Mark Takano

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment's language opens the door to invasive, degrading, and humiliating physical examinations of children, children who simply want to play softball or join a basketball team. That is creepy. This amendment would require the Department of Defense Education Activities schools to determine eligibility for girls' sports teams based on a girl's reproductive system. This amendment will empower child predators. We can have a nuanced conversation about eligibility rules for elite sports teams, but this amendment is a one-size-fits-all approach that dictates the same rules for a kindergartner wanting to play soccer as a 12th grader participating in competitive basketball. It does so in the most dangerous way, by opening young girls to invasive exams. Our communities thrive when every child, including trans children, can be part of a team, learn sportsmanship, and challenge themselves. They falter when we write exclusion into our laws.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Once again, my Republican colleagues are moving forward with a sweeping ban on necessary healthcare, including mental health care for children. This isn't about cost. This isn't about force readiness. In fact, this amendment will harm our military's force readiness. This amendment will force servicemembers out of the military either for their own sake or for the sake of their children since this amendment bans mental health care for trans children. There are and will be trans children born to military households. That is a fact. What parent would choose staying in their job if that means denying their child access to mental health care? This amendment makes it impossible for the military to retain servicemembers with trans children. This is an inhumane, wasteful, regressive amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, let me conclude by saying that trans servicemembers are honorable. Trans servicemembers are truthful. Trans members are disciplined. Trans members are heroic. Trans members have sacrificed for our country. They are physically and mentally fit to serve and have made America safer. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen).

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I yield 90 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), my colleague.

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, this amendment would codify President Trump's executive order banning transgender Americans from serving in the United States military. Since that order came down, the military branches have forced out Americans who have served their country bravely and honorably, leaving entire professional careers behind and gaps in the units and chains of command they once held together. This amendment would codify that exclusion into law. There are no grounds to exclude trans people from the military except for hatred, prejudice, and bigotry. There is no evidence that having transgender troops negatively impacts military readiness. Our military is strongest when every qualified servicemember is able to serve. Who are we as a country when strong, qualified, patriotic candidates who want to serve their country are turned away simply because of ignorant legislating? The American people want Congress to support our servicemembers, not waste time rooting out the ones they want to use as political pawns. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 90th birthday of a community pioneer and legendary advocate for youth in my district, Mr. Adrian ``Dell'' Roberts. Known to most simply as Dell, he began his 38 years of public service as a football coach at Riverside Poly High School in 1965, quickly gaining recognition by the principal for his kindness and patience during student conflict. He soon became campus supervisor, followed by assistant principal in charge of discipline, and finished his career as an assistant administrator covering discipline and campus security. Since retiring in 2003, Dell has continued his philanthropic efforts through the Adrian Dell and Carmen Roberts Foundation, alongside his loving wife. Together, they host charitable fundraisers, backpack giveaways for students, scholarships for youth, conferences for young women, and lead the city's Annual Black History Parade and Expo, which celebrated its 46th year in February. As Booker T. Washington wrote, ``Those who are happiest are those who do the most for others.'' Dell's selfless acts of giving back to our community have changed countless lives over the decades. You are a role model to us all. On behalf of the constituents of California's 39th Congressional District, I wish Dell a Happy 90th Birthday.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 81st anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. August 6, 81 years ago--which will happen in a couple of weeks--the first instance of a nuclear weapon being deployed against a civilian population occurred. My cousin, Kikue Takagi, survived the bombing because she was sick and stayed home instead of being at the city center at ground zero with her middle school classmates. The vast majority of her middle school classmates perished that morning. She is a ``hibakusha''; ``survivor'' of the atomic bombing. The U.S. and Russia had the New START Treaty which limited the number of nuclear warheads in both of their respective arsenals. This year the Trump administration allowed it to expire, dealing a major blow to arms control efforts. We must not allow negligence or indifference to lead to a disaster in the absence of diplomatic safeguards. Mr. Speaker, I call on Congress, the President, and all of us to return to leadership in reversing the arms control race.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8823, Putting Patients First by Strengthening Provider Accountability in FECA Act. Providers are the greatest source of fraud in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act program, otherwise known as FECA. For example, during this committee's oversight of the opioid crisis, we learned about corrupt compounding pharmacies that were crushing up pills and putting them into creams, even though the medicines in those pills were not absorbed through the skin. A 15-ounce tube of this useless cream got charged to the FECA program for $15,000. Existing rules allow the Department of Labor to strike a provider from the list of eligible providers in the FECA program when they are convicted of fraud in any public health program. Those rules do not enable the Department to stop payment on any claims that a convicted provider has already submitted prior to the conviction. That could amount to millions of dollars in claims with a high risk of fraud moving through the system. There are, of course, due process issues that could arise, but this bill already contemplates those issues by empowering the Department of Labor to develop appropriate rules for implementing the new authority. All in all, this bill closes an important gap and protects taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my colleagues Representatives Omar and Mackenzie on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this simple, bipartisan bill protects taxpayers. It does so without weakening the FECA program. It simply targets truly bad actors, corrupt physicians, pharmacists, and other providers who exploit injured Federal workers and rip off the FECA program. This is an example of the kind of reform that makes sense. We are not saving money by turning our backs on the people who need these benefits. Instead, we are focusing the attention where it ought to be, on the providers who profit off workers' pain unlawfully. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 9237. It is a beautiful day here in Washington, D.C., but Republicans are casting a dark cloud over all of us and especially over America's veterans. We have before us today a bill that, despite its name, does the exact opposite of taking care of veterans. It enshrines into law the largest cut to veterans' benefits ever in the history of this Nation. The premise of this bill is that some veterans must be made worse off in order to make others better off. Mr. Speaker, I reject that premise, I reject this bill, and I encourage others to do the same. Here is the core issue: The majority treats veterans as a zero-sum game: cut disability pay for some to find benefits for others. That is not governing. That is rationing suffering among our Nation's heroes. With this bill, the majority would, for the first time ever, have Congress interfere in the scientific process that the determines veterans' disability ratings, overriding the expertise of medical professionals at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I respect that Chairman Bost is a military veteran, but he is not a medical professional. The majority, for the first time ever, would have us cut tens of billions of dollars from veteran disability compensation to pay for the Department of Defense obligations. This is absolutely unconscionable. Consider the math. Republicans are discussing nearly $70 billion in new Pentagon spending without offsets. They vote enthusiastically for $1.5 trillion in annual defense budgets. Yet, they insist on paying for veterans' priorities by cutting benefits with the two most common service-connected conditions. Apparently, there is no problem sending veterans the bill for the wars that Congress funds. This is a massive 600-page bill--crafted behind closed doors and brought to the floor without careful consideration--packed with harmful provisions designed to boost a few vulnerable Members' electoral prospects. Mr. Speaker, for those reasons and many, many more, I cannot in good conscience support this legislation. More important than my opposition is the opposition of the very people whom the majority claims to help, the veterans themselves. Over 30 Veteran Service Organizations and advocates oppose this legislation, including many of the largest, like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and numerous others. They know that reaching into the pockets of one set of veterans to provide for another is morally wrong. Creating tiers of veterans based on their period of service and treating tomorrow's veterans worse than today's is morally wrong. They will not stand for it, and neither should we. In addition to the numerous VSOs and over two dozen labor unions opposed to this bill, including the Union of Veterans Council, American Federation of Government Employees, and AFL-CIO, so do professional associations like the American Psychological Association and the Nurses Organization of VA. They all recognize the devastating effect this legislation will have on VA's workforce and their ability to deliver high-quality care. Even the Mortgage Bankers Association has expressed opposition to this bill. The majority has decided that, during a housing affordability crisis, it makes sense to raise costs on struggling veteran homeowners who are desperately trying to avoid foreclosure. This package contains multiple harmful provisions. It would accelerate the privatization of veteran healthcare--creating new grant programs for private providers that divert resources from VA mental health and PTSD programs--and steer veterans into more expensive community-based care, even where VA services remain available, and strip VA psychologists of their collective bargaining rights. This bill also contains numerous sections opposed by key stakeholders, like Student Veterans of America, Veterans Education Success, and the American Federation of Teachers, that would direct GI Bill funding toward low-quality, for-profit, unaccredited online programs. This bill contains provisions that would allow GI benefits to be used for online welding courses. Can you believe it? Explain to me how you can teach someone online how to weld. Inexplicably, H.R. 9237 even includes a $500 million IT slush fund that VA will use to enrich contractors and reward the President's cronies. The list goes on and on. We are going to hear arguments from the majority today about all the good things this bill attempts to do. If we exist in a vacuum, I would say that I agree. There are parts of this bill with broad bipartisan support: long overdue increases to dependency and indemnity compensation and a special monthly compensation, for example. We do not exist in isolation here, and we must take the bill as the total sum of its parts, especially since the majority has blocked amendments to this bill, as they have done so often in this Congress. Regrettably, we will also hear the chairman say that cutting veterans' benefits is the only way that we can get them done. This is patently false, and the chairman knows it. Everyone in this Chamber knows it, and everyone in America knows it, as well. There are any number of other places we can find money for these priorities. We don't lack money around here. What is in short supply, at least on the other side of the aisle, is the political will to use some of it on behalf of America's veterans. There is $1.5 trillion for the Department of Defense, $70 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and hundreds of millions of dollars for permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, none of it offset, and all of which the chairman voted for enthusiastically. Just 10 days of President Trump's folly in Iran would pay for 10 years of benefits under the Major Richard Star Act. Let me say that again. Just 10 days of President Trump's folly in Iran would pay for 10 years of benefits under the Major Richard Star Act. The question we have before us today is this: Why do you insist on offsets now? Why only now when we are trying to do work on behalf of our Nation's veterans do you care about the deficit? Why are Republicans holding veterans' priorities hostage, including the overwhelming top priority of veterans, the Major Richard Star Act, in exchange for multibillion-dollar cuts to veterans' benefits? That is a mystery to me, and it is a question that Chairman Bost and Republicans will struggle to answer, as well. I will point to this chart here. Mr. Speaker, let me finish with a quote from just one veteran in opposition to this legislation: ``I am a disabled Michigan veteran and lifelong conservative. Please pass the Major Richard Star Act as a stand-alone bill. We do not support the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, H.R. 9237, and we will never elect Representatives who want to cut veterans' benefits. How could Republicans propose this.'' I couldn't have said it any better, and there are thousands more comments just like this as you can see here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the chairman has said several times that the disability changes this bill makes are coming anyway. That is simply not true. He is counting on a golden egg that the VA has simply not laid yet. The first Trump administration floated changes to conditions like sleep apnea and tinnitus beginning in 2019. Then 4 years ago, when VA sought public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking, the 2022 changes during the Biden administration, VSOs and many Members of this body spoke loudly and clearly and unanimously in opposition to them, and what he doesn't mention is that the Biden administration walked away from those proposed rule changes. The VA listened to those voices in 2022, and as a result, the proposed rule has been on a shelf since then. Just a few short weeks ago, VA clarified that it is not planning to take any action on this proposed rule. That was from a VA spokesperson in public. There is nothing inevitable about these rule changes, which are going to bring about the golden egg of savings, the $57 billion that the chairman is counting on in order to pay for this bill. The savings will come from cuts to veterans disability benefits. Their tweet that he is referring to this morning quoting an unnamed source is not the same as rulemaking. This is simply the majority trying to find any excuse possible to cut benefits they view as overly generous, which has long been their goal. That is why Americans for Prosperity has endorsed this bill. The architects of Project 2025 have been desperate to cut benefits for years, and they have been trying to find a way to touch veterans benefits. I am not going to let them do that. They even showed up at the majority's press conference to cheer on their efforts just a few short days ago, and now they finally have a majority who is willing to bow to their demands to harm veterans. My majority counterparts have picked an interesting time to care about science again. Their remarks today attempt to demonstrate that they are working to align themselves with the best science to update and modernize the disability ratings schedule. Yet, my majority colleagues fail to see the irony in legislating away veteran benefits before VA completes a thorough review of the best science. They are substituting their own judgment for that of VA clinicians and researchers who actually understand the medical evidence related to these disabilities. If this bill is passed, the expertise of VA and the years of work that go into clinical determinations become moot. If you don't believe me, just listen to what one of VA's top doctors, former VA Secretary and Under Secretary for Health David Shulkin, stated regarding this bill's proposed changes to disability ratings: ``Any modernization of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities should be instead conducted through an independent, evidence-based medical review led by the Department of Veterans Affairs, with opportunities for public comment and congressional oversight. Any savings resulting from that process should be reinvested in improving disability evaluations, rehabilitation services, and veterans' healthcare--not used to finance unrelated provisions of the legislation.'' If my colleagues are suddenly interested in following that science, they should let the experts continue their work independently without the political pressure that passage of this bill will inevitably create. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood), my good friend. She is a former member of this committee who currently serves on the House Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a coalition letter from 10 veterans service organizations; a resolution from The American Legion Department of Texas; a statement from The American Legion, Trujillo-Sheets Post 28, in Durango, Colorado; and emails from Minnesota Blue Earth Post 89 of The American Legion and American Legion Post 58 in Belleville, Illinois, all in opposition to this bill. June 24, 2026. Hon. Jerry Moran, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Richard Blumenthal, Ranking Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mike Bost, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Mark Takano, Ranking Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairmen Moran and Bost, and Ranking Members Blumenthal and Takano: As organizations representing millions of veterans, service members, survivors, caregivers, and military families of all generations, we have long worked with Congress to protect and strengthen the benefits and services earned through military service. For that reason, we do not support the funding mechanism within the Take Care of America's Veterans Act (H.R. 9237/S. 4744) that would significantly reduce future benefits for more than a million disabled veterans. The Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities is intended to reflect medical evidence, functional impairment, and scientific expertise, not serve as a budgetary offset. If Congress establishes the precedent that disability ratings may be rewritten through statute to generate ``savings'', future Congresses will have a ready-made roadmap for reducing earned benefits whenever fiscal pressures arise. Disability compensation is not a government program to be trimmed when convenient. It is earned compensation for injuries and illnesses incurred in service to our nation. Some supporters argue that Congress is simply implementing changes previously proposed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, VA never finalized those proposals, largely due to receiving more than 2,600 comments raising concerns about the medical justification for the changes and their impact on future veterans. In fact, VA spokesman Quinn Slaven recently stated, ``No changes are planned or imminent,'' and noted that the agency is still reviewing the proposed rule, which ``would need to undergo significant changes [emphasis added] prior to being finalized'' before any implementation could occur (Slaven, quoted in GovExec, June 16, 2026). We are also troubled that reductions to future VA disability compensation are being used to finance provisions such as the Major Richard Star Act, which addresses a military retirement inequity rooted in Department of Defense policy. Correcting a Title 10 obligation should not come at the expense of Title 38 benefits. We continue to support enactment of a clean and complete Major Richard Star Act that delivers full concurrent receipt to combat-injured retirees without reducing earned benefits for future veterans. Congress can and should address these priorities without reducing compensation for future disabled veterans, bypassing the regulatory process, or undermining confidence in the disability compensation system. We respectfully urge Congress to find a different path forward for these important benefit increases, including a clean and complete Major Richard Star Act, that does not force one generation of veterans to bear the cost for another. Sincerely, DAV (Disabled American Veterans), Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Jewish War Veterans, Marine Corps League, National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, National Veterans Legal Services Program, Reserve Organization of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 54kVeterans.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, the chairman has made the claim that VA is going to move forward with taking away sleep apnea and tinnitus as conditions that veterans may claim disability ratings for. I would like to ask the chairman who at VA has made that commitment. He has tweeted out this morning that this is the case. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) for the purpose of a colloquy to tell me the name of the person at VA who has confirmed that the VA is moving forward with these changes to disability ratings.

Mr. TAKANO. The Secretary?

Mr. TAKANO. So the gentleman is saying that a Secretary who backed away from changes to disability ratings in terms of medication--the intent was to say that if veterans take medication or get some sort of treatment, that if their conditions improve, that their disability ratings could then be lowered. He backed away from that after immense protest and opposition from veterans and veterans organizations. You are telling me that this very same Secretary is telling you that he is moving forward with a $57 billion cut to disability ratings? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

Mr. TAKANO. The time is mine. I am reclaiming my time. Mr. Speaker, there has been no public statement by the Secretary. There has been no named official from VA today. I defy the chairman to produce such a name. He is making a claim, but, again, I will contend that they are counting on a golden egg in disability cuts, savings on the backs of veterans, that has not been laid yet and that I contend will not be. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Deluzio), a veteran of the U.S. Navy, a former member of this committee and who now serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Transportation Committee.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, there is overwhelming opposition to cutting veterans' disability benefits to offset the cost of this bill. Major VSOs, like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, along with numerous others, all oppose this bill due to the offset. More importantly, veterans themselves are overwhelmingly opposed, as well. Check out any online veteran forum, and you will find thousands of comments from both veterans and Active-Duty servicemembers decrying these proposed cuts. Veterans of all eras agree that their receipt of benefits should not be predicated on cuts to benefits for another generation of veterans. It is our job to listen to them. There are other ways to fund this bill's provisions. We just need to have the political courage to stand up and do what is right for our veterans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee), my good friend who serves on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will point out that yesterday, House Republicans released a $95 billion supplemental for the reconciliation bill they want to bring forward next week for Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operations all without offsets. We are talking about $95 billion--none of them with an offset. Yet, we are asking our veterans to pay for this bill. Only in the case of veterans is the chairman looking for an offset. I defy the chairman to tell me whether he will ask for an offset for the $95 billion supplemental that goes to Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operations. I eagerly await to hear his answer. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I continue to ask the chairman in advance of a $95 billion supplemental for Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operation, on none of this are the Republicans seeking an offset? Only the chairman in this particular case when it comes to our veterans is demanding that veterans pay for veterans. We could pass this bill without having to ask veterans to pay for veterans--actually, for disabled veterans to pay for veterans. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman again: Does he plan to seek an offset or demand an offset for the $95 billion supplemental for Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operations, none of which Republicans are intending to pay for? Their rules and their policy is to make veterans pay for veterans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. In listening to the chairman today and at the Rules Committee several weeks ago, it is clear to me that he has been picking his words very carefully. He has been very specific that this bill, the so-called Take Care of America's Veterans Act, would not impair current veterans. I am not sure if the chairman fully understands how the disability benefits system works or if he truly believes what he is saying, but what he is saying isn't even remotely the full truth. The bill can and will lead to cuts for those who already have service-connected disability ratings for sleep apnea and tinnitus. This is because anytime a veteran applies for a rating increase or applies for a new rating for some other condition, VA can and does review previous ratings, sometimes even lowering them. It is foolish to think that VA won't apply the new rules for sleep apnea and tinnitus when veterans have their ratings reviewed. Further, his remarks fail to take into consideration two other critically important populations here. First, these cuts would make servicemembers currently serving who may be incurring these injuries right now ineligible to receive compensation for service-connected tinnitus or sleep apnea. Those servicemembers President Trump keeps sending into harm's way in this foolish war with Iran would be ineligible for these benefits. That should give us all pause. Let me just say a ``yes'' vote on this bill is a message that we are sending to the servicemembers currently serving in and around the waters of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz and our servicemembers that are stationed at bases who have already faced incoming missile fire and have been subjected to the blasts that have surely affected their eardrums, we are saying to them that they will not be able to apply to make claims based on tinnitus, much less sleep apnea. That is the message a ``yes'' vote will send to them. That is why I say vote ``no.'' In addition, the chairman and his colleagues fail to acknowledge that the existing veterans who have yet to file a claim for tinnitus or sleep apnea--I am talking about a group of people not the current servicemembers, but veterans who have yet to apply for a rating--these two groups of veterans, that is, current servicemembers and veterans who have yet to file, will be treated worse than those that came before them. This contract will unilaterally be changed on them and for the worse. How my Republican colleagues are okay with treating two veterans with the same exact condition differently is beyond me. Mr. Speaker, this is the largest cut to veterans' disability benefits in history being used to pay for this bill when Republicans are not demanding offsets for $95 billion next week. I don't know how you all can live with yourselves. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.