Mark Takano

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Throughout this process, I have tried to stay up to date on what veterans are saying online about the so-called Take Care of America's Veterans Act. I found the discussions to be enlightening. Before my colleagues say I have cherry-picked those comments, I urge them to pull out their phones and take a look at the comment sections on any social media post discussing this bill. It will become clear to you that opposition to this legislation is coming from veterans on both sides of the aisle. Let's take a look. I am quoting from the comments: ``This creates two tiers of veterans.'' ``Veterans should not have to take a reduced amount to provide savings to pay for fellow veterans. The U.S. Government should honor their commitment to us.'' ``This is a false choice. Find the funds without making veterans literally pay the cost.'' ``If they truly cared, they wouldn't rob all veterans to pay for this as there are plenty of other ways to fund this act.'' ``Pitting veterans against veterans.'' ``You taught us to take care of each other; this bill contradicts that.'' There are thousands more just like this from veterans in each of our districts telling us to vote ``no'' on this bad bill. If my colleagues won't listen to my concerns here, I urge them to listen to the veterans, dependents, caregivers, survivors, and advocates in their districts. We cannot today, tomorrow, or ever balance budgets on the backs of veterans who have already sacrificed so much for their country. Instead, we must honor the contract we made with our Nation's veterans and reject the false choice Chairman Bost has foisted upon us. I join the millions of veterans across the country who vehemently oppose H.R. 9237, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, and urge everyone to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Alvin Stephens, a distinguished Army veteran, pioneering pharmacist, entrepreneur, mentor, and devoted family man whose remarkable 59-year career exemplified public service, leadership, and excellence. Following his honorable service in the United States Army during the Korean Conflict, Mr. Stephens earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Pharmacy from Texas Southern University in 1959. Soon after, he relocated his family to Riverside, California to establish his career--becoming the city's first African American retail pharmacist when he opened Perris Valley Medical Pharmacy in 1964. His professional leadership included service as President of the Riverside County Pharmaceutical Association, Western Zone Director of the National Pharmaceutical Association, and an active member of the Central Los Angeles Pharmaceutical Association. Beyond his accomplishments in pharmacy, Mr. Stephens dedicated himself to mentoring young people through Career Day programs hosted by local school districts, encouraging countless students to pursue higher education and careers in healthcare. He was also an established, lifelong member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc., committing his time to various roles within their Riverside Alumni Chapter. Above all his many achievements, Alvin Stephens was a devoted husband to Mrs. Ola Faye Stephens, his wife of 66 years, and a loving father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. His enduring legacy of compassion, integrity, and service to our community will continue to inspire generations to come.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to submit extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the conclusion of Pride Month. Pride is, and always has been, a protest. From the Stonewall Uprising to the neighborhood parades, Pride is about both standing up for equality and celebrating our authentic selves. When we celebrate Pride, we make a demand. We demand the right to live and love openly. We demand to be treated equally and fairly under the law. We demand dignity. First and foremost, we demand equality. This Congress, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has taken more than 20 votes to attack the rights of LGBTQI+ Americans and particularly the rights of transgender Americans. Even after all those votes, not one major anti-LGBTQI+ piece of legislation has become law. Members of the Congressional Equality Caucus have fought hard to fight back against all these attacks. Thanks to our work, we were able to remove every new anti-LGBTQI+ rider from the government funding bills for fiscal year 2026. House Republicans tried to add dozens of these new riders, and we were able to defeat every one. We plan to do it again for fiscal year 2027, but the Trump administration's relentlessness has still had countless terrible impacts on our community. Under Donald Trump, transgender Americans' access to healthcare is under direct attack. The arms of the Federal Government tasked with enforcing America's rights, like the EEOC, are being sabotaged and forced to target the rights of the very Americans they are meant to protect. Transgender servicemembers are being carelessly kicked out of the military without regard for their merits and accomplishments or the military's operational security. Critical funding and research to combat the HIV and AIDS epidemics are being recklessly cut, and so much more. Mr. Speaker, to the LGBTQI+ people watching right now, know that we are still fighting for you. As chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, I assure the American people that my colleagues and I are fighting back against these attacks at every turn in Congress. We are conducting oversight of Trump administration officials and demanding accountability from those who violate LGBTQI+ Americans' rights. As we close out Pride Month, I stand with our allies across the country in reminding LGBTQI+ people that we are fighting for you. We will not give up until every person is fully free to be themselves without fear of discrimination, harassment, or violence. I wish all of you a happy Pride. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall), my colleague and co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), vice chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congresswoman from Florida for her wonderful remarks. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. TAKANO. Congresswoman Gwen Moore, thank you and happy Pride to you. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Tonko. Happy pride. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury), my colleague from the Land of Enchantment.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Stansbury. Happy pride. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bell), my colleague from the Show Me State and my good friend.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Bell. Happy pride. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank a group of people who have been on the front lines of the fight for LGBTQI+ equality: the litigators who are challenging this administration's antiLGBTQI+ policies and, more broadly, fighting to protect our rights, the rights of all Americans. Over the past 1.5 years, these litigators have filed dozens of lawsuits to both protect LGBTQI+ rights and block the Trump administration's antiequality efforts. When President Trump reinstituted the trans military ban, litigators jumped into action and fought for our Nation's transgender servicemembers. When the Department of Health and Human Services wiped critical public health data from Federal websites for simply mentioning LGBTQI+ people, a lawsuit forced the Department to restore these web pages. As the administration has targeted trans people's access to medically necessary care, litigators have filed lawsuit after lawsuit responding to each attack. Litigators are standing up for our community--from local district courts to the Supreme Court. Pride is a protest, and there are few forms of protest that are more powerful or with more direct impact than challenging discriminatory policies in court. Many of these organizations leading these efforts are operating with less resources than the last Trump administration, yet dealing with an even higher volume of attacks. Behind every complaint filed and every win, our teams of litigators and support staff are working countless hours to defend our rights. I must say, when I say, ``our rights,'' I mean our rights as Americans, because LGBTQI+ rights are American rights. As I stand before this body, I extend my gratitude and the gratitude of the entire Congressional Equality Caucus to the teams of litigators who are fighting so hard to defend our community in courts across this Nation. To all of those litigators and their support staffs, I say to them on this final day of Pride Month, happy pride. I thank them for their great work. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva), my friend and colleague.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Adelita Grijalva for her remarks and wish a happy Pride to her and all the people of the great State of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise to send a message directly to the transgender community in America, and here is what I have to say: You are not alone. I know it is easy to feel like there is no one left in Washington who is willing to stand up for you, but that is not true. Every day, my colleagues and I in the Congressional Equality Caucus, which is over 190 strong, are fighting for you. I know it is hard right now, but you are not alone. Even with all the antitrans attacks coming from this Chamber, my colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I have been successful in blocking the worst of the worst from becoming law. We successfully blocked every antitransgender rider in the fiscal year 2026 government funding bills from becoming law. Not a single bill exclusively focused on attacking our rights has made it to the President's desk in this Congress. We are still fighting for a brighter tomorrow, and I hope you are, too. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it has been my profound honor to celebrate the LGBTQI+ community and honor the conclusion of Pride Month with my colleagues here tonight. Pride began as a protest, as a demand--a demand for equal dignity, equal treatment, and equal justice for LGBTQI+ people. As we continue our fight for the rights of LGBTQI+ people here and in the Halls of Congress, that spirit is what drives us. To every American watching tonight, I want you to know that we will never give up. We will never stop fighting for equality. To you all, to every American across this country, from Maine to Hawaii to the territories, I say happy Pride. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kathy Eiler's nearly 30 years of service to the University of California system as she retires as Senior Director of Federal Relations at the University of California, Riverside. Kathy's connection to the University of California has been a career- defining commitment. Over nearly three decades, she has served as a tireless advocate, a skilled navigator of the complex landscape of federal po]icy, and a trusted voice for the University of California's students, faculty, researchers, and staff. Since joining UC Riverside in November 2018 as Senior Director of Federal Relations, she has brought her wealth of experience and institutional knowledge to advocate on behalf of one of the most diverse research universities in the Nation. Her work has helped UC Riverside remain the number one school for social mobility in the country and placed the Inland Empire at the center of innovation in medicine, sustainability, and agriculture. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and congratulating Kathy Eiler for her exceptional service and in wishing her all the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and honor David Stacy's service to the LGBTQI+ community as he marks the end of his current chapter as Vice President of Government Affairs at the Human Rights Campaign. David has been instrumental in the fight for LGBTQI+ equality for decades, helping found Fair Wisconsin, Wisconsin's statewide LGBTQI+ civil rights organization, and working in this chamber for then- Representative Tammy Baldwin as a Legislative Assistant for seven years. In his role for then-Rep. Baldwin, David worked on a range of LGBTQI+ issues, including marriage equality and hate crimes. After leaving the Hill, David joined HRC where over the course of two decades, he has played a role in every major LGBTQI+ bill to become law, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act. He also played a key role in adding sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination protections to the Violence Against Women Act and has helped lead organizations in opposing dozens of anti-LGBTQI+ bills and amendments--including the Federal Marriage Amendment--over the last twenty years. David was also instrumental in the introduction of the Equality Act of 2015 and has continued to lead the coalition of organizations advocating for its passage since then. It is my honor to now be the lead sponsor of the Equality Act, and I am grateful for David's tireless work to build support for this critical and historic legislation. I have had the privilege of getting to know and work with David since coming to Congress in 2013. I have appreciated his knowledge, wisdom, and counsel. I know countless staff on the Hill and advocates in the LGBTQI+ movement have similarly appreciated his advice and mentorship over the years. Most of the people who have benefited from David's advocacy will never know his name, but I have seen up close the impact he has had and how he has helped push equality forward. Our movement for equality is better off because of David's decades of service to it. I wish David the best of luck on this next chapter.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two award-winning actors who have proudly and relentlessly advocated for the LGBTQ+ community--Lisa Rinna and Harry Hamlin. Lisa Rinna built a career in television, notably on the soap opera Days of Our Lives and the reality series The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. Harry Hamlin gained fame through L.A. Law and the fantasy film Clash of the Titans. Together, these Hollywood legends exemplify allyship at its finest. Spanning decades of groundbreaking work on screen, they have not only helped shape culture, but consistently used their voices to affirm the dignity, humanity, and rights of LGBTQ+ people. Their support has been proud, unwavering, and deeply meaningful to a community that continues to fight for full equality. They have used their platform to champion diversity and inclusion, by participating in events and conversations that elevate and promote LGTBQ+ voices. Through both their public advocacy and their steadfast support, they have helped foster greater visibility, understanding, and acceptance of LGBTQ+ people. Lisa Rinna and Harry Hamlin's unwavering commitment to full equality reflects the highest ideals of humanity. As we celebrate this Pride Month, I rise to honor them in their accomplishments both as actors and activists.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jacob Tierney for his significant contributions to the LGBTQ+ community. Throughout his career, he has helped bring diverse LGBTQ+ stories and characters to audiences, contributing to greater awareness, empathy, and representation. His storytelling explores themes of identity, belonging, and human connection, offering nuanced portrayals that move beyond stereotypes. More than simply entertaining, his work invites reflection, expands perspectives, and helps foster a richer and more inclusive cultural conversation. Jacob Tierney has helped illuminate LGBTQ+ experiences for viewers and audiences worldwide. His most recent work, Heated Rivalry, has received widespread acclaim, earning both a Peabody Award and the GLAAD Award for Outstanding New Television Series. Further accolades include 18 Canadian Screen Award nominations, including Best Writing, Best Direction, and Best Drama Series. His creative vision has invited audiences to engage with diverse experiences and perspectives. His wit, humor, and artistic contributions have helped promote greater awareness and have pushed forward meaningful change. I thank him for inspiring countless individuals to approach the world with greater compassion and acceptance.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I proudly voted to pass an Iran War Powers Resolution to rein in this unraveling President. This was the fourth attempt by Democrats to assert our authority as a coequal branch of government and to say: No more to this war of choice. Every Democrat in this House Chamber heard the cries of Americans saying no more to the billions spent on war instead of investing here at home. Mr. Speaker, why did it take us this long? This war has gone on for more than 90 days. The price tag continues to rise by the billions every week, and every American feels the economic pain of this war at the gas pump. Let me be clear: This is the first step toward stopping this war. Republicans in the Senate and the President still stand in the way of ending it. It is time for them to listen to the American people, just as Democrats did this week.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. I thank Congressman Jackson for yielding. I thank him for that wonderful introduction. I won't claim to be the first Japanese American in Congress. There were many that came before me, such as Senator Inouye, Senator Spark Matsunaga, and many others such as Bob Matsui in the House of Representatives. But all of what you said about my family having been interned or incarcerated during World War II, that is the burden of history that I do carry and it is something that I think is very important and relevant to today. I want to focus on the Voting Rights Act, which is the topic of this Special Order presented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus tonight. In 1965, when I was probably 4 years old, President Lyndon B. Johnson gave a historic address to the Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday, you will recall, is that moment in Selma when John Lewis, among others, crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge and were met with State troopers and the local police and they were bludgeoned and whipped and were charged by officers on horseback because they were marching to Montgomery to demand voting rights. What America saw shocked their conscience, and what they saw was what shocked the conscience of America. It led President Johnson to address Congress, and he said these words before in this very Chamber to a joint session. He said: ``The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders.'' A few months after that speech, the Voting Rights Act was the law of the land. And that is our topic today. The voting rights protections, the Voting Rights Act protections were historic and gave rise to what historians consider the second Reconstruction era because for the first time in history the government ensured that minority Americans, Americans of color, could elect their own preferred candidate. The practice of gerrymandering to dilute the ability for communities of interest, communities of color to be able to elect their preferred candidate was the norm. So one of the people who benefited from that first redistricting after the 1965 Voting Rights Act was put into law was Barbara Jordan from Houston, Texas, the first Black woman to represent the South and a personal hero of mine. She was elected to Congress in a newly drawn Houston, Texas, district in 1972. I remember watching Barbara Jordan on television as a 13- or 14-year-old. She was famously a member of the House Judiciary Committee that was considering Articles of Impeachment against then-President Richard Nixon. She famously called herself on the dais an inquisitor, and she recounted how improbable it was that she was an inquisitor sitting on the House Judiciary Committee. She was there in great part because of the Voting Rights Act. If you just learned the history about this remarkable Member of Congress, she said on the House Judiciary Committee: ``My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total.'' That declaration made a huge impact on me. To see an African-American woman who talked about how improbable it would be for her to be a Member of Congress, it made me, a very young boy, believe that some day I could be a Member of this body. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, this Congress is the most diverse Congress in history. With 26 percent of its Members being people of color, our legislative body is the most reflective of the country's population than it ever has been. The Supreme Court has taken a wrecking ball to that progress in its decision in Louisiana v. Callais. Now Republican Governors and State legislatures have canceled primaries to ram through maps, oftentimes in a matter of days, that suppress the voting power of Black and Hispanic Americans. Mr. Speaker, instead of the Republican Party passing bills to lower the cost of living, they have seen fit to rig maps to try and keep the Republicans in power. The Republicans would rather shred the single most transformative piece of legislation in the history of our democracy that has ever been, and they will do it if it means that the President can continue to build his ballroom, continue his insane war, and enrich himself and his family. The President knows that if congressional maps were fair there would be enough of us here in Congress who would demand accountability for the grift he is running out of the White House. There would be enough voices demanding that he get the help he urgently needs as he continues to unravel in front of the world. However, Mr. Speaker, my faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, and it is total. I know that while the Supreme Court may have dismantled the Voting Rights Act, Congress is not powerless, and the American people, in spite of the efforts to rig the maps and to draw districts to keep Republicans in power, we can and will prevail in the coming months. We will have the votes. If we have the votes, then we can put an end to gerrymandering and restore and strengthen protections against racial discrimination in voting so that every voice counts. There is no question that this Supreme Court is facing a crisis of credibility. Americans are questioning the Court's legitimacy to make decisions based on the law and the history of this country. Mr. Speaker, it is also time to put a check on the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that has taken a wrecking ball to the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today during AANHPI Heritage Month to honor the contributions of Dr. Tai-Heng Cheng, particularly his work with the National Museum of Asian Art. In 2022, a gift from Dr. Cheng established the museum's first paid graduate internship program. Since its inception, twenty-two energetic students have benefited from Dr. Cheng's generosity, working on museum exhibitions, research, and public programs. These young people come from diverse backgrounds, each bringing a unique perspective not only to the National Museum of Asian Art, but also to the cultural institutions they will shape throughout their careers. This pipeline of diverse, intelligent, and passionate talent in the museum and curatorial field is essential and will undoubtedly lead to collections that present a more complete history for all to enjoy and learn from. Dr. Cheng's contributions have helped ensure that AANHPI history is preserved, curated, and presented with humanity and dignity. During this AANHPI Heritage Month, I congratulate him, the National Museum of Asian Art, and all the students who have benefited from this program.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill and I urge my colleagues to vote against it, as well. May is Mental Health Awareness Month, and it also happens to be Military Appreciation Month. We are also here a few days before Memorial Day, when we honor those who gave all to defend our country, so the cruel irony of the majority choosing to consider this bill now is not lost on me. They are here, once again, putting politics above policy, only this time Republicans are playing political games with the lives of veterans. It goes without saying that there is a mental health crisis in this country. Americans of all stripes lack access to the resources necessary to properly care for their mental health--or fail to fully realize them--and they suffer because of this crisis. Veterans are certainly no exception, and they face additional challenges due to service-connected mental health conditions. Many veterans can access mental health care through the VA, but those not connected to VA care may face additional challenges seeking resources and support. Unfortunately, because of cheap, easy access to firearms in this country, our Nation's mental health crisis is one of the many contributors to the epidemic of suicide and gun violence in America. Again, veterans are not immune to that, and where those two issues converge, veterans and their communities suffer the consequences. Let me just cite a few examples: Lewiston, Maine; Thousand Oaks, California; Sutherland Springs and Fort Hood, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana; Jasper, Georgia; and countless others. The absolute tragedy of veteran suicide remains persistent. Despite our best efforts, the rate of veteran suicide has not declined as far and as fast as we would like it to. More than 6,500 veterans die by suicide each year, and more than 70 percent of those suicides are deaths by firearms. In fact, veterans are three times more likely to die by suicide using a firearm than their nonveteran peers. So why, knowing all of that, do we find ourselves debating a bill today that will only lead to more firearms in the hands of the most vulnerable veterans in VA care? The answer is pure and simple: politics. This bill is not about the Second Amendment. It is about Republicans invoking their favorite political shield whenever they need to distract from their failure to govern. They have brought versions of this bill to the floor and in committee. They have brought it up again and again for nearly a decade and usually when they want an election-year fight, not a serious veterans policy debate. Veterans should know exactly what is happening here. The majority is using the Second Amendment as branding for a bill that has nothing to do with veterans losing rights for seeking care. That is not happening. What is happening is that Republicans are stoking fear, feeding stigma, and using vulnerable veterans as props in a political fight. More specifically, Republicans desire to invoke the sacred Second Amendment and use the issue of access to firearms for political gain, and that is what is driving this conversation. That they would do so by endangering veterans' lives is disgusting to me, and it should be to them, as well. What we will hear from Republicans is that fear of having their Second Amendment rights encroached upon leads to a reluctance of veterans to seek mental health care. That is true, but that very fear is being stoked by the stage that they have set for today's debate. The constant refrain from Republicans that the VA will take your guns away if you seek help is what is fueling the harmful stigma. Under no circumstances does seeking mental health care at the VA lead to a loss of rights or firearms, and if the Republicans were interested in the truth, they would acknowledge that. We will hear from the majority and we have heard from them already that veterans' due process rights are being violated and that veterans are having their rights stripped away unconstitutionally by bureaucrats at the VA. Again, not true and false on many fronts. There is robust due process built into the VA's systems that passes constitutional muster. We are going to hear from Republicans that the VA's decision to assign someone a fiduciary and subsequently add their name to the NICS list is based on whether someone can balance their checkbook or whether they can manage their benefits. Again, another blatant falsehood. The VA's decisions are based on a diagnosis of severe mental illness or injury that prevents a beneficiary from managing their own affairs. Let me say that again: The VA's decisions are based on a diagnosis of severe mental illness or injury that prevents a beneficiary from managing their own affairs. It is documented in medical records by a clinician, not just some what they would call a bureaucrat. It is documented in medical records by a clinician and interpreted by someone trained in reading those medical records. At no point is anyone just given a mere math test. Mr. Speaker, at times I feel like we are screaming into the void regarding gun violence. How many more preventable deaths and injuries will we tolerate? How many veterans will we let languish in a spiral that leads to it? When will we stop political posturing and start making meaningful change to actually help veterans? This bill is certainly not accomplishing that task. Unfortunately, my counterparts have lost sight of the truth at the heart of this issue. What is at the heart of this issue is the veterans' health and safety. The majority wants veterans to believe that this debate is about protecting constitutional rights. It is not. It is about recycling a decade-old talking point, stoking fear about VA care, and hiding behind the Second Amendment because they do not have a serious governing agenda. Today, we are debating this bill, and I want you to remember that the rhetoric of the majority is not based on the reality of the situation but, rather, it is based on their desire to use veterans as pawns in their election-year political games. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, let me address this issue of who is actually in the fiduciary program. Let's talk a moment about the population that this bill is intended to cover, those who are actually in the fiduciary program. These are veterans with severe illnesses, illnesses like schizophrenia, significant traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress, bipolar disorder, and dementia. These are people who meet the level of injury or illness criteria such that they cannot manage their personal affairs, not just their checkbook. I have heard this argument over and over again by the majority. Oh, people are being denied, veterans are being denied access to firearms because they can't balance their checkbook. No, no, no. This is not to be reduced to that talking point. We should be looking to these veterans with care and compassion. We should look at how to better serve their needs regarding access to consistent care and treatment. All these disorders are associated with elevated risk of dangerousness to self and others--suicide in particular--especially when combined with a host of other factors that are actually 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 more likely to have substance abuse disorders, suicidal ideation, or engage in violent behavior and be in the justice system. 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. It is important to acknowledge that there are significant data gaps that exist related to the population of beneficiaries in the fiduciary program. I, for one, would like to know more about the veterans that are in the fiduciary program. This bill addresses none of those data gaps, which is one of its many flaws. Instead of seeking to understand who is in this population, the majority rejects any attempt to know more about them. The majority suggests that there are veterans on the fiduciary list who don't have the opportunity to get off that list, that there is a lack of a robust appeals process. He cites 200,000 veterans being named in this list because they are assigned a fiduciary and cites that there is only maybe a couple of folks who have ever appealed. He cites that as a failure of the appeals process, but maybe it is the other way around. Maybe it is not really what veterans want to do who are on this list. I would like to know that for sure, and we could study that, but the majority has rejected all attempts. There is very limited information publicly available about the population of veterans deemed to be financially incompetent who have historically been reported to the NICS list and whether they, on average, have elevated rates of suicidality or violence. We have no data on the desired beneficiaries in the fiduciary program to purchase or own firearms. We don't even know if people on this list actually want to own firearms. We have no data on why beneficiaries are failing to utilize the due process afforded to them in the system already. We have no data on if fear of losing Second Amendment rights is a major impediment to seeking help or if other factors are more important. In other words, the claim that fear of losing Second Amendment rights is a major impediment to seeking help is a claim being made that has not been borne out by any sort of research or study. We also don't know the long-term mental health outcomes of those in the fiduciary program. Democrats in the past have offered amendments to address all of these data gaps, and they were universally rejected by the majority because, again, this is not about policymaking to them. This is not about really trying to understand what we can do to help veterans. What Republicans have put forth here today is a philosophical debate about the absoluteness of the Second Amendment, and they have made this argument in the absence of data to push legislation without safeguards that will have real-life consequences. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and the ranking member of the Subcommittee for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to try to bring us back down to Earth and dispel the rumors that those on the other side of the aisle can't help themselves but to spread. We have heard that H.R. 1041 is a matter of restoring veterans' due process rights, that it is a matter of veterans losing their guns if they need a little help with their finances, and that veterans are stripped of their rights to bear arms for life by unelected VA bureaucrats. None of this is true. Veterans are not having their weapons taken away if they utilize VA mental health care. Under no circumstances is VA traipsing around the country confiscating firearms. This is a story that needs to stop being told. I would encourage my colleagues to stop intentionally spreading misinformation. The Veterans Health Administration, where veterans would be receiving care, has absolutely no role in this process and absolutely no communication with the Department of Justice or the NICS list. Veterans can and should go to VHA, the Veterans Health Administration, and the VA medical centers for care without fear. Stop spreading the false fear or the false basis for fear. Start telling the truth. The truth is that there is robust due process present in this program. A veteran can appeal the assignment of a fiduciary and their subsequent reporting to NICS both before and after the fact, including in Federal court. I will note, though, that VA data indicates that not many people choose to appeal this decision. That is not because it is too difficult but because it is a pathway that veterans simply are not choosing or simply don't desire. Again, we are talking about veterans and other beneficiaries who have been injured or made ill in such a way that they cannot make decisions for themselves. To be clear, this is not something VA launches into without regard. Veterans in this program have gone through a rigorous, medically- based--medically-based--process to determine their needs for a fiduciary. The decision is not some flippant choice to take away weapons by unelected bureaucrats over a math test as we often hear. An assignment of a fiduciary is done after highly specific criteria are met, and only then, when those criteria are met, does a veteran's name get forwarded to the NCIS database. However, the majority asks: Why are we treating our veterans like criminals? Why are we assuming guilt and barring them from obtaining weapons? This is a rhetorical flourish. It is also fantastical. Veterans are not being treated like criminals. They are being handled in a manner that is commensurate with their medical status as determined by a medical provider in order to protect them and those around them from potential harm. We have to stop spreading falsehoods and be honest with our veterans. It is inappropriate full stop. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Georgia (Mrs. McBath), who is my good friend and a passionate advocate for gun safety in America.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Minnesota (Ms. Morrison). Dr. Kelly Morrison is my good friend and fellow committee member.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.