Mark Takano

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to remind my colleagues that the front-end provisions that were accorded to the SES employees, we stripped them completely of the front-end due process. Only with a regulatory move by the VA itself, instituted a 5-day procedure of due process because they, too, believed that case law required at least some front end, and that was over the objections of many of my colleagues. That rule was over the objections of many of my colleagues. H.R. 1994 strips away front-end due process for all 348,728 employees, of whom 114,740 are veterans. Before we paint them as faceless bureaucrats, one of every three VA employees is a veteran who has laid their life on the line for our country. I think we need to talk about our VA employees with respect. Even my good friend, the chairman of the VA committee, has said the vast majority of the employees are good, hard-working, competent, good- intentioned people. They deserve to be treated fairly; they deserve to be treated with respect. Certainly, our frontline employees, our frontline employees, we need to protect them from a capricious, politically motivated manager who will fire them at will and intimidate them into not being a whistleblower. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to address this issue of the appeals process that takes place post facto. The Supreme Court decisions and case law make very clear that Federal employees are entitled to due process on the front end and that this bill clearly does not meet that upfront, front-loaded due process moment. Clearly, 45 days, the Board that makes these decisions, if they don't make a decision, the decision for the firing stands, so they do not have to make a firm decision, and there is no appeal. There is no appeal. That decision is final. I want to remind my colleagues that the Secretary of the VA hopefully is always appointed by the President with a sense of merit, but I remind you that these are political appointees confirmed by the Senate, as are the top appointees in any Federal department. You do away with due process rights, you do away with the very cornerstone of a merit-based civil service system. You subject it long term to becoming a spoils system to be dismissed, rehired at the whim of any incoming administration. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, in Congress, we can all agree that greater accountability is sorely needed within the Department of Veterans Affairs. We are all outraged that VA employees whose misconduct has harmed veterans have remained in their jobs. Last summer, we were all horrified that the VA medical centers in Phoenix and elsewhere manipulated patient wait times. This spring, in Denver, we were frustrated by the huge cost overruns with no real accountability. I agree with my Republican colleagues that the VA must do a better job of using its existing authorities to hold bad employees, such as these, accountable. Unfortunately, this lack of accountability has overshadowed the excellent work of the vast majority of VA employees-- over a third of them veterans themselves, whose genuine caring and tireless efforts honor veterans' service to our Nation. I believe it is wrong to assume VA employees are guilty until proven innocent, and I believe that H.R. 1994 is the wrong way to achieve greater accountability at the VA. This afternoon, I am offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1994. The text of my amendment is based on my bill, H.R. 2999, the Fair VA Accountability Act. I urge all of my colleagues to support it today. My substitute would provide real accountability at the VA in a manner that preserves the important due process rights of VA employees and protects our veterans, and my substitute would improve the status quo by giving VA an additional accountability mechanism. It would allow VA to immediately fire, without pay, any VA employee whose misconduct presents a clear and present danger to public health and safety while providing adequate due process on the back end for such employees. This standard comes from Supreme Court precedent regarding constitutional due process for Federal employees and mirrors a similar Department of Defense provision. My substitute would mean that, if a VA employee's behavior threatened veterans' health or safety, VA could immediately fire that employee. Current law only allows VA to ask such an employee to leave work while still receiving pay. My substitute would also cap paid administrative leave at 14 days so VA employees would not sit at home and collect a paycheck while fighting a disciplinary action. My substitute would shield our bold VA whistleblowers by protecting existing laws and requiring the VA to backpay any whistleblower unjustly fired for reporting wrongdoing. In sum, my substitute would provide the VA with the tools it needs to remove dangerous employees immediately and protect the health and safety of veterans and others, and my bill does so in a way which preserves important concepts of due process for VA employees. These employees live in our communities and States. They are our friends and neighbors and sometimes our family members. Ensuring basic American notions of fairness is what my amendment in the nature of a substitute provides and, frankly, what H.R. 1994 does not. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for my amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1994 makes the VA an at-will workplace, violating longstanding Supreme Court precedent regarding constitutional due process rights and threatening to silence the whistleblowers by creating a culture of fear and intimidation at the VA. The Republican bill would allow the VA to immediately fire employees for poor performance, making it easier for bad managers to immediately fire whistleblowers who report wrongdoing, while providing hardly any opportunity for employees to appeal. My friends, this is wrong. This means doctors, nurses, police officers, and so many others can be fired at will and with insufficient recourse. Hard-working, loyal employees who are doing everything in their power to treat the incredible needs of our Nation's veterans--fired at will. Let me remind you that one-third of all VA employees are veterans. That is more than 100,000 veterans' livelihoods being put at risk. This is wrong. Are there problems with some VA employees? Of course there are. The VA has a process to remove these employees. In fact, during the 1-year period from July 1, 2014, through July 30, 2015, the VA removed 872 permanent employees, and an additional 487 employees resigned or retired in lieu of being removed. The VA has also terminated 958 probationary employees. For employees accused of harming veterans' health or safety, the substitute amendment I offered earlier would have allowed for their expedited firing. Instead of gutting the due process rights of VA employees, we should be providing a fair and constitutionally sound expedited removal process, and we should encourage the VA to use the disciplinary tools it already has at its disposal. We all know the critical role that whistleblowers played in exposing the shocking misconduct at the Phoenix VA, but the Republican bill strips away all current whistleblower protections available to Federal employees under Federal law. That is wrong. Under the Republican bill, any whistleblower who has not filed an official complaint can be fired before they even have the opportunity to report danger to patient safety, wrongdoing, malfeasance, or discrimination. That is wrong. The Republican whistleblower provisions will encourage bad employees to file for whistleblower status to prevent them from being fired. This will overburden the Office of Special Counsel with frivolous complaints. That is wrong. The Republican bill does the opposite of what it claims to do for whistleblowers. It offers them no protection. In fact, it will let bad employees hide behind whistleblower status to keep from being fired. That is crazy. My final amendment protects the employees who are willing to risk it all to expose flaws and abuses in this system. If there is anybody we must protect from being fired at will without recourse or retaliation, it is the brave men and women with the courage to stand up and expose the VA's biggest vulnerability. With all due respect, I say to my colleagues anyone who votes against my motion to protect whistleblowers from being fired should themselves be fired. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time..

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. TAKANO. I am opposed.

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

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce H.R. 2999, the Fair VA Accountability Act, legislation that will bring real accountability to the VA while maintaining constitutional due process protections for civil service employees. Last year, we were horrified to learn of widespread mismanagement at the VA. We all felt outraged that VA employees whose actions may have harmed veterans remained in their jobs or sat at home for months on paid administrative leave. There have been other bills introduced that seek to bring greater flexibility to the VA to remove problem employees, but I believe that many do this by destroying the bedrock principles of our civil service, limiting due process to an extent that runs counter to the constitutional protections we enjoy. I think these bills have another failing--they likely would result in outcomes far different than their sponsors and proponents intend. By violating the due process rights of our federal employees, these bills could very well ensure that if followed, VA may never be able to effectively remove bad employees when a court finds them unconstitutional. The Fair VA Accountability Act increases accountability by allowing VA to immediately suspend without pay any employee whose misconduct poses a direct threat to veterans' health and safety. VA currently has the authority to fire employees with adequate pre-termination notice-- usually 30 days. I agree that VA needs to do a better job of utilizing this authority. But the only realistic reason a VA employee should be fired on the spot would be if his or her conduct threatened veterans' health and safety. I believe my bill provides the proper balance between the needs of the VA and the rights of VA employees. I also believe it provides sufficient due process rights to meet constitutional requirements and provide accused employees with a fair chance to tell their side of the story. Keep in mind that over 30 percent of VA employees are veterans themselves--the largest percentage of veteran employees among civilian agencies. I am proud to promote a policy that protects these employees' constitutional right to due process before losing their federal job. In addition to the immediate removal provision, my bill increases accountability at the VA by addressing the ``revolving door'' problem, prohibiting senior VA executives from receiving VA contracts for at least a year after they leave the VA. It also limits the use of paid administrative leave to 14 days, to ensure employees don't continue to draw paychecks while sitting at home for months. Finally, the Fair VA Accountability Act protects whistleblowers by requiring mandatory back-pay for any employee who proves that dismissal was a result of whistleblower retaliation. My bill also requires the IG to report on the percentage of employees fired who claimed whistleblower protections, and retains existing Title 5 protections for VA employees. As stated in a letter of support by the American Federation of Government Employees, this language establishes ``highly effective mechanisms for increasing VA accountability while preserving the due process rights of front-line employees so that they can still make lifesaving disclosures about patient harm and other mismanagement without the fear of immediate job loss as at-will employees.''

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 5, also known as the Student Success Act. The Federal Government has played a key role in funding our education for 40 years; 40 years, Mr. Speaker. We know how effective title I is when it is properly funded. We know low-income children and English language learners are negatively impacted when education funding is block-granted or made portable. H.R. 5 does all these things: It locks in cuts to title I funding, block-grants many of the funding streams dedicated to specific at-risk populations, and it allows these funds to be diverted away from the districts and schools that need them most. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is meant to promote opportunity, Mr. Speaker, not take it away. I urge all my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5. And while Ranking Member Scott's substitute amendment is an improvement over the current law and I will be supporting it, I still have serious concerns about our Nation's emphasis on standardized testing. We cannot continue to use standardized test scores to punish teachers and schools.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter the following words into the Congressional Record: ``No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. ``As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. ``Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. ``They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. ``It is so ordered.'' These words, Mr. Speaker, were written by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in his Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, and they embody what the LGBT community has pursued for decades: equality under the law.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 91 passed the House 402-0, as my good friend mentioned, in May. It was amended by the Senate and passed 2 weeks ago. Today, we are taking up the Senate amendment to H.R. 91. This measure will assist veterans in proving that they are indeed veterans. In most instances, a veteran must be enrolled with the VA to receive a VA ID card or utilize their DD-214 to prove their military service, which may contain personal health information. Veterans who retire from the armed services are issued a Department of Defense ID card that serves this purpose. However, the majority of servicemembers do not retire in service, leaving millions of veterans sometimes challenged to provide proof of their honorable military service. Extending the option of a veterans ID is a simple way to resolve this issue and honor America's veterans. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I join Vietnam Veterans of America, the Association of the U.S. Navy, American Veterans, and others in wholehearted support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 91, the Veterans I.D. Card Act of 2015. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Juan Felipe Herrera, who was recently appointed to serve as the United States Poet Laureate. The son of migrant farmworkers, Mr. Herrera is the first Latino American to be appointed to this position and has published more than a dozen short stories, novels, and collections of poetry. In 2008, he was awarded the National Book Critics Circle Award, and in 2012 he was appointed California's Poet Laureate. Never one to shy away from experimentation, Mr. Herrera conducted a 2-year poetry project, entitled, ``The Most Incredible and Biggest Poem on Unity in the World,'' where California residents of all ages submit their writings on unity. The project resulted in a 170-page collection of poems on unity and how we as Americans can come together. A recent retiree from the University of California, Riverside, Mr. Herrera taught creative writing and worked with young people in the Inland Empire by creating an antibullying poetry project that allows kids affected by bullying to channel their feelings through poetry. Poetry, after all, is an incredibly powerful medium. In his work, ``Let Me Tell You What a Poem Brings,'' Herrera spoke of poetry's impact, saying: Before you go further, let me tell you what a poem brings, first, you must know the secret, there is no poem to speak of, it is a way to attain a life without boundaries, yes, it is that easy, a poem, imagine me telling you this, instead of going day by day against the razors, well, the judgments, all the tick-tock bronze, a leather jacket sizing you up, the fashion mall, for example, from the outside you think you are being entertained, when you enter, things change, you get caught by surprise, your mouth goes sour, you get thirsty, your legs grow cold standing still in the middle of a storm, a poem, of course, is always open for business too, except, as you can see, it isn't exactly business that pulls your spirit into the alarming waters, there you can bathe, you can play, you can even join in on the gossip--the mist, that is, the mist becomes central to your existence. As a former student of Juan Felipe Herrera's, I offer my congratulations and know that he will continue to inspire and move us with his words as our next Poet Laureate.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dorella Alexis Anderson, a resident of Riverside, California, who passed away last month. For more than 40 years, Dorella worked at the Riverside Community Settlement Association, which provided a number of services for residents in the Eastside area of Riverside. A lifetime member of the Riverside African American Historical Society, Dorella worked to preserve the rich African American history in Riverside. She worked on numerous charitable endeavors in Riverside, including Toys for Tots, and gave back to the community in countless ways. Dorella was a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a great-grandmother, a sister, an aunt, and a friend. Her dedication toward our community cements her legacy as one of our greatest residents. She will be missed.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call Vote number 295 on H.R. 2578, I mistakenly recorded my vote as yes when I should have voted no.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the University of California, Riverside's Bourns College of Engineering. In 1990, UCR opened its new public engineering college to educate the next generation of engineering leaders. Since then, the college has produced over 5,600 engineering graduates and is ranked first among public universities of the same size. Not only does the UCR Bourns College of Engineering offer a quality engineering education, it is committed to recruiting students who are a true reflection of the ethnic and cultural diversity of the world in which we live. The college is also home to world-class engineering researchers who are leveraging Federal dollars to improve air quality, predicting wildfires, discovering alternative energy fuels, and developing new materials that will change our lives. I want to applaud UCR's chancellor, Kim Wilcox, and dean of engineering, Reza Abbaschian. I know they will lead the Bourns College of Engineering down an even more successful path over the next 25 years.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Well, I thank the gentlelady from New Jersey for yielding to me during this Special Order, and I want to give time for us to get set up with our graphics. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is on the cusp of correcting a longstanding injustice, an injustice that has been embedded into our national psyche and, frankly, our laws for more than 200 years. It is an injustice that says LGBT Americans shouldn't receive the same rights as everyone else. It is an injustice that the law in many States still says it doesn't matter how committed LGBT relationships are or how much in love they are. It is an injustice in the law that says LGBT Americans cannot and should not be able to get married. The law could not be more wrong, Mr. Speaker. Our Constitution says that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws, and that should include LGBT Americans. To say that it doesn't matter how committed same-sex relationships are is an insult to the thousands of same-sex relationships that have been going strong for 30, 40, even 50 years. Gender and sexual orientation should not matter when it comes to the right to marry. What should matter is what is in one's heart. Now the Supreme Court can correct this injustice next week, as it is set to hear oral arguments in a case that could make marriage equality the law of the land. Now, I have never been one to count my chickens before they hatch, but I believe that the Supreme Court will rule on the right side of history. Our Nation has been moving toward marriage equality at a breakneck speed. Ten years ago, only one State had marriage equality; and as you can see here, things have changed, as 36 States and the District of Columbia now have marriage equality. As we prepare for the Court's ruling, let us not forget that there are more battles to be fought. As it stands in 28 States, someone can be fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This puts individuals who live in certain States in a difficult position. I just want to take a moment to point out, this here is a map of where those 28 States are in our country with employment discrimination in the United States. I want to tell you the story of Lonnie Billard of South Carolina, a high school teacher for more than a decade. Lonnie couldn't wait to marry his long-time partner when marriage equality came to South Carolina in late 2014. Like so many Americans do, he posted the news of his marriage on Facebook. Several days later, he received a call from his assistant principal, and he was fired from his job. Marriage equality is coming, Mr. Speaker, but what does it say about our Nation when people cannot share the happiest day of their life for fear of losing their job? For Americans who live in States with marriage equality and legalized discrimination, we are telling them that they can have the same rights as everyone else, but it is best that they don't tell anyone about it. What we have is an incomplete patchwork map of rights for LGBT Americans. If you look at the marriage equality map, there are 36 States with marriage equality. But if you look at the employment discrimination map, LGBT Americans can be fired in 28 States simply for being who they are. That means that in 14 States--like Indiana, Alabama, and Pennsylvania--an LGBT American can get married to their partner, but then get fired because of it. That is not what our Nation is about. Every American is granted a certain set of rights, and they should be able to exercise them as freely and openly as they wish. Our Nation is becoming a more perfect Union. But until we recognize that LGBT Americans are entitled to all of the same rights and protections as anyone else, full legal equality for LGBT Americans will be incomplete. There will be a day when both of these maps are combined and show that LGBT Americans are receiving full and equal protection under the law. Until then, we fail to live up to our own Constitution. But even when we reach full legal equality, it may take years until we receive equality in the hearts of all Americans. I know I will continue the fight for equality in the hearts of all Americans, and I know the gentlewoman from New Jersey will fight as well.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the House resolution declaring that gay, lesbian, and transgender people should be protected from discrimination under the law. Every day, LGBT Americans are denied housing and public accommodations. In 29 States, someone can be fired because they are gay, and in 32 States, someone can be fired because of their gender identity. In several States, there is an organized push to deny LGBT Americans their rights. However, dozens of States have taken action and passed nondiscrimination laws, as have hundreds of cities; yet this body has not. Congress is sworn to uphold the Constitution, the same Constitution that says no State shall ``deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' It is time for Congress to uphold the Constitution and take action. Support this resolution and protect these Americans--all Americans.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise in opposition to the previous question so that H.R. 1434 can be offered. Let me tell you why. Every few weeks, I spend time calling constituents who have sent me letters and emails. In many of these conversations, I hear about the burden of student loan debt. Just recently, I spoke with a couple with more than $100,000 in student debt, and their monthly loan payments exceed the rent that they pay on their apartment. There is absolutely no question, student loan debt is an enormous problem in this country. We all know the facts. As the gentleman from Connecticut stated, at $1.3 trillion, student loan debt has surpassed credit card debt. Nearly three-quarters of college seniors graduate with some debt; bachelor's degree recipients graduate with an average of almost $30,000 in debt. The Federal Government, the States, colleges and universities and other relevant actors in higher education must come together to address this issue. We must take steps to reduce the underlying costs of degree completion, strengthen Federal and State investment in colleges and universities, provide additional aid to students, and diminish existing student loan debt. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney's legislation, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, would help bring down existing student loan debt by allowing eligible borrowers with existing debt to refinance their student loans and receive the same lower interest rates passed by Congress in 2013 that new borrowers currently receive. Lowering interest rates for existing loan debt will benefit tens of millions of Americans. I oppose the rule. I oppose the previous question.

Mr. TAKANO. Well, I am not so much in opposition to the rule because of not allowing other budgets to be considered, but because of the way the rule is structured, I would rather see us be able to consider H.R. 1434. If we would oppose the rule and oppose the previous question, we could solve the student debt question here.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate fellow educator John Corona, as he retires after 36 years of devoted public service. Mr. Corona has been a valued leader in Riverside classrooms since 1979. Whether it was teaching courses, chairing the Martin Luther King High School Social Studies department, or serving as head coach of the Track and Field team, Mr. Corona has been an invaluable resource for students in our community. For the past decade and a half, Mr. Corona's oral history project called King High School Remembers has connected hundreds of students with veterans to learn about history from those who wrote it. This program helps preserve the legacy of these heroes. Because of its impact, King High School Remembers has received widespread acclaim and numerous awards, and is recognized as an exemplary educational program. I want to thank Mr. Corona for his devotion to his students, colleagues, and our community over the years, and wish him all the best as he begins this new chapter in his life.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5, also known as the Student Success Act. Having spent 24 years as a classroom teacher, I am especially concerned about the title I funding mechanism in this legislation. We have seen time and time again that block grants often redirect funding away from intended populations and are a prelude to further cuts. I also oppose the Republican bill's portability provision, which betrays the original intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. ESEA is meant to promote equitable opportunity and education for all and to help raise the academic achievement of low-income children. This legislation will do the opposite. Finally, I object to the utter lack of Federal accountability in H.R. 5. While I oppose the current test-driven, high-stakes accountability system, I want the right accountability system, not no accountability system. Mr. Chairman, this legislation goes too far. It cuts too deep and takes too many steps backward. I oppose H.R. 5. I call on my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my support for America's middle class. Currently, government rules allow for only 11 percent of salaried workers to be eligible for overtime pay. Contrast that to 1975, when the income threshold for overtime pay covered 65 percent of our salaried workers. This is because Department of Labor rules prohibit workers who earn more than $23,660 a year from earning overtime pay. Recently, I was joined by more than 30 of my colleagues in calling for this administration to raise the income threshold to $69,000. At this level, we could cover the same number of workers who were eligible in 1975. For 35 years, American workers have increased their productivity, yet they have not been rewarded. Let's remember that it is a strong middle class that drives economic growth. Be bold, Mr. President. Your administration can help middle class families. Raise the income threshold for overtime pay.