term strategy for early detection and treatment before a cancer has reached stage III or stage IV, before it is too late. Members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs have often spoken of the incredible legacy of the Nation's military aviators, true experts who dedicate their lives to serving and protecting our country. We also heard heartbreaking stories of what happens when they come home, often looking healthy, only to be blindsided by a late-stage cancer diagnosis and a bleak outlook. In fact, just a few short days ago, at a roundtable I hosted, we heard directly from veterans, caregivers, and survivors about the profound toll that this takes. We are talking about individuals in peak physical condition who are running marathons, lifting weights, and acing physical readiness tests, only to be stopped in their tracks by cancer. This is a story that is tragically far too common in the aviation community and the broader veteran population, as well. We accomplished a monumental task in the 117th Congress with the Honoring our PACT Act, but we must continue to fight for military aviators and countless others who have been exposed to a litany of toxins and hazards during their service. The ACES Act is a step in the right direction. It is not the fix-all. It is not the end of the journey. It is a start of one, just like the Honoring our PACT Act was. I will say that I am heartened by the consensus that we have reached on this bill on the need to research aviator cancers. I am hopeful that we can work in lockstep on behalf of our veterans as we continue to advocate for every one of them. For example, this bill deals principally with fixed-wing aviators. I am hopeful that we will similarly rally around legislation for rotary-wing aircraft pilots. I am genuinely hopeful that, upon completing this study, we will be significantly closer to understanding the root causes of aviator cancers. More importantly, we will be able to provide our Nation's veterans with comprehensive care, the preventative and palliative care that they earned and deserve. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to getting this and other critical exposure legislation through this body and signed into law. I hope my colleagues will continue to rally around our efforts. Mr. Speaker, that is why I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in passing S. 201. I thank Representative Pfluger for this legislation. I am very honored and pleased to be able to support it, and I ask all of my colleagues to do the same. Before I yield back, I do want to say that there are many more of our veterans who have been exposed to some toxic substances, whether it is radiation or something that is going on with our pilots. We have learned recently of the Area 51 veterans who served at the Nevada Test Site and who obviously show signs collectively of exposure to radiation and bear the medical consequences of that. We have ample evidence, for example, that our naval servicemembers who serve on speedboats and have been exposed to intense vibrations may have medical consequences that merit our attention. We know that exposure to overblast may cause serious traumatic brain injury. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of this legislation, which I can wholly support, I believe that we must do more. I ask the chairman if we might schedule a hearing for the more extensive examination into the many other types of exposures--environmental exposures, toxic exposures-- that our veterans have been and our servicemembers are being subjected to. Let us pay attention to those, as well. I humbly request such a hearing. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2170 to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Toms River, New Jersey, after Leonard G. ``Bud'' Lomell. Mr. Lomell was born in Brooklyn, New York, but soon relocated with his family to Point Pleasant, where he went on to attend Wesleyan College on a full scholarship and quickly volunteered as an Army Ranger after World War II broke out. Mr. Lomell and his platoon received a pivotal assignment on D-day that would change the course of the war forever. He and his fellow Rangers would scale 100-foot cliffs on ropes and find and destroy German artillery that posed a huge danger to the Allied troops landing on the beach below. Undaunted by the impossibility of this task, Mr. Lomell and his platoon undertook their task. Despite being shot in the side and nearly drowning the moment he stepped off his landing craft, Mr. Lomell continued onward and successfully scaled the wall. However, upon reaching the top, he and his fellow Rangers realized the weapons were decoys designed to be a deterrent to the troops below. Even this was not reason enough for Mr. Lomell to give up. He and his team quickly found the real weapons unguarded nearby and destroyed them. For his heroism and for saving countless lives, Mr. Lomell received the Distinguished Service Cross. Following the fighting at D-day, Mr. Lomell continued to serve his country in other battles, earning a Silver Star. After receiving another injury, he was honorably discharged in December of 1945. After the war, Mr. Lomell returned to New Jersey, where he settled in Toms River. He graduated from Rutgers University Law School, married and had three daughters, and opened a successful law practice. He died in 2011 at age 91, and his grateful hometown honored him with the creation of Lomell Lane. I can think of no better way to honor Mr. Lomell and demonstrate our Nation's continued gratitude for his service than to name this VA clinic in his honor. I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2170 to honor this very deserving veteran, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my shock and outrage over the killing of Saif Musallet, a 20-year-old Palestinian American from Florida who was visiting his family in the West Bank. He was beaten on his own family's land by settlers. We have grown too used to this kind of violence. We have grown weary of news reports detailing the onslaught of deaths, but we should never accept the killing of innocence, let alone the killing of an innocent American citizen. In an unusual and forceful statement, Ambassador Huckabee called the killing a ``criminal and terrorist act'' and urged Israeli authorities to conduct a full investigation and bring those responsible to justice. I echo the call of the ambassador for an investigation and ask my colleagues to do the same. The United States Congress cannot allow silence to reign and complicity to creep in. Instead, we must demand justice.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.