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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this rule. I suggest further, if we were all adults on this floor, everybody would say this rule, outside of the ambit of what amendments are made in order on the defense bill, is an appropriate rule. It is an appropriate rule to respond to a mistake that was made.

As the gentleman from California observed earlier in debate, mistakes are made. Unlike the previous instance some years ago, which were discussed on this floor of the deficit reduction bill where the minority was not notified, the assertion the minority was not notified was absolutely inaccurate,

and Mr. Goodlatte would say that. In point of fact what happened was Mr. Peterson learned of it, talked to Mr. Goodlatte about it, then discussed it with me, and they decided jointly and bipartisanly to proceed.

Unlike the Deficit Reduction Act, the first thing that Mr. Peterson said in arguing for the override of the President's veto was, there is a problem here. He wanted all the Members to know what the problem was. There was not a Member on the floor who didn't know what the problem was.

When they voted, a majority of the minority party voted to override the President's veto because they believed the policy proposed in that bill is a good one. The overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for that bill, and 316 out of 435 of us--there weren't 435 of us; there were 11 absentees. So 316 out of about 424 voted for this bill.

This bill, unfortunately, included fourteen-fifteenths of the bill we passed, and really a larger proportion of that because in terms of pages it was probably 95 percent, 98 percent of the bill.

Now, a mistake was made. It was not a venal mistake. It was not a conscious mistake. And the mistake was made, as everybody ought to know, by the Clerk of the Congress and OMB, and they both made the same mistake. And the mistake they made was reading from the printed copy as opposed to the parchment copy. OMB didn't read from the parchment copy, we didn't read from the parchment copy, because the belief was a decision made 10 years ago by the Deputy Clerk not to proofread the parchment because changing the parchment was too expensive, but to read from the printed copy which then, if found in error, could be corrected and reprinted and then programmed for the parchment to be printed from that. And both our side--our side, the Congress--and the OMB made the same mistake. They assumed, as normally is the case, that the parchment reflected exactly what the conference printed report said.

Unfortunately, in this instance it did not. We still don't have a full explanation of how that happened. But obviously, notwithstanding the fact that parchment indicates that title III in the table of contents is included, when you go to page 169, the end of title II, and you turn the page to 170, you go to title IV. Now, one would have thought it would have been a pretty simple proofreading job if you read the parchment. Unfortunately, the print document which was used by OMB and the Congress to proof did in fact include title III.

Okay. So we made a mistake. The administration made a mistake, we made a mistake, the bill was not whole.

This is, my friends, not an unusual situation. In an 1892 case, which was relied upon in the budget case as well, the Court clearly said: Whatever the facts are internally to the House of Representatives, what the President signs is the statute, is the law.

The Supreme Court says clearly, therefore, that what the President sent us back and the veto overridden is in fact what the court has found is the law. Now, unfortunately, it doesn't include title III. We want to pass title III.

This bill took some 15 months, 18 months of deliberation. The farm bill expires tonight or tomorrow, Friday. So we can either do another extension, which is possible, or we can pass what was overwhelmingly passed in the Senate, overwhelmingly passed in the House of Representatives, and, as I said on the floor last night, was passed in exactly the same form without title III as was passed in both Houses. There were no changes. No alterations. That was not the case in the deficit bill that was referred to by Mr. Boehner yesterday.

In fact, a very substantial difference was made in the bill without notice to the Democrats, a $2 billion change, I might add, changing from 36 months to 13 months the implications of the reimbursement of Medicare for implements.

Now, that is all to say that this is not without precedent, number one. There are a number of cases that hold that what we did yesterday was exactly appropriate, and that law is not subject to question. Everything is subject to question, but not valid question or winning question.

So what have we done?

First of all, I discussed it with the Parliamentarian. I had not done so when we had the colloquy with Mr. Boehner. I then discussed it with the chairman. The chairman discussed it throughout the next few hours with Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Harkin and others.

I discussed it with Mr. Reid to figure out, a mistake has been made, how do we correct that, in fairness to everybody, on a bill, that, by the way, the Deficit Reduction Act was passed by a two-vote margin in the House, and in the United States Senate was passed because of the Vice President's vote. And we were not informed, so we were somewhat concerned about the $2 billion mistake that had been made.

In this case, that is not the issue at all, and it's a bill that was, in a bipartisan basis, passed by a majority of the Republicans and overwhelming majority of Democrats.

So what solution did we come up with? Resending the bill that, under the Supreme Court's edict is, in fact, law if it is overridden in the Senate, so that fourteen-fifteenths of what is the Congress's intent will be accomplished.

The rule then says, but in an abundance of caution, we'll also provide for the passage of the entire bill and send it over to the Senate, as has been passed overwhelmingly in both Houses.

In addition to that, we said, the bill does not include title III that is going to be in the veto message that's sent to the Senate.

I know for the public, this is pretty esoteric, and they don't really care. What they care is the substance.

But the point that I'm trying to make is, we are trying to correct a mistake and serve the agricultural community, serve those millions of people who are relying on the nutritional aid, serving those people who are relying on the conservation assistance throughout this country, to have this bill, after 18 months almost of consideration, serious bipartisan working and overwhelming bipartisan votes in both Houses, enacted into law.

But we are also providing separately for the passage of title III. In other words, we're doing title III twice, once as the full bill so we can repass the full bill. If the Senate decides, as I hope it will, to pass that again, then we will not only have passed fourteen-fifteenths, we will have passed fifteen-fifteenths in another bill, and they will be reconciled and they will be consistent with the law and with the will of this body representing the American people.

Now at about 7 p.m. last night, those of you who heard the colloquy, I indicated to Mr. Boehner we ought to talk about this. I went by Mr. Boehner's office to explain to him what I thought the solution to this problem was and discuss it with him. He was not at his office. I left a message and my phone number at 7 o'clock last night. I have not yet received a response to that visit.

I went to his office to suggest that, pursuant to my representation on the floor, we discuss that. I have not yet received a phone call.

I did talk to Mr. Blunt last night. I've talked to Mr. Blunt this morning. I frankly am offended, I will tell you, by the mischaracterization of what we are doing here by the representatives of the minority leader's office.

There are no games being played here. There was a mistake made. And if we were adults and nonpartisan and wanted to deal with this in a responsible way, I suggest we would have agreed on this proposal.

Now, unfortunately, we didn't get to an agreement. I don't allege that anybody on your side has agreed to this. But to suggest that it hasn't been discussed, informed, and I called as soon as I came in this morning, the leadership on your side, to explain exactly this procedure.

Now you can disagree with the farm bill or not disagree with the farm bill. I understand that additional games are going to be played, as it was my perception last week were played. On Thursday, 131 or 132 of you decided, notwithstanding the fact that I am sure you are for funding the troops in Iraq, you voted ``present.'' That was your decision.

It's my understanding now that perhaps you're being urged, some of you who are for this bill, to deny the two-thirds on the suspension of a bill that has gotten essentially three-quarters of

this House and 80 percent of the United States Senate supporting it.

Ladies and gentlemen, at some point in time the American public expects us to act as adults, not simply as partisan protagonists, to conduct business, notwithstanding the fact because we are humans, and those who work for us are humans and are under great stress. They have to work around the clock. They work 15-hour days, sometimes longer days. And we expect them to act without ever making a mistake. That is unreasonable. And when they make mistakes, and when we make mistakes, it is appropriate for us respond in a way that will correct those mistakes and, at the same time, carry out the policies that are overwhelmingly supported by this body.

My friends on both sides of the aisle, I would hope that we could do that. I regret that the minority leader has not called me back. I regret that he has not sat down and, with me, had the opportunity to discuss this. I had a discussion with him before the vote last night. It was a very calm, reasonable discussion, Mr. Lawrence and I, outside the middle door. We knew there was a problem. We knew we had to solve it. I think this does, in fact, solve it from the standpoint of adopting the policy overwhelmingly supported by this Congress of assuring that title III is addressed, and assuring us of the opportunity to make sure that it's not subject even to any lawsuit question by, again, passing the entire bill supported by, as I said, over 75 percent of the Congress of the United States.

I understand there may be questions about which amendment was allowed in order to the defense bill and which wasn't, so on that case, you may vote differently on the rule. But on the addressing of the mistake that was inadvertently made, and I stress again, by the Congress and by the Office of Management and Budget, same mistake apparently was made, that we can correct this as adults treating one another in a way that each of us would want to be treated to act so that we adopt policies that are supported by this Congress.

I would be glad to yield to my friend, Mr. Blunt, if he wants time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank you. I hope I didn't imply that. What I said, what I meant to say, if I misspoke, not that the--we, first of all agree and, as I've said, we're going to do what you suggest in an abundance of caution to assure us, ourselves, and I would hope that we would all, or least those who are for the farm bill would vote for it, the entire bill will be put on suspension. In light of the fact we had 75 percent of this House support that bill, that would be more than enough to pass it on suspension. We're going to do that in an abundance of caution.

In addition, we're going to do title III separately so the Senate can have that option as well, so if on the veto override they do fourteen- fifteenths of the bill, they can do the one-fifteenth, that is, title III at the same time so they would contemporaneously move forward.

When I refer to, and if I offended the gentleman, adult behavior, this is not a political problem. It is a procedural problem that we need to cure, and we've been working to cure it. You and I have had discussions about it, very positive discussions about it over the last 12 hours. And I would hope that we could proceed on that basis.

And I yield back some time.

Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I simply rise to say that this rule accomplishes exactly, in my opinion, what the minority whip wants to accomplish. It provides for the full passage of this bill under suspension, which the gentleman was for when it passed before, which I was for, and I will vote for. And that suspension accomplishes exactly that objective, so that any defect caused by the mistake will be cured.

Secondly, it's not blame. I, frankly, think the decision that was made 10 years ago was a rational decision. The decision was not to use the parchment copy as a copy to mark on to correct. There was no criticism there. It was simply that's when the decision was made. I think it, frankly, was a good decision.

The problem was, neither OMB nor ourselves used the parchment copy. We used the printed copy. The printed copy did, in fact, have title III in there. And obviously both the President and ourselves thought that the bill that was signed was the full bill. It ended up not being so, so we're going to correct that. I think we're correcting it properly.

I would urge all Members to vote for the rule, vote for the full bill, the farm bill which, as I said, got over 75 percent of the House and over 80 percent the Senate. Vote for title III so that, frankly, that can be passed more quickly by the Senate under its rules, and the leader has already indicated he will move forward on that.

If you have a disagreement, you won't vote for that. I understand that. And I think we will, therefore, cure the issue at hand.

I congratulate the Rules Committee for adopting this rule. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule, and if we do so, we will adopt a farm bill that I think will be good for the country. I think we will enact a farm bill which will be unimpeachable in either aspect, and I think we will have done what the American people expect us to do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, there are two primary purposes to the rule that is before the House today. One purpose, legitimate, though unfair, relating to the defense authorization bill. The other purpose, a unilateral, partisan abuse of power by the liberal leaders of the House.

The first purpose. This rule provides for consideration of 58 amendments to the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Of the 58 amendments that this rule makes in order, 42 are Democrat amendments. Just 14 Republican amendments were allowed. Two of those amendments have bipartisan support.

The Rules Committee has blocked two-thirds of the amendments submitted by members of the Republican Party. Reasonable, responsible amendments that raise legitimate national defense issues relating to the security of American troops and the American people are not being permitted to be debated on the House floor.

The defense authorization bill was approved by a unanimous bipartisan support, Mr. Speaker, of the Armed Services Committee. But that does not mean that that bill is perfect. Indeed, amendments to the bill were filed with the Rules Committee by both Democrats and Republican members of the Armed Services Committee. These members, who had worked in a bipartisan way in committee and who wanted to have their ideas for improving the defense authorization bill considered by the House, were denied that opportunity, and among those amendments that were blocked by the Rules Committee is the ranking Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, for whom this bill is named.

At the same time we are applauding those committee members for their bipartisan work, the Rules Committee steps in and shuts down what has been an open, cooperative process by blocking so many Republican amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the House should recognize that when a committee works in an open and honest manner to produce a truly bipartisan bill, we should recognize that, especially because it has become a rarity in this Congress.

Despite the promises made by the Democrat leaders to run the most open and honest House in history, they have made it a matter of routine to close down debate, take away the ability of every Representative to offer amendments on the House floor, to defy rules,

and to ignore over 200 years of legislative precedents. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this House has never seen anything the likes of what the Democrat leaders did last night with the vote to override the President's veto of the farm bill.

Despite having full knowledge that the bill that the Speaker of the House certified with her signature and sent to the President was not the exact same bill that passed both the House and the Senate, Democrat leaders deliberately acted to have this House vote on overriding the President's veto. The bill that the Speaker sent to the President completely omitted title III of the farm bill. This is the entire trade section that runs several dozen pages.

It has been asserted that deletion of this title from the farm bill that the Speaker sent to the President was simply a mistake, an oversight, or a technical error. That may very well be. That may very well be, Mr. Speaker. Yet Democrat leaders deliberately acted yesterday to have the House vote to override a Presidential veto on a bill that the House had never, ever passed. They took this action in direct contradiction to the simple procedures established in article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I have often spoken to elementary and high school students about my job as a Congressman and how Congress works. The most fundamental lesson I always convey is how a bill becomes law in this Congress. It's very simple. The House and the Senate must pass the exact same bill. It must be exact. No comma difference. When they do that, the bill is sent to the President to be signed into law or vetoed and returned to the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this did not happen with the farm bill. The bill passed by both the House and the Senate was not the bill that the Speaker of the House signed and sent to the President.

Mr. Speaker, last week I stood right here on the House floor and stated that while I believed that the farm bill was far from perfect, I would vote for the bill because of the positive provisions it included for specialty crop growers in my congressional district.

In my speech to the House and in my communications with my constituents, I specifically cited parts of the farm bill that helped convince me to vote to pass it. In particular, I spoke about the Market Access Program in reference to technical trade assistance for specialty crops, both of which help to break down unfair trade barriers and open new markets for farmers overseas. Both of these programs are part of title III of the farm bill which passed the House and Senate but was not sent to the President.

Mr. Speaker, the farm bill I voted for, and the very reasons I voted for it, was not the bill that the House voted to override yesterday.

Democrat leaders of this Congress acted in an unconstitutional way in voting to override the veto vote yesterday. That the leaders acted unconstitutionally is not a matter of my personal opinion, it is a matter that has been ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court. In a 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Stevens in the 1998 line-item veto case, Clinton v. The City of New York, the court concluded, and I quote:

``The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became Public Law 105-33 after three procedural steps were taken. One, a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives. Two, the Senate approved precisely the same text. Three, that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of these three steps be taken before a bill may `become a law.' Article 1, section 7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105-33 would not have been validly enacted.''

Mr. Speaker, last night it wasn't until Republicans objected that the Democrat majority took any action to speak on the floor and inform the House of what had occurred by the omission of title III of the bill. The Democrat majority then responded, as they have for the past 16 months, by choosing the path of unilateral, partisan action over working in a bipartisan way. Keep in mind, this farm bill passed by over 300 votes in a bipartisan way.

As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, there are two parts to this rule. The first makes in order amendments to the defense authorization bill. The second provides blanket authority for any bill relating to agricultural programs to be considered under suspension of the House rules.

The inclusion of this blanket authority to suspend House rules and consider bills was not even discussed with Republicans. I say that with the knowledge I have as I speak here today, right now, at 10:39 a.m.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim that this is simply an effort to fix the farm bill. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the farm bill and I support getting it enacted into law. But this isn't just about a fix or finding the most convenient or face-saving way to act on the farm bill. It's about following the Constitution and holding Democrat leaders accountable for their deliberate actions yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

They knew the bill they put to an override vote yesterday had never passed the House in the version that it was presented to us for the override, but they did it anyway. The House should not gloss over an incident of this magnitude with such serious constitutional violations.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California, I just want to make this point, and this is a very, very important point. Yesterday, prior to taking up the veto override of the farm bill, the Democrat leaders knew that title III was out of the bill. Therefore, it was not a bill that had passed either House. Therefore, the ultimate rule of this land, the Constitution, was violated.

It was at that point, Mr. Speaker, that there should have been discussions on how to remedy this in a way, but there was no discussions on that, at least with the leaders on our side. Yet we went ahead with the action of overriding a veto, overriding a bill that the House had not passed.

That is what the facts were yesterday, and it was not brought to the full House's attention until the leaders on our side stood up after the vote to ask what the procedures were for clarification. Had we known that ahead of time, we probably could have gone through regular order and got this resolved in such a way that would have been acceptable to all sides.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the namesake of the bill that we are debating later on, the Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization Act of 2009. The gentleman from California served as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He has been somebody that I have looked up to in my years in Congress. He probably, if not the most knowledgable person in this House on military affairs, he is certainly one of the most.

I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Hunter).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules Committee and now a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

For the purpose of a unanimous consent, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Franks.

I have numerous people that would like to speak, but I haven't got the time for that. If the gentleman would entertain an extension of time on both sides, I would be more than happy to allow my Members to speak. But I'm constrained for time.

So if the gentleman would allow me unanimous consent for some more, I would do that. But I will leave it up to the gentleman.

I am the last speaker under the regular time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I woke up today and heard on the news that oil is $137 a barrel on the worldwide market, and I think it's time for the House to debate ideas. I know there are a number of ideas in this House on lowering the cost of gasoline specifically.

So I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous question so that this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not rewrite the entire rule. But that section would say it shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the previous question.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can now really have a dialogue on the rising price of energy in this country. I believe it's strongly the responsibility of the elected leaders of the people to take this issue up, and we will have this opportunity by defeating the previous question.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1218 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1218.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1218 provides for the further consideration of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, under a structured rule, without further general debate.

The rule makes in order 58 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration under this rule. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the committee report and amendments en bloc except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule also provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 5658, the text of H.R. 6048, as passed by the House, shall be added at the end of H.R. 5658.

Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of Thursday, May 22, 2008, relating to any measure pertaining to agricultural programs.

Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to finish consideration of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. General debate on this measure concluded last night. This two-part process has been used over the years to ensure that the Rules Committee has ample time to consider amendments submitted to the committee. This year, 121 amendments were submitted for consideration.

As my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said on the floor yesterday, the defense authorization bill is one of the most comprehensive and important pieces of legislation this House considers each year.

I salute the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, and Ranking Member Hunter for their hard work and cooperative effort in bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. Their bill passed the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 61-0, a testament to their bipartisan efforts and desire to ensure our Armed Forces have all the tools they need to maintain our national security and to provide our servicemembers in harm's way with the best gear and force protection possible.

America has the finest military in the world, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policies in Iraq have depleted our great military, put a tremendous strain on our troops, and dropped the Army's readiness to unprecedented levels.

H.R. 5658 takes us in a new direction. It will help restore our Nation's military readiness and protect our troops in harm's way. This bill supports our troops and their families by giving the military a pay raise larger than was requested by the President and prohibiting TRICARE fee increases. It focuses on the war in Afghanistan. It also includes Iraq policy provisions that ban permanent bases in Iraq and require the Iraqi Government to pay its fair share of reconstruction costs.

In the spirit of maintaining the committee agreement and the overwhelming bipartisan support for this bill and to further ensure that our military is fully prepared and our troops get the benefits they deserve, the Rules Committee has made in order 58 amendments for consideration on the floor today. These are amendments that the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee determined would not disrupt the bill's carefully negotiated content and warranted further consideration.

In addition, this rule also allows the Speaker to bring up under suspension of the rules any measure pertaining to agricultural programs.

As we all know and we heard on the floor yesterday, an unintentional clerical error occurred prior to the enrollment of the farm bill. As a result, the President did not receive the full bill. The distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, has been working to remedy this situation so the President may receive the full bill for his consideration.

As a result, if a resolution is reached, and I do not know the status of the negotiations between Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Boehner, the resulting end product will be brought to the floor without further delay so that we may complete nearly 2 years of effort and deliver once and for all on the promises we made long ago to America's farmers and ranchers.

In the meantime I must remind our colleagues that the current farm bill extension is set to expire unless we act today. Whether a resolution is reached in the coming days or how we resolve this clerical error, we must, Mr. Speaker, extend the current farm bill and this rule will simply allow that to occur.

Much will be made of this rule by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but I will remind them that any farm bill measure that may come before the House today will come up under suspension of the rules. That means that two-thirds of the House must support any suspension bill in order for it to pass the House. That further means that there will be no political gamesmanship and we must have a strong bipartisan vote in order to pass any bill that reaches the floor.

The farm bill conference report has overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed this House with 318 votes. It passed the Senate with 81 votes. It represents the tireless effort of many Members, including myself, and is far too important to fail, Mr. Speaker, especially in light of what was an unintended clerical error.

This rule ensures swift passage of a bipartisan defense bill and a remedy to our already passed bipartisan farm bill, and I demand that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just like to say to my friend and the gentleman from Washington State that his claim that it was never brought before the House is simply not the facts. I was on the floor. I heard Mr. Peterson announce to the floor that in fact there had been an error yesterday during the debate for the override. In fact, Mr. Peterson said that he had been discussing with Mr. Goodlatte the situation and how to remedy it. In fact, Mr. Hoyer acknowledged it on the floor.

There has been no glossing over this. Mr. Hoyer readily acknowledged on the floor last night that there was a clerical error about this. Certainly we are concerned about how to remedy this. That is why we are bringing this rule to the floor. We are also concerned that the farm bill expires. We have brought a resolution to the floor that allows for a bipartisan compromise that would fix that situation.

We are trying to solve problems here today. We are trying to do right by our military, we are trying to do right by our farmers, and we are doing it in a manner that would require, with regard to the farmers, at least, a two-thirds vote of this House to resolve the problem.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that we are doing everything possible to remedy this situation, and we are doing it in a bipartisan manner.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee, a leader in the farm bill debate, and a great friend.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comments we just heard from our distinguished former chairman of the committee, while a lot of us have sympathy for the amendment that the gentleman put forward, it is my understanding that no defense contractor currently can meet the requirements of that 85 percent. So that is an issue that is bigger than just simply this bill. It probably needs to be dealt with in the Armed Services Committee so they can decide the proper course of action, and it was not ruled in order for that reason.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) to respond to Mr. Dreier's remarks.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a gentleman who worked tirelessly on the farm bill and who has worked tirelessly on behalf of defense matters, my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman from Maryland for giving us an incredibly articulate, accurate, and statesmanlike presentation.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the gentleman from Arizona, I would certainly like to say he's certainly been bipartisan in his offering of striking of earmarks. He's offered them in the past on both sides, and I will acknowledge that the gentleman has talked to the majority leader and it will be under discussion.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire from the gentleman from Washington if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot entertain a motion on unanimous consent to extend. We've been debating this for longer than the allotted period of time already.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will let the numbers speak for themselves.

The bipartisan defense bill passed through the committee by a vote of 61-0. Fifty-eight amendments were made in order in the spirit of maintaining that bipartisan vote. The bipartisanship that was exhibited on the farm bill and the farm bill vote was 318 ayes, and 81 in the Senate voted ``aye.''

However you look at it, the facts remain that these overwhelmingly bipartisan measures deserve and demand our strongest support. I encourage the House to vote in the affirmative.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1218 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution. add the following:

Sec. 9. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution or the operation of the previous question, it

shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which

the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of

lowering the national average price per gallon of regular

unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall he considered as

read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be

subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand

for division of the question in the House or in the Committee

of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are

waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For

purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a

statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record

by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration

shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I would yield back the balance of my time.