[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 20, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H4202-H4206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS FOR CERTAIN 
                                PARENTS

  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6048) to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to 
provide for the protection of child custody arrangements for parents 
who are members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of a 
contingency operation.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6048

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF CHILD CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS FOR 
                   PARENTS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
                   DEPLOYED IN SUPPORT OF A CONTINGENCY OPERATION.

       (a) Child Custody Protection.--Title II of the 
     Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 521 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 208. CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION.

       ``(a) Restriction on Change of Custody.--If a motion for 
     change of custody of a child of a servicemember is filed 
     while the servicemember is deployed in support of a 
     contingency operation, no court may enter an order modifying 
     or amending any previous judgment or order, or issue a new 
     order, that changes the custody arrangement for that child 
     that existed as of the date of the deployment of the 
     servicemember, except that a court may enter a temporary 
     custody order if there is clear and convincing evidence that 
     it is in the best interest of the child.
       ``(b) Completion of Deployment.--In any preceding covered 
     under subsection (a), a court shall require that, upon the 
     return of the servicemember from deployment in support of a 
     contingency operation, the custody order that was in effect 
     immediately preceding the date of the deployment of the 
     servicemember is reinstated, unless there is clear and 
     convincing evidence that such a reinstatement is not in the 
     best interest of the child.
       ``(c) Exclusion of Military Service From Determination of 
     Child's Best Interest.--If a motion for the change of custody 
     of the child of a servicemember is filed, no court may 
     consider the absence of the servicemember by reason of 
     deployment, or possibility of deployment, in determining the 
     best interest of the child.
       ``(d) Contingency Operation Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `contingency operation' has the meaning given that term 
     in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States

[[Page H4203]]

     Code, except that the term may include such other deployments 
     as the Secretary may prescribe.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items 
     relating to title II the following new item:

``208. Child custody protection.''.


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this bill, which was introduced by Mr. Turner of Ohio, 
a member of our committee, amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 
to provide for the protection of child custody arrangements for parents 
who are members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of a 
contingency operation.
  This measure restricts the ability of a court to order change in a 
custody arrangement that predates the deployment of a servicemember. It 
mandates that once a deployment is completed, the custody arrangements 
will be reinstated if changed during the deployment. The bill also 
requires that a court may not consider the absence of the servicemember 
because of deployment as a factor in determining the best interests of 
the child. Importantly, this bill provides courts with the ability to 
order a temporary custody arrangement or to prevent the reinstatement 
of a prior custody arrangement when the servicemember returns upon a 
showing of clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best 
interests of the child.
  We are faced with a conflict between the protection of the rights of 
our servicemembers, which is a Federal responsibility, and child 
custody issues, which are traditionally within the purview of our 
States. I believe that Mr. Turner's bill strikes the necessary balance 
between these interests and provides an important safeguard for our 
servicemembers and their children, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the measure.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 6048 would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief 
Act to provide for the protection of child custody arrangements for 
parents who are members of the Armed Forces deployed in supporting a 
contingency operation.
  Very briefly, this bill would place restrictions on changes in child 
custody that a court could order during a period of a servicemember's 
deployment and upon the servicemember's return from deployment. Also, 
this bill would exclude consideration of military service from a 
court's determination of a ``child's best interests.''
  Madam Speaker, I would explain to my colleagues that the paramount 
consideration in child custody cases is the best interests of the 
child. The simple fact that a servicemember parent is subject to 
deployment should not be permitted to work against him or her in child 
custody cases.
  At this time I would defer to the author of this legislation, Mr. 
Turner, who is an active member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, for 
a more detailed explanation of his legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank House leadership, 
the House Armed Services Committee chairman, Chairman Skelton, Ranking 
Member Hunter, as well as the leaders from House Judiciary, Chairman 
John Conyers, and the Veterans Affairs Committee Chair and ranking 
member for their assistance in bringing H.R. 6048 to the floor today. I 
would like to thank our presiding Chair, Ellen Tauscher, also for her 
support of this bipartisan bill.
  This bill was originally included as an amendment to the House 
version of last year's National Defense Authorization Act when it 
passed the House by voice vote. The purpose of this bill is 
straightforward. It provides certainty to servicemembers deployed in a 
contingency operation that their child custody arrangements will be 
protected.
  Imagine the stress and conflict in serving your country and fearing 
that a court will take your children away because of your service. In 
some cases, courts have overturned established custody arrangements 
because a custodial parent has served our country in a contingency 
operation such as Iraq or Afghanistan.
  Recently, many cases have come to light where servicemembers who have 
been deployed have had their military service used against them in 
custody hearings. One such case was that of Eva Slusher. Eva spent 
nearly $25,000 and years trying to regain custody of her daughter after 
fighting courts that used her deployment as a factor against her.
  We have heard from other servicemembers who have had similar court 
battles. In fact, recently my office learned about a servicemember who 
during her custody proceedings was told by a judge that the mere 
possibility of her deployment weighed against the best interests of the 
child in denying her custody.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record two letters that 
were written to my office by servicemembers detailing their stories of 
how this legislation could have helped.

                              {time}  1500

  One of those letters is from Heather Watkins, and I want to read some 
excerpts from that letter. She writes:
  At the time of the final custody hearing for my children, the court 
stated that even though he believed I was a good parent, my being 
stationed on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower prevented me from being able 
to care for my children. Shared custody was granted.
  In a subsequent court proceeding, the court again stated that he 
believed I was a good parent and stated that, with the way of the world 
today, I cannot be sure that you will not be called off of shore duty 
and deployed back to sea.
  In June 2005, I was honorably discharged. It was implied to me by the 
court that once I was out of the Navy, I would be able to obtain 
custody of my children. This has not proven to be true. I was proud to 
serve my country in the Armed Forces for 13 years, but at this time I 
believe my children were the price I paid for the privilege of 
protecting the United States of America.

       Dear Sir and Madam, I urge you to support the Bill for 
     amendment of the Service Members Civil Relief Act to provide 
     for the protection of child custody for parents who are 
     members of the Armed Forces deployed in the support of a 
     contingency operation as presented by Congressman Mike 
     Turner.
       I have been separated/divorced from my ex-husband since 
     1998. At the time of my divorce I did not dream that my being 
     a Proud Active member of the United States Armed Services 
     could or would be utilized as a tool to separate me from my 
     children.
       At the time of the final custody hearing for my children 
     the court stated that even though he believed that I was a 
     good parent, my being stationed on the USS Dwight D. 
     Eisenhower prevented me from being able to care for my 
     children. Shared custody was granted.
       I re-enlisted in 2001 on the advice of my lawyer to 
     maintain work and income stability. My ship was in dry dock 
     for many months of scheduled maintenance and I was on the 
     shore duty portion of my enlistment contract. My next court 
     date was in October 2001. At the time of my court date, the 
     terrorist attack of September 11 against the United Stated of 
     America was very fresh in the minds of the U.S. citizens and 
     the court. He again stated that he believed that I was a good 
     parent and stated that, with the way of the world today, I 
     cannot be sure that you will not be called off of shore duty 
     and deployed back to sea. The court also voiced concerns that 
     I would join the reserves and not be available to my 
     children. The custody arrangement for my children was left 
     unchanged.
       In June 2005, I was Honorably Discharged. It was implied to 
     me by the court that once I was out of the Navy, I would be 
     able to obtain custody of my children. This has not proven to 
     be true. As of today, I do not have custody of my children. 
     The court does not wish to hear this case again. I have 
     permission to change venue but am unable to find a Judge or 
     court that will hear my case.
       I have not spoken to or had other contact with my children 
     since 12-26-2007. My calls to them have been unanswered and 
     unreturned. I have been unable to get any assistance on local 
     or state levels.
       I was proud to serve my country in the Armed Forces for 13 
     years but at this time I believe my children were the price I 
     paid for the privilege of protecting the United States of 
     America. Again, I urge you to support this Bill as presented 
     by Congressman Mike Turner and prevent any other children 
     being separated from loving parents by virtue of their 
     serving their country.
           Respectfully,
                                               Heather A. Watkins.

  Another letter I have is from Eva Slusher, and she writes that she 
was a full-time member of the Kentucky

[[Page H4204]]

Army National Guard, proudly serving her country for nearly 19 years. 
In February of 2003, she was called to Active Duty to support the war 
on terror. She writes:
  Initially, it was believed that I was going to Iraq, but once we 
arrived at Fort Knox, it was decided that our Personnel Services 
Detachment would be better used at Fort Knox to assist with the large 
number of troops mobilizing and that they were not equipped to 
facilitate. When I was alerted, I had three days to report. As a single 
parent, I made arrangements for my child, packed her up and moved her, 
and wrapped up all my affairs, financial and otherwise, in those three 
days. My ex-husband and I decided that Sara should stay with him while 
I was gone, but that it would only be temporary and that she would come 
back home when our tour was over.
  After her tour was over, custody to her was refused.
  In August 2004, we went to court. I was under the impression that we 
were there to have my rights as the custodial parent enforced as no one 
had filed a motion to change custody. However, the next week I received 
the ruling that Sara was to stay with her father as she was settled in 
and that was in her best interest. I was penalized for the time spent 
away from her in service of my country.
  She ends with: Everyone wants to talk about supporting our troops. I 
beg you to support this legislation in order to support our troops.
                                                     May 19, 2008.
     Members of Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of Congress:
       I am writing this letter in reference to Congressman 
     Turner's Bill, HR 6048. I, personally, experienced the 
     injustice of losing custody of my child, for no other reason 
     than service to my country. It cost me 2 years of anguish and 
     nearly $25,000 to get my daughter back. This proposed 
     legislation is necessary to prevent this discrimination 
     against our servicemembers.
       I am LT Eva Slusher (formerly Crouch). I am a full time 
     member of the Kentucky Army National Guard, proudly serving 
     my country and State for nearly 19 years. I joined the 
     military when I was 17 years old and a senior in high school. 
     The military has paid for my college education and provided 
     me with reliable, steady employment all of these years.
       I am also a mother. My daughter, Sara, was born in 1994. 
     Her father and I were divorced in 1996. When we divorced, I 
     was award primary physical custody of my daughter, and her 
     father had visitation. My military service was not 
     questioned. This arrangement went unchallenged, even when I 
     moved over 150 miles away from my ex-husband. I raised that 
     child by myself, without any help from him while I worked 
     full time and put myself through college. Sara was my life. 
     Every day revolved around her. I volunteered at her school 
     every other Monday (my day off); she played softball, soccer 
     and cheered. I was an assistant coach of her soccer and 
     cheerleading. I cooked dinner, helped with homework, bathed 
     her and read her bedtime stories every night. I was an 
     exceptional, loving and attentive mother.
       In February 2003, I was called to active duty to support 
     the War on Terror. Initially, it was believed that I was 
     going to Iraq, but once we arrived at Ft. Knox, it was 
     decided that our Personnel Services Detachment would be of 
     better use at Ft. Knox to assist with the large number of 
     troops mobilizing that they were not equipped to facilitate.
       When I was alerted, I had 3 days to report. As a single 
     parent, I had to make arrangements for my child, pack her up 
     and move her and wrap up all of my affairs (financial and 
     otherwise) in those 3 days. My ex-husband and I decided that 
     Sara should stay with him while I was gone, but that it would 
     only be temporary and that she would come back home when my 
     tour was over.
       I was very fortunate to have stayed in country and close 
     enough that I could visit with Sara on the weekends. Nearly 
     every weekend, I drove the 4\1/2\ hours from Ft. Knox to 
     Ashland, KY to see her. I would pick her up and we'd stay in 
     a hotel, and go to movies, dinner, shopping, etc. Many 
     weekends, I would stop by Frankfort on my way and pick up one 
     of her friends, so she could stay in touch with them. I spent 
     about $300 per trip on gas money, hotels, food and 
     entertainment, but it was all worth it to be with my 
     daughter.
       On July 20, 2004, as I pulled into my driveway, I called my 
     ex-husband on the cell phone and told him I was home and that 
     I would be picking Sara up the next day, and to please have 
     her things packed. His response was ``Not without a court 
     order''. Until that moment, no one made any indication to me 
     that Sara would not be coming home as planned. I immediately 
     hired an attorney to file a motion to have my daughter 
     returned to me. In August 2004, we went to court. I was under 
     the impression that we were there to have my rights as the 
     custodial parent enforced, as no one filed a motion for 
     change of custody. However, the next week I received the 
     ruling that Sara was to stay with her father, as she was 
     settled in there and it was in her ``best interest''. I was 
     penalized for the time spent away from her in service to my 
     country. When I got divorced the courts deemed me a fit 
     parent, but now, suddenly, because I served my country, I 
     should not be allowed to raise my child anymore? I was 
     completely appalled! It never occurred to me that this 
     could happen. Soldiers are protected under the 
     Servicemember's Civil Relief Act, or so I thought; an 
     employer has to give me my job back after I return from a 
     deployment, but they don't have to give me my child back? 
     That is insane!
       I was devastated. After having a life that was so full of 
     her, I now came home to an empty house every day! I didn't 
     know what to do with myself! Sara was terribly distraught 
     over the whole situation, to the point that we had to take 
     her to Cincinnati Children's Hospital for stomach problems, 
     all stress related. I only got to see her every other 
     weekend, and she would cry and beg me not to make her go 
     back. It ripped my heart out! Why would a parent put his 
     child through all of this? The real question is: How could 
     our justice system allow this to happen? I still don't have 
     an answer for that.
       After the Court ruling, I hired a new lawyer and we 
     appealed the ruling. In September 2005, they ruled in my 
     favor and my ex-husband appealed to the Kentucky Supreme 
     Court. In September 2006, they also ruled in my favor and my 
     daughter came home on October 15, 2006. I spent more than 2 
     years and between $20,000 and $25,000 in legal fees. Sara is 
     now a happy, healthy, well adjusted child, but I lost so much 
     time with her, and she is not the child I set out to raise. 
     Our lives were turned upside down and the results are 
     everlasting. All of this because I was deployed . . .
       It is a disgraceful injustice to punish a Soldier for their 
     service. The military has done so much for me: a college 
     education, a way to pay my bills and feed my family, a sense 
     of honor and pride . . . When they called on me to do my 
     part, what should I have done? Said ``No thanks, I need to 
     stay home . . .'' Even if that were an option, which it is 
     not, I could not do that. It is not the right thing to do. 
     Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, 
     and Personal Courage: these are the things I stand for, 
     should I lose my child for that? What kind of message is that 
     sending? How is the United States Military supposed to 
     recruit when you send a message like that? Don't we, as 
     Soldiers, already sacrifice enough? How is a Soldier to 
     concentrate on his/her mission while worrying about what will 
     happen to their children? No Soldier should have to incur the 
     emotional and financial cost that I have, only because they 
     serve their country.
       I have my daughter back home with me, but I cannot sit back 
     and allow this to happen to others if I can do anything about 
     it. Since my story was publicized, I have learned that many 
     other Soldiers have also had to deal with similar situations. 
     Not to mention that every unmarried parent in the military, 
     and every parent that has children from previous 
     relationships and any parent that may be divorced in the 
     future has to be concerned with whether or not they may be 
     penalized for their service. This is not the way to treat our 
     military service members.
       Due to the nature of military service, there really needs 
     to be guidance at the federal level. This issue needs to be 
     spelled out as it is in Congressman Turner's Bill: (1) No 
     court may permanently alter an existing custody agreement 
     while a military parent is deployed; (2) Upon the return of 
     the service member from deployment, any temporary change in 
     custody shall be immediately reversed; and (3) No court may 
     consider a military parents' deployment in determining the 
     best interest of the child. Had this been the law in 2004, my 
     daughter and I would not have had to deal with the 
     separation, stress, expense and lifelong effects of a 
     prolonged custody battle.
       Everyone wants to talk about supporting our troops, I beg 
     you to support this legislation in order to support troops. 
     We are not asking for any special consideration, only that 
     our military service not be used against us.
           Very Respectfully,
                                                   V. Eva Slusher,
                                                    Frankfort, KY.
  She has since regained custody of her daughter.
  This bill prevents judges from changing the custody arrangements of 
servicemembers and their children during a servicemember's deployment 
unless clear and convincing evidence says a change would be in the best 
interest of the child. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that 
while one parent is deployed, another party cannot permanently change 
custody arrangements. Temporary orders may be enacted and entered until 
the serving parent returns.
  Additionally, the bill requires a return to the original 
predeployment custody arrangement after the servicemember returns from 
the contingency operation. And, finally, the bill prohibits the use of 
a servicemember's absence because of their deployment, or the 
possibility of deployment, against that servicemember when ascertaining 
the best interest of the child. Their service cannot be used against 
them.

[[Page H4205]]

  Much is asked of our servicemembers, and mobilization can disrupt and 
strain relationships at home. This additional protection is needed to 
provide them peace of mind that the courts will not take away their 
children because they answered the country's call to serve or have the 
possibility of being called to serve. This bill protects them and it 
protects their children.
  Again, I thank the House leadership for their support of this bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. BUYER. As a practicing attorney during my private law practice in 
Monticello, Indiana, I handled a number of child custody cases, and as 
an Army JAG officer on Active Duty I provided legal assistance to 
servicemembers in child custody cases. I have a practitioner's 
perspective on these issues, and, quite frankly, they are some of the 
hardest cases I have seen where two parents are in a legal contest over 
the custody of their child.
  From my perspective, I appreciate Mr. Turner's objective of ensuring 
fair treatment of servicemembers in child custody matters when they are 
deployed and when they return home.
  When I first learned just a few days ago that this bill had been 
introduced on the suspension calendar without any consideration by the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, I read the 
bill and had some questions. I wanted to know what were the official 
positions of the Department of Defense and the American Bar 
Association, Family Law Section. The answer was that neither had been 
asked for an official position, so none was available. There has never 
been a legislative hearing on this bill by any House committee to 
examine the legislation and to allow stakeholders to present their 
views.
  Mr. Turner's initiative and passion on this issue is commendable. As 
this legislation moves forward, I would like to work with my 
distinguished colleague from Ohio to ensure that the final product does 
what we would all like it to accomplish.
  Madam Speaker, this amendment to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 
would, to the extent as applicable, have a preemptive effect on the 
existing body of State case law and statutory law in terms of 
substantive Servicemembers Civil Relief Act rights and protections, as 
well as the burdens of proof and procedures of each jurisdiction. 
However, I want to make clear that this legislation should be construed 
to provide additional remedies to those already available under the 
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and State law. This measure is intended 
to expand the rights and protections of servicemembers, and not to 
result in any limitation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act as it 
applies to military family care plans, other custody cases, and family 
court matters not having a custody order in effect.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Turner for his active support and 
advocacy of our Nation's servicemembers and veterans, and I look 
forward to working with him as this bill goes to the United States 
Senate.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, we are coming to the conclusion of the 10-
bill package that the Veterans' Affairs Committee presented today on 
the floor in anticipation of the Memorial Day holiday. We honor those 
whose lives were lost serving their Nation, and in their memory we have 
presented these 10 bills that provide a variety of benefits in all 
kinds of ways. And I thanked all the members of our subcommittees, but 
I want to thank the staff on both the majority and minority side who 
have participated in the drafting and the amending of these bills. It 
takes a lot of work from the staff, and we want to both, Mr. Buyer and 
I, thank them.
  I will yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. All of these bills 
that we brought to the floor today take many, many hours on behalf of 
not only the staff on the Republican side but also the Democrat side, 
and they have grown together and they work well together. I want to 
thank the gentleman for his cooperation.
  Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Buyer.
  Madam Speaker, as I said, as we prepare for Memorial Day, I think all 
of us in this Congress want to assure the servicemembers who have 
served this Nation in the past and those who are deployed today.
  We are fighting a war that is very divisive in this country and in 
this Congress, but we are united in saying that every young man and 
woman who comes back from that conflict is going to get all the care, 
the love, the attention, the honor, and dignity that they deserve.
  They are coming back with enormous difficulties, many of them. 
Because of the advances in our medicine and the incredible expertise on 
the battlefield of those who medivac these injured out, the incredible 
medical teams in the forward base hospitals and the regional hospitals 
and in Germany, we are saving lives that in previous wars would not 
have been saved. If you survive a battlefield injury, you will have a 
95 percent chance of surviving the war. That is an incredible statistic 
when compared to any other war in history.
  But that means, when these soldiers come back there is a very high 
percentage of those with brain injury, a very high percentage of those 
with psychological wounds, one of which we refer to as PTSD, 
posttraumatic stress disorder. And we have an obligation as a Nation to 
treat every single one of these with the maximum quality of health care 
that they can get in this Nation. And yet, we have had examples of 
soldiers all around the Nation who have simply not gotten the attention 
that they require.
  We have had reports of soldiers showing up to medical facilities 
saying they had PTSD or suicidal thoughts, being told that there was 
nobody to meet with them for 4 or 5 weeks, and they would go home and 
commit suicide. We have had lots of reports of those who did not 
receive adequate care. At the same time, we were not getting the full 
information on the numbers of cases of PTSD, the amount of resources 
needed to deal with them, or the number of suicides that were committed 
or are being committed by our Nation's veterans.
  Madam Speaker, each month we have 1,000 suicide attempts by those 
under care of our VA system. And those under care mean only about one-
fifth of all the veterans in our Nation. That is an astounding 
statistic which says that we have a job to do about mental health and 
about dealing with these, especially psychological injuries.
  And we know what happens if we don't do our job right with these 
young men and women. We already had the canaries in the mine with our 
Vietnam vets. When our veterans returned from Vietnam, many of us who 
were opposed to that war made a mistake. We did not differentiate 
between the war and the warrior, and so the warriors did not get all 
the care, the love, the attention, the honor, and dignity that I talked 
about earlier. And this society has paid a heavy price for that. 
Individuals, families, neighborhoods have paid a heavy price. Half of 
the homeless on the street tonight, Madam Speaker, are Vietnam vets, 
about 200,000.
  There have been more deaths by suicide of Vietnam vets than died in 
the original war by combat. And we have had the head of our mental 
health agency in this Nation say that the same will be probably true of 
Iraq; we will have more suicides than battlefield deaths.
  That is not only a tragedy, but it is a preventible tragedy. We have 
to say that we are going to put the resources in to deal with these 
issues. It is part of the cost of war. As I said earlier, Madam 
Speaker, we are spending $1 billion every 2 days on the war in Iraq. 
Surely we can spend the hundreds of millions or billions that are 
required to treat the mental health needs of our older veterans and our 
newer veterans. This is absolutely required. We must do this job and do 
it right.
  As George Washington said, the biggest factor in the morale of our 
fighting troops is the sense of how they are going to be treated when 
they come home. We have to do a better job of treating them when they 
come home.
  Our committee, Madam Speaker, and this Congress provided in this 
fiscal year and the coming fiscal year almost $20 billion of new money 
for health care. That represents over a 40 percent increase in the 
budgets that we started off with 2 fiscal years ago. Our job is to make 
sure that the money is spent right, our oversight job. Now that they 
have the resources, are they hiring the

[[Page H4206]]

mental health professionals? Are they doing the diagnoses and 
treatments?
  It is absolutely apparent, Madam Speaker, that tens of thousands of 
our young people are getting out of the military or the Reserve or the 
National Guard without being adequately diagnosed for brain injury or 
PTSD. Let me say that again. We have tens of thousands of our young 
people being discharged from the military or from the Reserve or 
National Guard without diagnosis for PTSD or brain injury. That means 
tens of thousands of ticking time bombs are out on the street. We need 
to do a better job.
  There is a stigma against adequate evaluation and early treatment. 
The military, or at least many members of the military, seem to give 
their younger troops the sense that it is not macho, it is not marine-
like, it is not soldier-like to have mental illness. That it is a 
weakness. You have got to buck up, sergeant, and not have any mental 
illness. So we have folks who get a questionnaire about some of the 
risk factors, and they just say no. They know they are supposed to say 
no, because they want to be home, they don't want any influence on 
their future career or any possible promotion. So there is a dynamic 
within our military not to adequately diagnose.
  The VA says they have mandatory screening for these illnesses, for 
these injuries when people come to the VA for treatment. Well, they may 
not come to the VA for treatment. We don't have an outreach that goes 
after every single one of them. And when they come in, they get a 
questionnaire by an intake clerk of two questions. Anybody who wants 
not to have any of the stigma of mental illness knows to say no on 
those two questions. Besides, we are told there are 15 risk factors for 
PTSD and suicide. Why don't we ask about all of them? Why don't we have 
a mandatory evaluation by competent mental health personnel before 
anybody gets discharged or leaves the National Guard or leaves the 
Reserves? This has to be done, Madam Speaker. We have to get rid of the 
stigma and do it in a way where we allow the soldiers to do it as part 
of their company, for example, so they have that comradeship and with 
their family to help both diagnosis and treatment.
  So we have a big job to do as we celebrate this Memorial Day. We have 
a job to do with the 1.6 million troops who have been deployed already, 
800,000 of them have returned home. We have a great deal to do with the 
other 23 million of our veterans from previous wars.

                              {time}  1515

  We have to do this job right, Madam Speaker. And on this Memorial 
Day, let us recommit ourselves to doing the job right.


                             General Leave

  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
add extraneous material to H.R. 6048.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FILNER. I would yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 6048.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________