[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.
____________________