Servicemember Family Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, unbelievably, across this country in family law courts, in States, our servicemembers stand before family law court judges who take custody away from our servicemembers upon their return from either, previously, Iraq or, now, Afghanistan based solely on the fact that they were away from their children serving their country.

Mr. Speaker, we should not have one arm of the government ordering our servicemembers to deploy and another arm of our government taking their children away from them based upon the fact that they were away servicing their country. One servicemember, Eva Slusher, who has been a champion of this issue, has said that she did not understand when she got back, by law, they had to give her her job back but, by law, no one had to return to her her child.

Servicemembers risk their lives in support of the contingency operations that keep our Nation safe. State courts should not be allowed to use a servicemember's previous deployments or the possibility of future deployments when making child custody determinations. State courts should not be allowed to use a servicemember's previous deployments or the possibility when making these child custody determinations.

Our bill would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to protect servicemembers against this injustice by providing a uniform national standard. The lack of uniform laws creates uncertainty that adversely affects readiness and morale.

State laws differ on the question of whether deployment or the potential for future deployment can be used as a criterion for these courts, and many States have no laws at all. The difference in State laws provides an opportunity for ex-spouses to venue shop to find a State that will alter custody agreements. Many servicemember custody battles involve up to three States: the State of the original custody order, the State where the child is residing, and the State where the servicemember is stationed.

This bill creates a protective floor to ensure that all military parents can feel confident that their service to our country will not be used against them in our courts.

In supporting this legislation, Secretary Gates stated: ``I am convinced that the benefits outweigh the concerns and, thus, we should work with Congress to pursue an acceptable legislative formulation.''

The language of this bill has passed the House on seven separate occasions, and the bill has strong bipartisan support. I have a letter to Leon Panetta that is signed by every member of the House Armed Services Committee that I will enter into the Record.

Our men and women in uniform sacrifice a great deal to serve our country. We owe it to them to provide uniform legal standards regarding child custody. Our servicemen and -women should never be in the position of having to choose between their country and their family; or while they're on service, they should not have to worry what might happen to them when they return.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2012.

Mr. Leon Panetta,

Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Panetta: We appreciate your interest stated

during the February 15, 2012 House Armed Services Committee

(HASC) hearing in protecting child custody rights for our men

and women in uniform.

As you know, legislative language addressing this issue has

already passed the House of Representatives on six separate

occasions. It has passed five times as part of the National

Defense Authorization Act, every year from 2008 through 2012.

Additionally, in 2008 this language passed the House as a

stand-alone bill (H.R. 6048) by voice vote. Sixty members

from both sides of the aisle signed

on to H.R. 6048 as co-sponsors. Most recently, the bill was

included in the Managers Package in the FY12 House NDAA and

was supported by the Department of Defense (DoD).

Enclosed are letters of support that both Secretary Gates

and Secretary Stanley provided for this legislation last

year. Also enclosed is the 2010 HASC letter to Secretary

Gates. As we move forward with the current legislative

session, we look forward to the same level of support from

the DoD in addressing this important issue and ensuring that

our men and women in uniform have their parental rights

protected.

Sincerely,

Michael R. Turner,

Member of Congress.

Robert Andrews,

Member of Congress.

HASC Signatures

Michael Turner, Rob Andrews, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, Adam Smith, Ranking Member, Mac Thornberry, Vice

Chairman, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Walter B. Jones, W. Todd Akin,

J. Randy Forbes, Jeff Miller, Joe Wilson, Frank A. LoBiondo,

John Kline, Mike Rogers, Trent Franks, Bill Shuster, K.

Michael Conaway, Doug Lamborn, Rob Wittman, Duncan Hunter,

John C. Fleming, Mike Coffman, Thomas J. Rooney, Todd Russell

Platts, Scott Rigell, Chris Gibson, Vicky Hartzler, Joe Heck,

Bobby Schilling, Jon Runyan, Austin Scott.

Tim Griffin, Steve Palazzo, Allen West, Martha Roby, Mo

Brooks, Todd Young, Silvestre Reyes, Loretta Sanchez, Mike

McIntyre, Robert A. Brady, Susan A. Davis, James R. Langevin,

Rick Larsen, Jim Cooper, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Joe Courtney,

David Loebsack, Niki Tsongas, Chellie Pingree, Larry Kissell,

Martin Heinrich, William L. Owens, John Garamendi, Mark

Critz, Tim Ryan, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Hank Johnson,

Betty Sutton, Colleen Hanabusa, Kathleen C. Hochul, Jackie

Speier.

Mr. Speaker, due to a personal family matter I was not present for rollcall votes 294 314. Had I been present, this is how I would have voted:

On rollcall Vote 294: H.R. 5651, Food and Drug Administration Reform Act of 2012 I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 295: H.R. 4201, The Service member Family Protection Act I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 296: H.R. 915, The Jaime Zapata Border Security Task Force Act I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 297: Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5743, H.R. 5854, H.R. 5325, and H.R. 5855 I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 298: H. Res. 667, Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5743, H.R. 5854, H.R. 5325, and H.R. 5855 I would have voted no.

On rollcall Vote 299: H.R. 3541, Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act I would have voted no.

On rollcall Vote 300: Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 5743 I would have voted I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 301: Final Passage of H.R. 5743, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 302: Grimm Amendment which strikes Section 517, which prohibits the use of funds for construction bid solicitations that require or prohibit project labor agreements I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 303: Franks Amendment to prohibit the use of funds from being used to enforce the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act I would have vote no.

On rollcall Vote 304: Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 5854 I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 305: Final Passage of H.R. 5854, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Act, 2013 I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 306: Scalise Amendment to increase the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Account by $10 million for Louisiana Coastal Restoration and reduces the Department of Energy Administration Account by the same amount I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 307: King Amendment to reduce the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Account by $1,000,000 and increases the Operation and Maintenance Account by $571,429 I would have voted no.

On rollcall Vote 308: Moran Amendment which strikes Section 110 of the bill. The section prohibits the Corps of Engineers from using funds to issue guidance, enforce or supplement rules regarding definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 309: Hultgren Amendment to reduce the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account by $30 million and increases the Science Administrative and Facility Account for National Laboratories by $15 million I would have voted no.

On rollcall Vote 310: Chaffetz Amendment to reduce funds for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by $74,000,000 and applies the savings to the spending reduction account I would have voted no.

On rollcall Vote 311: McClintock Amendment to zero out the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account (a cut of $1.45 billion) and applies the savings to the spending reduction account I would have voted no.

On rollcall Vote 312: Kaptur Amendment to increase the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account by $10 million and reduces the Department of Energy Administrative Account by the same amount I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 313: Tonko Amendment to increase the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account by $180,440,000 for the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program and reduces the Atomic Energy Defense Activities, National Nuclear Security Administration, Weapons Activities Account by the same amount I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 314: Hahn Amendment to increase funds for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by $50 million and reduces funds for Fossil Energy Research and Development by $100 million I would have voted yes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4201) 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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on H.R. 4201.

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

I rise today in strong support of the Servicemember Family Protection Act, H.R. 4201, a bill introduced by my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, as our Nation's servicemembers continue to endure long deployments overseas, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is there to protect their interests at home. At its core, SCRA ensures that servicemembers have certain protections in the event that military service impedes their ability to meet certain financial and legal obligations.

Although the current SCRA covers everything from mortgages to cell phone contracts, it simply fails to protect one uniform framework for protecting servicemembers' rights under child custody actions by State courts. This bill would protect these rights by amending the SCRA to require that if a court gives temporary custody of a servicemember's child to someone else because of the servicemember's deployment, the servicemember has the opportunity to have the previous custody order reinstated upon their return. This would occur unless the court determines that such a move would not be in the best interest of a child. The bill would also prohibit courts from considering the absence or potential absence of a servicemember from being considered as part of the court's determination of the child's best interest. Finally, my colleagues, the bill ensures that if higher protections than that provided by the bill, H.R. 4201, exist under any State law, then the higher standard should be applied.

Mr. Speaker, in previous Congresses, Members have received anecdotal evidence of servicemembers having to make the difficult decision of choosing between their military career and the legal custody of their children because of rulings made by courts that took their military service into account when assigning custody of the child. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our servicemembers who stand guard in constant defense of our liberties should never have to make this choice. That is why this bill's revisions to SCRA are so critically important to unit morale and our Nation as a whole.

So I want to again thank Mr. Turner from Ohio for introducing this legislation. I also want to thank Chairman Jeff Miller and Ranking Member Mr. Filner for their support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'll close using such time as I may consume to say:

This is a very important bill. Mr. Turner just touched on something that I think I want to bring up again. This, the language in this bill, has passed the House on seven separate occasions, six times as part of the House National Defense Authorization Act in FY 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, and once, my colleagues, as a stand-alone bill by voice vote in 2008. And all the while, this bill has had strong bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, if I can, I urge the United States Senate that, upon passage today, our colleagues over there simply take up this bill and the 10 other bills that the Veterans' Committee has passed through our committee and the House and pass those also.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise today as the House of Representatives returns from Memorial Day events around the country to honor our Nation's servicemen and their families.

On behalf of a grateful Nation, I want to thank our servicemen and - women for their sacrifices in defense of the freedoms we all hold so dear. As President Obama has said, it is important to follow these words with deeds, that we must do what we can for the veterans of past, present, and future conflicts.

I am pleased to have been a Member of Congress in 2009 when a Democratic President, Democratic House, and Democratic Senate passed the largest budget in the history of the Department of Veterans Affairs. In addition, we made sure that the VA was not subject to the whims of government shutdown, and the subject of the health care budget of the VA to advanced appropriations, removing the worry for our veterans that their health care would be available.

I am looking forward to the ceremony to be held at the end of June to honor the Montford Point Marines. It is necessary to honor all of America's war heroes' service and sacrifice, and in particular those who served at Montford Point, the marines who were the last group to integrate who are about to be officially recognized as a rich legacy of our Marine Corps. They answered our Nation's call at a time when our society was deeply divided along racial lines.

As our servicemembers continue to deploy, we need to ensure that we're doing everything we need to do to help the families. One item that has often been overlooked is the care of our servicemembers' children when they are deployed. H.R. 4201 would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to help protect the child custody rights of servicemembers being deployed overseas. This bill would protect a servicemember's custodial rights by requiring that temporary custody orders based solely on the servicemember's deployment will be exactly that--temporary--and that when the servicemember returns, the custody order in effect before deployment will be reinstated.

This bill provides important safeguards and peace of mind to our servicemembers facing overseas deployment and puts the interests of children first. This bill was passed by the House last Congress, and we should do it again.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I don't have any other speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Florida for yielding and for putting deeds ahead of words when it comes serving our veterans, as I know the full committee does as well. This is an issue on which there is no Republican, Democrat, no liberal, conservative divide. There's unanimity we should put our deeds first and our words second. I commend my friend from Florida for being an exemplar of that principle.

No member of our armed services should ever be told that a custody decision involving their children depends solely on the fact that they have been deployed or will be deployed. Never should that happen.

Now, in the past, there's been arguments, frankly, from the other body against this provision on the argument that we must choose between the best interest of the child and the sovereign parental rights of our servicemembers. This is a false and inaccurate choice.

This bill starts from the premise that the best interest of the child is the paramount value. It in no way disrupts or subverts any State law in that respect, but it adds to that provision a provision that must be added by Federal law, because there must be a uniform standard since it's the Federal Government that is deciding who will be deployed and when. So, supplemental to the guiding principle of the best interest of the child is a principle in this bill that says that deployment cannot be the sole reason for a decision to deprive a man or woman of custody of his or her child.

Now, it strikes me that this is a complex legal issue. I will confess to that. But morally, this is a distinct, clear, and open issue. We all support the best interest of the child. But I think that we all support, and I think in a few minutes we're going to have a vote that demonstrates that we all support, the principle that the sovereignty of parenthood should not be forfeited by taking the oath of office to serve one's country in uniform. This should never happen.

So, again, here is what this means. It means that no child would ever be placed in a situation that's not in his or her best interest in the decision of the decisionmaker, of the judge or the Court. None of us wants that. But it also means that any State or any judge that says the sole reason that we are depriving a man or woman of custody of his or her son or daughter is because they volunteered to serve their country and followed an order to be deployed or are about to follow an order to be deployed.

This is morally clear. It is legally correct, and I hope it will be unanimously supported by the ladies and gentlemen of the House.