Mark Takano

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. ``Future reference, if you are confused about whether a girl can consent, see if she can speak an entire sentence. You couldn't even do that. Just one coherent string of words. Where was the confusion? This is common sense, human decency. ``According to him, the only reason we were on the ground was because I fell down. Note; if a girl falls down help her get back up. If she is too drunk to even walk and falls down, do not mount her, hump her, take off her underwear, and insert your hand inside her vagina. If a girl falls down help her up. If she is wearing a cardigan over her dress don't take it off so that you can touch her breasts. Maybe she is cold, maybe that's why she wore the cardigan. ``Next in the story, two Swedes on bicycles approached you and you ran. When they tackled you why didn't you say, 'Stop! Everything's okay, go ask her, she's right over there, she'll tell you.' I mean you had just asked for my consent, right? I was awake, right? When the policeman arrived and interviewed the evil Swede who tackled you, he was crying so hard he couldn't speak because of what he'd seen. ``Your attorney has repeatedly pointed out, well we don't know exactly when she became unconscious. And you're right, maybe I was still fluttering my eyes and wasn't completely limp yet. That was never the point. I was too drunk to speak English, too drunk to consent way before I was on the ground. I should never have been touched in the first place. Brock stated, `At no time did I see that she was not responding. If at any time I thought she was not responding, I would have stopped immediately.' ``Here's the thing; if your plan was to stop only when I became unresponsive, then you still do not understand. You didn't even stop when I was unconscious anyway! Someone else stopped you. Two guys on bikes noticed I wasn't moving in the dark and had to tackle you. How did you not notice while on top of me? ``You said, you would have stopped and gotten help. You say that, but I want you to explain how you would've helped me, step by step, walk me through this. I want to know, if those evil Swedes had not found me, how the night would have played out.''

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, no words can express the pain and sadness I feel for all those affected by the horrific attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando. On too many occasions, the LGBT community and our country have been forced to overcome moments of profound loss, but on each of these occasions, we have emerged stronger and more resilient. Once again, we will choose love over hate and compassion over intolerance. These are the themes of the LGBT Pride Month, and they cannot be lost in this overwhelming tragedy. This attack forces us to confront two unpleasant facts about our country: fact one, hateful rhetoric toward the LGBT people and other minority groups is still far too common; fact two, it is far too easy for dangerous people to access assault weapons. I hope we have the courage to confront these facts and build a safer and stronger America. This is what the victims and their families deserve.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of my amendment, which would restore funding to the Office of Technology Assessment, or OTA. The foundation for good policy is accurate and objective analysis; and for more than two decades, the OTA set that foundation by providing relevant, unbiased technical and scientific assessments for Members of Congress and staff. In 1995, the OTA was defunded, stripping Congress of a valuable resource to understand both emerging technologies as well as the nuances of the legislative process. In its absence, the need for OTA has only grown. Many of the issues OTA studied 20 years ago are even more pressing today: antibiotic-resistant bacteria, electronic surveillance in the digital age, and testing in America's schools. These are the complex challenges our Nation will continue to face, and Congress should have access to the thorough and insightful analysis OTA can provide. Investing in the OTA now will actually save us money in the future. In the last year it operated, OTA's budget was $23 million, but its studies on the Synthetics Fuels Corporation saved taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Our amendment restores a modest $2.5 million to the OTA account for salaries and expenses to begin rebuilding the office. The cost is offset by a reduction of the same amount to the AOC's capital construction and operations account, which is an administrative account. So this will not take resources from specific construction projects. Madam Chair, a great surgeon does not operate without modern tools, a master chef does not cook without fresh ingredients, and Members of Congress should not make policy decisions without relevant and unbiased information. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment to restore funding to the Office of Technology Assessment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and a respected physicist.

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I reiterate my support for the Office of Technology Assessment. Congress does not suffer from a lack of information, but it suffers from a lack of trusted information to help make wise policy decisions. We need information that is not spun even by our own agencies, the FBI or other agencies. We need information that is not spun from particular sectors. This agency, this Office of Technology Assessment, will be overseen by a bipartisan group of lawmakers who will vet the experts that work for it. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding. I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 5212, as amended. Mr. Speaker, the initial transition from military to civilian life is often the most difficult time for returning veterans. The Federal Transition Assistance Program, otherwise known as TAP, is designed to ease that shift by teaching veterans about their benefits and preparing them to enter the workforce, attend school, or both. As the ranking member noted, the program has largely been successful. Veteran unemployment is at a 7-year low. However, supporting transitioning veterans requires more than a one- size-fits-all program. There are more than 135,000 former servicemembers in my district, and just one approach cannot meet the needs of every individual. Certain veteran communities are still being left behind. Women veterans, Native American veterans, veterans from the U.S. territories, and veterans with disabilities face challenges and aspire to jobs that differ from the broader population of returning servicemembers. We cannot be satisfied with a program that allows large groups of veterans to slip through the cracks. The Improving Transition Programs for All Veterans Act is a bipartisan bill that requires the VA to launch a research program examining if and how the current program meets the needs of minority veterans groups. In collaboration with the Departments of Labor and Defense, the bill would require the VA to recommend changes to TAP that would address barriers and better serve these veterans in their pursuit of meaningful employment following their military service. More than ever before, our military reflects America's diverse mix of people and cultures. Each of these transitioning servicemembers, regardless of gender, race, or disability, has made the same commitment to defending this Nation. All of them deserve our full support when they return home. I am proud to have introduced this bill with the gentlewoman from American Samoa (Mrs. Radewagen). I want to thank Mr. Wenstrup, chair of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, and Chairman Miller for their support in moving this forward. Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to promptly pass this legislation.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in opposing the reauthorization of the D.C. voucher program. Public schools are the foundation of the American education system. They represent a duty we have to provide every student in every community with an education that helps them realize their full potential. Vouchers prevent us from fulfilling that duty by redirecting taxpayer money away from our public schools, which are already underfunded, and into private institutions that do not open their doors to every child. As with previous versions of the SOAR Act, this bill does nothing to ensure that students with disabilities have access to private schools. It also discriminates against low-income families. In 64 percent of the participating D.C. schools, the tuition costs more than the voucher can cover, which, effectively, excludes families who cannot afford to pay the difference. Even students who can afford to attend private school can be excluded based on their prior academic achievement, language ability, or other discriminatory factors. I had hoped we could address these concerns through the amendment process, but the majority has not allowed amendments to the bill. You would expect private schools that can choose their own students to have exceptional records of student performance, but you would be wrong. Since 2007, there have been four congressionally mandated reports on the D.C. voucher program's impact on student achievement. Not one of those reports found a significant improvement in reading or math scores among participants. Mr. Speaker, with the Every Student Succeeds Act, we are entering a new era in education policy that holds real promise for students and educators across the country. We should be focusing our attention and resources on improving institutions that serve all students. I call on my colleagues to remember the obligation we have to every child and reject H.R. 4901.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the State of California, my home State of California, for yielding. I am glad to stand here today in support of the Raise the Wage Act. I want to thank my colleagues for standing with me today to promote the benefits of increasing the minimum wage. While critics warn of mass layoffs and economic calamity, studies consistently show that a higher minimum wage will stimulate the economy and lift workers out of poverty. We cannot allow ideology and partisanship to stop millions of workers from earning a living wage. A report on poverty in my own community, which my office produced last year, revealed the urgency of this issue. Here is what we found: Last year, a single parent of two kids working full time at the minimum wage in Riverside, California, was likely to fall $600 short of what they need to get by every month. Not only does this situation violate the premise of the American Dream that working hard and playing by the rules will land you in the middle class, it also damages our economy. A University of California, Berkeley study found that low wages cost American taxpayers $152 billion each year on social welfare programs for working families. We are effectively subsidizing companies that do not pay their workers a living wage. Now, there is a myth--a myth--that the typical minimum wage earner is a high school student, a high school student living at home working part time. But young people make up just a tiny fraction of the minimum wage workforce. Eighty-nine percent of workers who would benefit from a Federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are actually age 20 or older. Nearly 40 percent of this workforce is older than 40. These are not kids on a summer job. These are parents who are seeking to provide for their children. With more money in their pockets, these workers could take a few extra trips to the grocery store, buy new school supplies for their children, or save up to buy a home, all of which would help stimulate our economy. All of us have expressed serious concerns about rising income inequality in our communities. We all understand that the economy has been thrown out of balance because the rules that protect workers from exploitation have atrophied over time. The minimum wage is a clear example of that trend. The real value of the Federal minimum wage has declined 24 percent since 1968. Workers are not worth 24 percent less than they were 50 years ago, and families cannot get by with 24 percent less than they did 50 years ago. Raising the minimum wage is not only good policy, it is popular policy. Paying workers a living wage reduces turnover, improves worker morale, and increases productivity. For those reasons, a poll by the American Sustainable Business Council found that 60 percent of small- business owners support raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020. And most revealing, the Republican pollster Frank Luntz found that 80 percent of business executives support raising the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Washington Post describing this secret poll done by Frank Luntz of these business executives--the very one I mentioned in my remarks--that found that 80 percent of business executives support increasing the minimum wage. [From the Washington Post, Apr. 4, 2016] Leaked Documents Show Strong Business Support for Raising the Minimum Wage So why do most chambers of commerce still oppose it? (By Lydia DePillis) Whenever minimum wage increases are proposed on the state or federal level, business groups tend to fight them tooth and nail. But actual opposition may not be as united as the groups' rhetoric might make it appear, according to internal research conducted by a leading consultant for state chambers of commerce. The survey of 1,000 business executives across the country was conducted by LuntzGlobal, the firm run by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, and obtained by a liberal watchdog group called the Center for Media and Democracy. (The slide deck is here, and the full questionnaire is here.) Among the most interesting findings: 80 percent of respondents said they supported raising their state's minimum wage, while only eight percent opposed it. ``That's where it's undeniable that they support the increase,'' LuntzGlobal managing director David Merritt told state chamber executives in a webinar describing the results, noting that it squares with other polling they've done. ``And this is universal. If you're fighting against a minimum wage increase, you're fighting an uphill battle, because most Americans, even most Republicans, are okay with raising the minimum wage.'' Merritt then provided some tips on how to defuse that support, such as suggesting other poverty-reduction methods like the Earned Income Tax Credit. ``Where you might find some comfort if you are opposing it in your state is, `how big of a priority is it against other priorities?' '' he said. ``Most folks think there are bigger priorities. Creating more jobs rather than raising the minimum wage is a priority that most everyone agrees with. So when you put it up against other issues, you can find other alternatives and other things to focus on. But in isolation, and you ask about the minimum wage, it's definitely a winner.'' Sixty-three percent of respondents said they belong to a chamber of commerce, whether on the local, state, or federal level--suggesting that the groups' public statements might be out of step with their members' beliefs. The materials shed light on how some business trade associations operate, and why they've continued to oppose minimum wage increases even as the rest of the public thaws towards them. The research had been commissioned by the Council of State Chambers, a small, non-political umbrella organization that coordinates messaging across the dozens of groups that make up its membership. The main purpose of the survey, says Council director Joe Crosby, had been to assess what the broader business community thinks about state chambers, and what kind of language they respond to best. (Under the terms of its contract, Crosby says, LuntzGlobal was forbidden from discussing the survey publicly.) So why do state chambers, which are usually the largest and most powerful business organizations represented in state capitols, seem so far apart from the broader business community when it comes to the minimum wage? Crosby argued that modest minimum wage hikes don't impact the majority of chamber members, and so they actually tend to leave the issue to trade groups for retailers, hotels and restaurants, which employ most low-wage workers. ``In chambers, historically, it's more successful businesses that are in manufacturing and other higher wage industries,'' Crosby says. ``They tend to see themselves as the voice of business, but there are other groups that are focused on sectors that are focused on different wage mandates.'' In the more liberal areas where minimum wage increases have succeeded, that's often true: Broad-based business groups have hesitated to speak out too strongly against the popular measures, leaving those industries that are most affected out in the cold. In some instances, advocates have even targeted low-wage service industries first--a hotel wage ordinance passed in Los Angeles before the across-the-board increase, for example, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo raised wages for fast food workers before launching a campaign to do so for all workers (which New York City-based chambers of commerce actually supported). But in most states, chambers of commerce haven't been as shy in their opposition to minimum wage hikes. Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry president Gene Barr says he canvasses his members regularly on lots of issues, and they are against raising the state's minimum wage above where it still sits at the federal floor of $7.25--even the big, high- tech industries that already pay well above it. ``Our larger businesses get that,'' said Barr, who sat through the LuntzGlobal presentation. ``We don't get pushback saying that `you really need to get behind a minimum wage increase,' because they understand that it's really not appropriate.'' Minnesota Chamber of Commerce president Doug Loon says his members' opinions don't match those of the LuntzGlobal survey--including those regarding requirements that businesses offer benefits like paid paternity leave, which 82 percent of respondents supported, or more paid sick leave, which 73 percent supported. The Minnesota Chamber has found that even those of its members who are offering those benefits would rather have the choice of whether to do so, and how. ``It's what most employers are moving to,'' Loon says. ``Do we need to pass a one-size-fits-all on sick leave? We would argue that we do not.'' So Loon and Barr say they're just following their members' wishes. Some business groups have a different perspective-- but don't necessarily have the power to combat a state chamber when it puts its mind to something. The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce has supported a higher minimum wage, but its president Frank Knapp says his members simply don't have the bandwidth to push for it, with so many other issues on their plate. ``When you actually talk to those people one on one, you find that yeah they're fine with raising the minimum wage,'' Knapp says. ``But they're not going to crusade for the minimum wage.'' That might be true of traditional chamber members too, Knapp thinks, many of whom mostly join for the networking benefits rather than the political advocacy aspect anyway. But within those groups, the industries that care most about a given policy matter--hotels and restaurants, in the case of the minimum wage--drive the organization's agenda. ``Usually the most vocal members of the state chambers dominate on that particular issue, and everybody else stays quiet,'' Knapp says. When that happens, it's easy for politicians and the public to get the idea that the private sector stands united against raising the minimum wage, when opinions are actually much more diverse. Holly Sklar is CEO of a national group called Business for a Fair Minimum Wage that favors raising the wage floor in states and nationwide, and she points to a number of surveys by reputable pollsters--from CareerBuilder, Small Business Majority, and the American Sustainable Business Council--that found most businesses agree Many of those businesses don't join state chambers, which means their opinions don't filter up to the organization's leadership, so its positions don't change--and that's what gets conveyed to politicians. ``Sometimes you end up confused by the fact that someone has enough money to be in the halls of the state senate, day after day after day, funded by some of the bigger corporations that have more of an investment in the status quo,'' Sklar says. ``It has an impact on how it's perceived-- you start thinking that's what business thinks.''

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents, listen to these businessowners, and raise the minimum wage. It is past time that we took this action to improve the lives of millions of working Americans and strengthen our economy.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. I thank the ranking member. I appreciate the time allotted. Mr. Speaker, in my 24 years as a public schoolteacher, I learned a lot about helping students reach their potential. I learned about project-based learning and STEM education, and I learned about the importance of arts and music in keeping students engaged and excited. But I also learned that there is no lesson plan or study guide that can improve a student's performance if they are hungry. Good nutrition is the foundation to a good education. With that experience in mind, I rise to express my frustration and sadness with the Republicans' proposal to reauthorize the so-called Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act. The draft bill published last week includes several provisions that would restrict students' access to nutritious food, particularly children in America's poorest neighborhoods. The proposal undermines nutritional standards for schools despite those standards receiving overwhelming support from pediatricians and public health officials. It weakens a popular program designed to give poor students access to fresh fruits and vegetables in communities where they are scarce, and it increases the burden on poor families to prove that their children are eligible for lunch programs. But the impact of these provisions is mild compared to what Republicans are proposing to do with CEP, or the Community Eligibility Provision. CEP streamlines National School Breakfast and Lunch Programs by automatically enrolling students who live in areas with high rates of poverty. It was passed with bipartisan support just 6 years ago and it is responsible for feeding more than 3 million students every year. Now Republicans are seeking to change the CEP formula to kick many poor communities out of the program. Their goal is to save money by allowing fewer students to enroll in breakfast and lunch programs. Not only is this bad policy that will hurt student performance in low- income schools, it is cruel. In my district alone, this would affect more than 6,000 students. Nationwide it will severely damage a program that is critical to both fighting child poverty and closing the achievement gap in education. There is a troubling asymmetry to conservatives' approach to spending. When it comes to tax cuts for large businesses that cost this country billions of dollars, conservatives are generous with taxpayer money. But when it comes to hungry students in America's poorest communities, that is when it is time to cut back. That is when it is time to be stingy. That is when they turn their backs on people in need. Earlier this week, Speaker Ryan said that conservatism is just a happy way of life. This brand of conservatism is not a happy way of life for thousands of hungry children who will lose access to food at school. It is not a happy life for the parents of those children who are struggling every day to provide for them, and it is not a happy life for the generation of students who do not have the foundation to reach their potential. Who could be happy when so many Americans are suffering?

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage President Obama to become the first sitting American President to visit Hiroshima, Japan. A visit to Hiroshima is not an apology on America's behalf. It is a signal that the Commander in Chief of the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons appreciates their power, and it sets an example for other world leaders to follow. I did not fully grasp the horror of Hiroshima until I traveled there for the first time in 2002. Only then did I develop a personal and lasting connection to the incredible destruction caused by nuclear weapons. Every leader who has the capacity to use these weapons should have that same experience and feel that same connection. One of America's greatest strengths is the power to lead by example. The President should use that power to lead the world to Hiroshima and away from nuclear weapons.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with good news and bad news for the American people. The good news is that, after months of infighting, my Republican colleagues in the House and Senate have found something they all agree upon. The bad news is what they all have agreed upon is to stop doing their jobs. In the Senate, Judge Merrick Garland, who is widely recognized as a brilliant and fair legal mind, cannot get the courtesy of a hearing or a vote. In the House, the majority is not fulfilling its legal requirement to adopt a budget for the coming year. As one prominent Republican once wrote in the Wall Street Journal: Failing to pass a budget is ``a historic failure to fulfill one of the most basic responsibilities of governing.'' That was Speaker Ryan in 2011.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I stood with my colleagues on the House floor in a moment of silence as we mourned for the victims in Brussels. Today, as I watched leading politicians propose discriminatory policies targeting the Muslim community, I cannot be silent. Seventy years ago, my parents and grandparents were held prisoner during World War II without trial and without a reason, other than their Japanese heritage. In that moment, no one was willing to speak up for them. We cannot ignore the lessons of history. The Muslim community is the most frequent victim of terrorism and our greatest ally in ridding the world of extremism. Responding to Brussels by advocating for patrols of Muslim neighborhoods, or suggesting that we torture our enemies, is not only counterproductive, it violates the moral code that separates us from our enemies. It is my duty, and it is every American's duty to reject discrimination and uphold our values.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of Riverside City College, one of the oldest and most respected community colleges in California. Since 1916, RCC has provided thousands of students with an engaging and affordable educational experience that prepares them for successful careers. The college boasts of many great alumni who have gone on to lead remarkable lives, but the one I admire most is my father. He attended RCC to build up credits for a degree in business administration, and with that degree he was able to earn a good-paying job that secured my family's place in the middle class. I was honored to serve on RCC's board of trustees for 22 years, and I take pride in what the school continues to do for thousands of students every year. Congratulations to Riverside City College on your centennial. Thank you for the incredible impact you have had on our community.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the United States Senate is failing to serve the American people. This week Senate Republicans announced their plan to simply ignore President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court with no hearings, no votes, no chance for the public to witness an open and honest debate over the future of the Court. This is what the world's greatest deliberative body looks like under Republican control. Refusing to fill the vacancy until the next election disregards the will of the American people who elected President Obama twice, despite Republicans making it their primary mission to deny him a second term. It also reflects a dramatic change of heart from Senator Grassley, who once said a nominee should be considered, regardless of election politics. This is hypocrisy, plain and simple. I accept that Senate Republicans have the constitutional authority to reject the President's nominee, but I do not accept their refusal to even consider that nominee. The American people shouldn't accept it either.

Mr. TAKANO

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

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to help Congress better understand how the mere threat of default would impact our economy. The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act gathers information from the Treasury about our Nation's debt but omits critical details; namely, the consequences for the country when my friends in the majority play a game of chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States. When the majority threatened the default in 2011, it was American families who paid the price. Household wealth fell by $2.4 trillion. Consumer and business confidence plunged. The S&P 500 dropped 17 percent, $800 billion in retirement assets were wiped out, and our credit rating was downgraded, all thanks to Republicans threatening to force an unprecedented default on America's debt. If the extreme wing of the Republican Party is going to hold the economy hostage over the debt limit, they should at least understand the damage they are causing. My amendment requires the Treasury to include in its report to Congress the impact that the threat of default and congressional delay would have on the economy. The report would include the estimated effect on the gross domestic product, interest rates, employment, household wealth, and retirement assets. Honestly, I hope we never have to see this impact assessment produced. I hope we never again have to convince Republicans that raising the debt limit is a basic responsibility of Congress, not a bargaining chip. But their record says otherwise. The next time Republicans seek to score political points and push a radical agenda by threatening not to pay America's bills, I want the public to understand the cost of that threat. I think we will find pretty quickly that the American people have no appetite for petty politics when it comes to the debt limit. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does address the issue at hand. It does address the threat, just the mere threat of brinksmanship with paying our Nation's bills. History has shown that just the mere threat of defaulting on our bills has brought about damaging consequences to our economy and to the welfare of our people. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bipartisan legislation, H.R. 2360, the Career-Ready Student Veterans Act. This bill will ensure that our veterans are using their post-9/11 GI benefits at career-education programs that actually do what they say they do: prepare students for entry into a specific career field. My legislation would require that, in order to be eligible to receive GI Bill benefits, programs have programmatic accreditation, if required by the State for employment in a specific field. Programs also must prepare students for licensure or certification in a field, if required by the State, and they must meet any State- mandated curricular or instructional requirements. This closely mirrors language included in the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act in relation to military tuition assistance. We all know the importance of a good job in helping veterans successfully transition out of service and into civilian life. Education and training is often a necessary part of finding that job. Unfortunately, too many veterans waste their time and hard-earned education benefits at career-education programs that don't actually prepare them for that career field. For example, most States require prospective lawyers to have graduated from a law program accredited by the American Bar Association in order to sit for the bar exam. As we all know, you must pass the bar to practice law. When veterans unwittingly spend their GI Bill benefits at law programs not accredited by the ABA, they graduate with no prospects of becoming a lawyer in most States. My legislation will make sure that this no longer happens. I thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Brown as well as Chairman Wenstrup and my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello) for their support. I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Career-Ready Student Veterans Act.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3262. I yield back the balance of my time.