Disaster Voting Reform Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a well-motivated bill. I want to commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for all the great work that they do, Democrat and Republican. Most of the time we're on common ground. In this case, I think that this bill does not accrue to the benefit of the troops. I think it hurts the troops.

I think that is a question every Member of the House has to ask themselves: Is this going to be good for the troops, or is it going to be bad for the troops?

I think it will be bad for the troops, for this reason: We are fighting a war in Iraq which requires innovation, flexibility and experience. This bill, which will put a straitjacket on our ability to deploy troops on the basis that their clock has not yet expired back in the United States before they go over, is going to have an incredibly detrimental affect on our ability to project a well-rounded, effective fighting team in the warfighting theater in Iraq.

Let me talk about that a little bit, Mr. Speaker.

You are going to have units which desperately require specialties. Some of the specialties, I would remind my friend, are IEDs, the ability to operate jammers, the ability perhaps to decontaminate if you come into contact with some of the chemical weapons stockpiles that were left by the old regime. Military effectiveness is built on dozens and dozens of specialities, all of which support the other.

The idea that you can't put this team together, that the Marines or the Army can't put their warfighting team together because they looked at the list of people who are most able to fill those roles, most able to move in and stand next to their fellow Marine, their fellow soldier, their fellow airman, the guy that is doing the mechanic work on that important helicopter that is going to be the transportation vehicle, the guy that is doing the repair work on that particular weapons system, those people are not going to be able to flow over into the theater because their clock hasn't moved appropriately on the one-to- one ratio.

Now, we consulted the U.S. Marines on this provision. We didn't consult political people in the White House. We didn't consult people who had an opinion on whether or not we should be in Iraq. We consulted the people who have the job of putting together these packages of personnel which are required in the warfighting theater and transporting them to the theater.

Of course, the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Plans and Operations is Lieutenant General Richard Natonski. Here is his statement he gave to the committee. He said, ``In order to support OIF requirements during Fiscal Year 2008 and comply with the minimum period between deployments proposed by provisions like H.R. 3159, a one-to-one ratio, the Marine Corps would have to adjust force generation plans. These plan adjustments would include extending unit deployments.''

Somebody has to stay on the battlefield. The battlefield is not going to be empty. So if you are not going to allow new Marines to come in, the Marines that are there right now are going to have to stay there.

It is the same with the Army. These plan adjustments could include extending unit deployments, creating provisional units. That means you are going to have to put new units together because the old unit hasn't had its meter expire yet. And forcing units to execute missions as in- lieu-of forces, meaning that units that don't have that specialty are going to have to become units that have that specialty. That means ``quickie'' training and moving people immediately into the battlefield to fill a role that otherwise could be filled by people who have a deep specialty in that capability.

Mr. Speaker, he finishes with this statement that every Member of Congress should listen to very carefully. He said, each of these adjustments that will be required by Mrs. Tauscher's bill, among others, incurs higher risk than that associated with deploying the unit at a deployment-to-dwell time of seven to six.

I want to remind my colleagues, higher risk means higher risk of casualties. That is what happens when the guy that is supporting you on the battlefield doesn't have as much experience as you would like him to have, doesn't have that specialty, hasn't been there before, doesn't have that insight that is going to keep you alive.

Mr. Speaker, this is a well-meaning bill. But if you ask this question, does it help the troops or hurt the troops, this bill hurts the troops.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who is a former chairman of the Terrorism Subcommittee and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. Speaker, I want to address my remarks to the gentleman, for a second, to the gentleman who just spoke.

My son is a marine who is doing his third tour. He is calm. He is determined. He loves his country, just like all of his fellow marines. The constant illustrating or projecting of our Armed Forces as somehow victims is something that finds absolutely no truth when you go out among our uniformed personnel.

The Marine Corps has never been more effective. They have never had higher morale. They have excellent reenlistment rates. Interestingly, there are high reenlistment rates among the

people that are in combat. They are not deployed to the point where they are depleted, and they are not desperate and their families are not desperate.

With those happy words, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am just constrained again, and I yield myself 30 seconds.

The military is not broken. The Army is not broken. The Marine Corps is not broken. This continued depiction of our military people as victims who are totally desperate, as the last Member of Congress who spoke on the other side depicted them, that they are somehow desperate, their families are desperate, they are ineffective, they are broken, is totally in error.

We have never had better morale. We have never been more effective. The interesting thing is the people who are reenlisting are reenlisting from the combat units. That means that they think that their mission has value, and that means that they have high morale.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) whose son has served as a marine in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Shimkus, the gentleman from Illinois, 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia, 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time we have left.

Mr. Speaker, let me make this point: we are in two warfighting theaters right now, Afghanistan and Iraq. We have troops deployed.

We are, by all accounts at this point, doing well in those warfighting theaters. Somebody stays in battle space. For the gentlelady who asked me, who do you stand with, the planner in the Pentagon, or the troops in the field, I would answer very firmly, I stand for the troops in the field. I stand for that marine corporal who needs to have that gunnery sergeant, who's been there before, who understands how you avoid that roadside bomb, who understands how you approach that village, who understands how you work that cannon, who understands how you interrogate people without risking your own troops.

That comes from experience, and the idea that we are going to deny these experienced, noncommissioned officers, these old hands whose experience can make the difference between life and death because their meter didn't expire when they were back home, and they only got 6 months' worth of dwell time in country, rather than 7, is the wrong reason to vote for this bill.

Please oppose this bill, readiness mandates, with a ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their decorum during this debate and for their true interest and their motivation in support of our troops.

We all want to conclude this war. We all want to do everything that we can for military families. We simply have a difference of opinion as to whether or not mandating certain rest periods before a soldier or a marine can go back to battle is in the interest of the war fighting troops.

My answer is, it's not in the interest. It will not raise their morale. What it will do is it will deprive our war fighting troops. It will deprive that corporal, it will deprive that squad in Fallujah or Baghdad or up in Mosul. That experienced old hand, that NCO, who is in the military for a career, and who knows that particular area, and he knows how to avoid roadside bombs, and he knows how to interrogate insurgents, and he knows how to approach a certain canyon so that you don't expose yourself to fire. He won't be there if the gentlelady's motion passes, because he will only have spent 6 months instead of 7 months back at Camp Pendleton, and he won't be available to move to the field of battle.

Now, you know, this is a war of specialties, and I notice that one thing that the majority did, which I think was a good move, was that they excluded the special operations forces from this particular law. The reason they excluded them is because they are special operations forces who have to move back and forth in the theater and have to move out of the theater on a regular basis, sometimes going back and forth between Afghanistan and Iraq, because they have specialties which mean life or death to our war fighters in both of those theaters, and they can't be held back, chained back by this law.

I have got news for my colleagues. There are a lot of people in the regular forces whose presence also means life or death to the combatants in those forces. You have to have experience.

Even the line units are full of specialties. If you have a person who is an expert in roadside bombs, and he comes back after a 7-month tour, if he is a marine, or after a 1-year tour, if he is an Army soldier, he comes back and he gets the latest schooling on a jamming device that will keep that 152 round from blowing up, that roadside bomb, and destroying a Humvee and destroying American soldiers.

He has that capability. But he now cannot go back into theater because the Tauscher amendment has passed, and he can't be deployed. So he stays here with that particular insight, that particular capability, and probably the Marines or the Army will rush a team in. They will try to give them a fast learning period and rush them in, to be a poor substitute for this guy who really has the expertise of telling our people how to jam those signals that detonate those deadly roadside bombs.

Now, what if we need decontamination, we have got a decontamination team in the regular military. They can't go over unless they get a waiver from the President.

Well, it was argued that these waivers will be easy to get. But you know the Marines have told us that they can't plan for a waiver, because they can only follow along. The law will say you can't go.

I have got a picture that I have kept in the Armed Services Committee for a

long time, as the former chairman of the committee, and now ranking member, serving alongside my great friend, Mr. Skelton.

It is a picture of a 5-ton truck that was struck by a Humvee with a particular armor equipment and an armor package that this committee sent those soldiers. And there is a letter attached to it and it is a letter of thanks that says, ``Thanks to you on the Armed Services Committee for making sure that we got this armor.'' And this was after this 5-ton truck has been blown up. And it said, ``We owe our lives, the fact that all eight of us were able to escape, to you on the Armed Services Committee,'' but it also says, ``to our gunnery sergeant.'' That gunnery sergeant that had the capability, that had that certain expertise of being able to do what it took to make sure that all eight of his people survived.

Mrs. Tauscher has said, who do you stand with, the big Pentagon planners or the troops?

The worst thing you can do, Mrs. Tauscher, for my son who is on his third deployment, or anybody else's son, is to take away that gunnery sergeant or that senior NCO or that expert who can stand by their side and help them to survive in this very dangerous warfighting theater.

Please vote for this motion to recommit. This motion to recommit says that you cannot make this law certain unless you----

I would ask the gentlelady for 30 additional seconds.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to offer H.R. 3159, a bipartisan bill to mandate minimum periods of rest, training and recuperation for units and members of the regular and Reserve components of our Armed Forces between deployment. Fixing our troops' unpredictable rest and retraining policy is long overdue.

In an interview last Monday, Marine Corps Commander General James Conway highlighted repeated deployments and short periods of time between them to rest as factors contributing to increased mental stress and burdens on families of service men and women.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am intimately acquainted with how this war has damaged our national security, our diplomatic standing and the readiness of our military; and, as a Californian, I am well aware of how it is draining the defense and security resources of my home State and others.

As we speak, a unit from Walnut Creek, California, in my district, is leading a task force comprised of six units that come from armories throughout the East Bay and Northern California. The California Army National Guard indicates that the unit of 824 soldiers is the largest single California National Guard unit to be deployed since the Korean War. These are men and women who will benefit from this legislation in real time.

We are sending more and more men and women to Iraq every day. The Bush administration is failing to accurately account for all of the costs of these repeated deployments. On the microlevel, our deployed men and women are being taken away from their families in a revolving door of service because the war has gone on much longer than the President believed it would. And on a larger scale, we are damaging the readiness for our Armed Forces to defend against future attacks here at home and around the world, as well as national emergencies here at home.

Mr. Speaker, my bill simply states that if a unit or a member of a regular

component of the Armed Forces deploys to Iraq, they will have an equivalent amount of time at home before they are redeployed. No unit or member of a Reserve component, including the National Guard, could be redeployed to Iraq within 3 years of their previous deployment. In the event of an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security interests, the President may waive the amendment's limitations by certifying to Congress that deployment of the unit or a member is necessary for national security.

The military departments also are provided waiver authority in the bill for individual volunteers who seek to redeploy before the expiration of the mandated time of rest between the deployments. This bill in no way, shape or form hinders the Commander in Chief's ability to manage military personnel.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we come together and take a very critical step to preserve the readiness of our men and women in uniform for them and for our national security.

If we are honest about wanting to support our troops, there is no better place to start than to correct our troop rotation policy. For far too long, the members of the Guard and Reserve have been unrepresented in Congress. Today, every Member has an opportunity to help them.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following letters of support for my bill from the Reserve Enlisted Association and Veterans for America.

Reserve Enlisted Association,

July 27, 2007.

Hon. Ellen Tauscher,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Tauscher: Thank you on behalf of the

members of the Reserve Enlisted Association of the United

States (REA) for keeping enlisted men and women serving in

the Reserve Component in the forefront of your work as

evidenced by your introduction of a bill to mandate minimum

periods of rest and recuperation between deployments.

REA appreciates the intent of the bill to provide

predictability for serving reservists, their families and

their employers.

Your continued support of the Reserve Components is greatly

appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lani Burnett,

CMSgt, USAFR (RET),

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that opposing this bill is to ratify the status quo; and if my colleagues choose to say that things are going just great, that we are not damaging our readiness, that we are not damaging the ability for the Guard to be home when they are needed by their Governors to do emergencies here, that we are not overstressing our troops, then I urge my colleagues not to support my bill. They are then ratifying the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that voting against this bill is to vote for the status quo.

At this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Speaker, I'm so happy to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3159.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm honored to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New Hampshire

(Ms. Shea-Porter) who's a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to my friend, colleague and neighbor from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, who is the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Admiral Sestak.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, what I continuously hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are arguments that speak for poor Pentagon planners that are going to have to work a little harder to put units together and handcuffing the Commander in Chief.

Let me remind my colleagues that this Presidential waiver, which is inside of this bill, is not only substantive, but it is there to prevent further degrading of our military readiness. I think we all understand that we have heard from people like General McCaffrey, who most recently reported to Congress that 88 percent of nondeployed Army Guard units are rated not ready or poorly equipped, that the Army is overextended, and that we will soon be unable to meet our Homeland Security commitments and meet any new threats if we maintain the current abusive and untenable dwell-time policy.

The question for the Members of the House today is who do you stand for. Do you stand for military planners or other members of the Pentagon who have the executive branch to speak for them, or do you stand with the American people, the families of our troops, and the troops themselves, to be sure that we increase our readiness to make sure that we honor their service and their valor and their sacrifice by making sure that they are not only retrained and ready, but they have time to be home with their family before they are redeployed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my colleague, because I think it's important that we make sure that we have everything on the table and that we are very clear about who we are standing for and who we are putting the burdens on.

What is clear to me is that we have the finest military in the world, that we have men and women, sons and daughters, spouses, brothers and sisters, employees, friends and neighbors that have decided to give their country their time, ultimately, perhaps, pay the sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, and go fight for the American people and their ideals to protect us here at home.

We have an opportunity today to do what is right, to do what the Pentagon has not done for many reasons. I know my colleagues want to make this about the Iraq war, but I know this is really about our families and our troops.

If we cannot guarantee them some predictability for their dwell time at home, for retraining and rest, we are going to continue to degrade the readiness of our military. We are in no shape in this very dangerous world to continue on that path.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters).

I don't have the time, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear what this motion to recommit does. This motion to recommit guts our bill and prevents us from giving the dwell time necessary to our troops so that they are not overcommitted, that they can be rested, that they can be retrained, and that they can be resuscitated and spend time with their family.

This motion to recommit prevents us from having the readiness that we need for our national security. It prevents the 50 Governors from having their National Guard back home and rested, with good equipment, to deal with contingencies here at home.

This motion to commit is just another delaying tactic by the minority to deny our troops the dwell time that they need to train, equip, and rest.

The best part about this is the motion to recommit is absolutely unnecessary. If the Secretary of Defense determines that the proposed dwell times in this bill will cause tour lengths of currently deployed units to be extended, or increases the operational risk to deployed units, the underlying bill already provides the President's ability to waive the deployment mandate.

So this motion to recommit is not necessary. It is, once again, perhaps the last fig leaf on the last fig tree that my colleagues can find to not stand with the troops and their families to provide them the dwell time they need at home to be ready for the next deployment.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I close by saying I urge my colleagues to defeat the motion to recommit and vote ``aye'' on H.R. 3159.

I yield to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the motion to recommit, which will deny our troops the dwell time that they desperately need and will deny the American people the readiness in their military. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3159, and vote for its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my good friend and thank her for her leadership on the Armed Services Committee; and to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is great news that we have a new direction in the Armed Services Committee that takes seriously the issues of readiness and the quality of life for our troops.

Some would ask the question, troops are in battle, why are you worrying about the quality of life? Because my friend who cited the Constitution failed to recognize Article I, Section 8, that indicates that Congress does have the authority to declare war. Embodied in that declaration is a responsibility for our troops.

And might I refer my friend to the letter by the Reserve Enlisted Association which is thanking Congresswoman Tauscher for acknowledging the importance of rest time, rest time between battles. These soldiers are battle worn, mentally and physically. The first part of their duty they were over there with no equipment, no Humvees that were reinforced, no equipment that protected them from those weapons they were being shot at by. The Veterans for America emphasizes we are compounding the wounds of war.

When I visited Iraq, I would talk to individuals who are carpenters and painters. They were given a gun, and they were told to get into battle. Readiness is a key.

I just was home in my district, and a mother came to me crying. Her son is a naval Reserve officer who's been in the Reserves for some 20 years or so, 38 years old, is being handed a gun and said go off to war. There are disciplines and there are training that we must give to these individuals.

And just a few appropriation cycles ago, I offered an amendment dealing with the time frame for redeployment. We're seeing soldiers being redeployed once, twice, three times, four times with no rest. And so we have a balance here for active duty, Reserve, National Guard forces, and others.

We are clearly doing the right thing in this bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3159, the Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007. I would like to thank my colleague Ms. Tauscher for introducing this legislation, and the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, for his leadership on this Issue.

Mr. Speaker, no issue will define this Congress more than how we handle the ongoing conflict in Iraq. In recent weeks and months, this Congress has taken definitive action to end what we, and the people of the United States, believe to be a conflict without tangible goals and targets. The American people made their views clear last November: The time has come to end U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

And yet, the Bush Administration has decided to instead increase the numbers of American soldiers in Iraq. President Bush's ``New Way Forward'' strategy, announced in January, calls for the deployment of over 20,000 additional U.S. combat forces, to be used to stabilize Baghdad and the Anbar Province. This is coming at a time when, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, 59 percent of Americans believe we should be reducing the number of troops in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this effort are our brave troops, the men and women who courageously risk and too often lose their lives thousands of miles from home. The Iraq war has already cost over 3,500 American lives. More than 25,000 Americans have been injured. Thousands of U.S. personnel have lost limbs or suffered debilitating mental and physical injuries. Yet as casualties rise, the Bush Administration pushes for the escalation of American soldiers into the most hostile communities in Iraq. In addition to the enormous expenditure of lives, American taxpayers have paid more than $400 billion to sustain this misadventure.

When a soldier is deployed away from home for lengthy periods of time, his or her entire family suffers. Earlier this week, the United States Army released a report that stated that the children of enlisted soldiers are 60% more likely to be abused or neglected when a parent is deployed to a combat zone. The author of this study commented, ``The surprising finding was that the effect of deployment was so consistent. Just about any way we could divide the population, we found increased rates of child maltreatment during deployment. We looked at pay grade, rank, single or multiple deployments, whether the family lives on or off post--all showed increases.'' Researchers attributed this to the increasing trend of continuous deployment of our soldiers. As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I would like to register my strong concern about the impact this war is having on American children and families.

This bill, H.R. 3159, contains important provisions to ensure that those who are sent to fight in what I have always considered to be an ill-advised war have adequate time to rest and recover between deployments: time to spend with their families and loved ones, and time to recover from the mental and psychological problems that are all too common after combat deployment. As we continue to work here in Congress to bring this war to a speedy and comprehensive conclusion, I believe we must make every effort to provide consideration for those who bear the brunt of this Administration's ill-advised preemptive war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that our service men and women deserve enough time to rest and recover at home between combat deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom. This legislation reaffirms the stated Department of Defense policy for deployment, which is currently being waived for Iraq, calling for a 1:2 deployment ratio for active duty and a 1:5 ratio for reserve soldiers. It continues to allow the President and the Chiefs of the Military services to waive these requirements, if unforeseen circumstances arise.

Four years after our ill-advised invasion, the evidence is clear and irrefutable: The invasion of Iraq, while a spectacularly executed military operation, was a strategic blunder without parallel in the history of American foreign policy. This is what can happen when the Congress allows itself to be stampeded into authorizing a president to launch a preemptive war of choice. It is time to rethink our strategy in Iraq, to encourage and engage in diplomacy, and to sit down with the various players in the Middle East and make real strides towards securing Iraq, the Iraqi people, and most importantly our most precious resource: the troops we love so dearly.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to strongly oppose this war until we are finally able to end this conflict. In the meantime, I believe it is our responsibility, here in Congress, to make sure that those we send to fight and risk their lives in Iraq receive the very best care and services. This includes adequate time to rest and recover between deployments.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 601, I call up the bill (H.R. 3159) to mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3159, introduced by my colleague on the House Armed Services Committee, Ellen Tauscher, the gentlelady from California, as well as other Members of the House.

Our troops and their families are stressed and they are under pressure. Yesterday, the USA Today newspaper had an article entitled, ``Stress of War Hits Army Kids Hard.'' The article, sadly, was about the increasing number of child abuse and neglect cases among deployed Army families. The article quotes Amy Lambert, an Army wife living at Fort Stewart, Georgia. She states, ``I firmly believe that more time at home between deployments would be the most beneficial solution.'' I think that quote sums up the reason we're here and why this bill is before the House.

Our troops and their families are tired. They are being stressed by the continued and extended deployments. It's time that Congress takes a stand on behalf of our families and states in a clear, unequivocal voice that it is time that servicemembers have a minimum dwell time between deployments.

This bill would require that active component units and members be provided at least the same time at home as they are deployed. It would also require that Reserve and National Guardsmen who are called to deploy are given at least three times at home as they are deployed.

This proposed minimum period of deployment is less than the Department's own goal, which provides that active duty servicemembers should be deployed for 1 year, with 2 years back in home station, and Reservists and Guardsmen should have 5 years between deployments.

The Army recently implemented a policy that requires active duty units to deploy for 15 months and only spend 12 months back at their home station. This is a troubling sign, Mr. Speaker, since the time back at home station is used to reset, retrain and re-equip forces.

Servicemembers and their families are entitled to a predictable and stable time between deployments. Congress needs to step up on behalf of the troops, as well as their families, and say enough is enough.

We need to hold the Department accountable to their own policies and protect the readiness of our forces. That's no small thing. We have a moral responsibility to our troops to ensure

that their quality of life is reflective of the sacrifices that we ask them to make.

We need to ensure that our active forces have at least the same amount of time deployed that they have back home with their families, and that our citizen-soldiers have at least three times the amount home as that time deployed.

This bill is also about our national security and its readiness, and it's about strategic risk. This bill will help to ensure that our military can deal not only with Iraq, where they have been serving remarkably under extraordinarily difficult conditions for 4 years, but wherever the next conflict occurs, our force must have adequate time to train if it is to be prepared.

And in this exceptional all-volunteer force, we must keep our retention levels up if we are to insure that our military will be able to succeed both now and in the next fight, which, of course, is very unpredictable.

H.R. 3159 is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to stand with us in support of our troops and in support of our families.

Before I reserve the balance of my time, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher) control the time on my behalf.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit offered by my friend, my colleague from California who has served with me through the years on the Armed Services Committee.

The ground forces of the United States in particular are being stretched and strained as never before. For instance, during the Second World War, those that were involved with active combat after 3 or 4 months at the most would be taken off line for rest and recoupment. The young men and young women today that are in Iraq are on point in combat and now are extended up to 15 months. I think this bill helps alleviate that point and helps keep the readiness at a higher level.

The stretching and straining of the ground forces, in particular the Army, will have a breaking point. We already know about the equipment shortage of nondeployed units. Why stretch these young people? Why not bring them home? This is a reasonable proposal, reasonable, and should be enacted into law. And, as the gentlelady from California points out, should there be any problem with any unit, there are waivers provided for in this legislation.

This is simple and straightforward. It is about protecting our military readiness, it is protecting the health of the troops and, by the way, helping those families recoup with their loved ones as they come back home with predictability, knowing when they will be home and knowing when they will be due to be deployed once again.

So I find myself having to vote against this motion to recommit for all those reasons: the families, the troops, and the need for predictability; and I compliment the gentlelady on this proposal to bring about predictability for our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to my colleague from Georgia who just spoke. I reference article II, section 2, of the Constitution where it says the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States and of a militia of the several States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this legislation. It's rather outrageously being hailed by the Democrats as a readiness measure. Unfortunately, I fear this becomes nothing more than another attempt by this majority to pander to their liberal base and capitalize on public opinion polls by once again, this time a little more subtlety, attempting to draw down the troops in Iraq.

This is because the readiness provision within this bill apply only to troops returning from Iraq. While a unit which just completed a 15- month tour in Iraq could not be deployed for 15 months, they could be deployed to combat in Afghanistan or, for that matter, Mr. Speaker, anywhere else in the world tomorrow without any regard for dwell time or readiness.

Inexplicably, while we're engaged in a worldwide campaign against terror, this majority is only concerned with the readiness of the troops deploying to Iraq.

Further, Mr. Speaker, by legislating the military deployment cycle, this bill would hamper the Department of Defense and bar the deployment of units that may be needed to reinforce our efforts in Iraq. Any constitutional scholar would tell you that these decisions, by their very nature, are the job of the Commander in Chief, not 435 would-be commanders in chief.

Now, to get around these unfortunate facts, my friends on the other side of the aisle included in their bill a Presidential waiver. During consideration of the bill in committee, the dangerous implications it could have on our ability to fight and win this global war on terror were often dismissed by the Democrats, my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee, because of the presence of a waiver in the bill.

In reality, Mr. Speaker, not only will this bill make it more difficult to prosecute the global war on terror, the waiver adds another layer of bureaucracy that could potentially disrupt the deployment preparation cycle.

Mr. Speaker, all of this comes, unfortunately, during a time when we are just now starting to see marked progress and the momentum swinging in our favor in Iraq. Sadly, what is great news for America and for our troops is consequently bad news for the Democratic majority and this defeatist attitude.

Just this week, a New York Times editorial authored by Mike O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack reflected this progress. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, these two men have steadily criticized the prosecution of the war and lack of progress in Iraq over the past 4 years. However, just this week they wrote, ``We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. Today, morale is high. The soldiers and the Marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in General David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.''

And thankfully, U.S. casualties in Iraq are the lowest in 8 months.

Mr. Speaker, I know we are all passionate about this issue, and I care deeply about our troops and our Nation, and I know Mrs. Tauscher and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do as well. But now is not the time to risk impeding the progress that we are making. Now is the time to continue building on the turnaround we

have made in the Anbar Province and the improvement we are seeing in Baghdad.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''