[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22456-22470]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   ENSURING MILITARY READINESS THROUGH STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY 
                     DEPLOYMENT POLICY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. SKELTON. 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3159

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

     SECTION 1. MINIMUM PERIODS OF REST AND RECUPERATION FOR UNITS 
                   AND MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES BETWEEN 
                   DEPLOYMENTS.

       (a) Regular Components.--
       (1) In general.--No unit or member of the Armed Forces 
     specified in paragraph (3) may be deployed for Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom (including 
     participation in the NATO International Security Assistance 
     Force (Afghanistan)) unless the period between the deployment 
     of the unit or member is equal to or longer than the period 
     of such previous deployment.
       (2) Sense of congress on optimal minimum period between 
     deployments.--It is the sense of Congress that the optimal 
     minimum period between the previous deployment of a unit or 
     member of the Armed Forces specified in paragraph (3) to 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom and a 
     subsequent deployment of the unit or member to Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom should be equal 
     to or longer than twice the period of such previous 
     deployment.
       (3) Covered units and members.--The units and members of 
     the Armed Forces specified in this paragraph are as follows:
       (A) Units and members of the regular Army.
       (B) Units and members of the regular Marine Corps.
       (C) Units and members of the regular Navy.
       (D) Units and members of the regular Air Force.
       (E) Units and members of the regular Coast Guard.
       (b) Reserve Components.--
       (1) In general.--No unit or member of the Armed Forces 
     specified in paragraph (3) may be deployed for Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom (including 
     participation in the NATO International Security Assistance 
     Force (Afghanistan)) if the unit or member has been deployed 
     at any time within the three years preceding the date of the 
     deployment covered by this subsection.
       (2) Sense of congress on mobilization and optimal minimum 
     period between deployments.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the units and members of the reserve components of the Armed 
     Forces should not be mobilized continuously for more than one 
     year; and the optimal minimum period between the previous 
     deployment of a unit or member of the Armed Forces specified 
     in paragraph (3) to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation 
     Enduring Freedom and a subsequent deployment of the unit or 
     member to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring 
     Freedom should be five years.
       (3) Covered units and members.--The units and members of 
     the Armed Forces specified in this paragraph are as follows:
       (A) Units and members of the Army Reserve.
       (B) Units and members of the Army National Guard.
       (C) Units and members of the Marine Corps Reserve.
       (D) Units and members of the Navy Reserve.
       (E) Units and members of the Air Force Reserve.
       (F) Units and members of the Air National Guard.
       (G) Units and members of the Coast Guard Reserve.
       (c) Waiver by the President.--The President may waive the 
     limitation in subsection (a) or (b) with respect to the 
     deployment of a unit or member of the Armed Forces if the 
     President certifies to Congress that the deployment of the 
     unit or member is necessary to meet an operational emergency 
     posing a threat to vital national security interests of the 
     United States.
       (d) Waiver by Military Chief of Staff or Commandant for 
     Voluntary Mobilizations.--
       (1) Army.--With respect to the deployment of a member of 
     the Army who has voluntarily requested mobilization, the 
     limitation in subsection (a) or (b) may be waived by the 
     Chief of Staff of the Army.
       (2) Navy.--With respect to the deployment of a member of 
     the Navy who has voluntarily requested mobilization, the 
     limitation in subsection (a) or (b) may be waived by the 
     Chief of Naval Operations.
       (3) Marine corps.--With respect to the deployment of a 
     member of the Marine Corps who has voluntarily requested 
     mobilization, the limitation in subsection (a) or (b) may be 
     waived by the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
       (4) Air force.--With respect to the deployment of a member 
     of the Air Force who has voluntarily requested mobilization, 
     the limitation in subsection (a) or (b) may be waived by the 
     Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
       (5) Coast guard.--With respect to the deployment of a 
     member of the Coast Guard who has voluntarily requested 
     mobilization, the limitation in subsection (a) or (b) may be 
     waived by the Commandant of the Coast Guard.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). Pursuant to House Resolution 
601, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is 
adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3159

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring Military Readiness 
     Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM PERIODS OF REST AND RECUPERATION FOR UNITS OF 
                   THE ARMED FORCES BETWEEN DEPLOYMENTS.

       (a) Regular Components.--
       (1) In general.--No unit of the Armed Forces specified in 
     paragraph (3) may be deployed in support of Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom unless the period between the most recent previous 
     deployment of the unit and a subsequent deployment of the 
     unit is equal to or longer than the period of such most 
     recent previous deployment.
       (2) Sense of congress on optimal minimum period between 
     deployments.--It is the sense of Congress that the optimal 
     minimum period between the most recent previous deployment of 
     a unit of the Armed Forces specified in paragraph (3) and a 
     subsequent deployment of the unit in support of Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom should be equal to or longer than twice the 
     period of such most recent previous deployment.
       (3) Covered units.--Subject to subsection (c), the units of 
     the Armed Forces specified in this paragraph are as follows:
       (A) Units of the regular Army and members assigned to those 
     units.
       (B) Units of the regular Marine Corps and members assigned 
     to those units.
       (C) Units of the regular Navy and members assigned to those 
     units.
       (D) Units of the regular Air Force and members assigned to 
     those units.
       (b) Reserve Components.--
       (1) In general.--No unit of the Armed Forces specified in 
     paragraph (3) may be deployed in support of Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom unless the period between the most recent previous 
     deployment of the unit and a subsequent deployment of the 
     unit is at least three times longer than the period of such 
     most recent previous deployment.
       (2) Sense of congress on mobilization and optimal minimum 
     period between deployments.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the units of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 
     should not be mobilized continuously for more than one year, 
     and the optimal minimum period between the previous 
     deployment of a unit of the Armed Forces specified in 
     paragraph (3) and a subsequent deployment of the unit in 
     support of Operation Iraqi Freedom should be five years.
       (3) Covered units.--The units of the Armed Forces specified 
     in this paragraph are as follows:
       (A) Units of the Army Reserve and members assigned to those 
     units.
       (B) Units of the Army National Guard and members assigned 
     to those units.
       (C) Units of the Marine Corps Reserve and members assigned 
     to those units.
       (D) Units of the Navy Reserve and members assigned to those 
     units.
       (E) Units of the Air Force Reserve and members assigned to 
     those units.
       (F) Units of the Air National Guard and members assigned to 
     those units.
       (c) Exemptions.--The limitations in subsections (a) and (b) 
     do not apply--
       (1) to special operations forces as identified pursuant to 
     section 167(i) of title 10, United States Code; and
       (2) to units of the Armed Forces needed, as determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense, to assist in the redeployment of 
     members of the Armed

[[Page 22457]]

     Forces from Iraq to another operational requirement or back 
     to their home stations.
       (d) Waiver by the President.--The President may waive the 
     limitation in subsection (a) or (b) with respect to the 
     deployment of a unit of the Armed Forces to meet a threat to 
     the national security interests of the United States if the 
     President certifies to Congress within 30 days that the 
     deployment of the unit is necessary for such purposes.
       (e) Waiver by Military Chief of Staff or Commandant for 
     Voluntary Mobilizations.--
       (1) Army.--With respect to the deployment of a member of 
     the Army who has voluntarily requested mobilization, the 
     limitation in subsection (a) or (b) may be waived by the 
     Chief of Staff of the Army.
       (2) Navy.--With respect to the deployment of a member of 
     the Navy who has voluntarily requested mobilization, the 
     limitation in subsection (a) or (b) may be waived by the 
     Chief of Naval Operations.
       (3) Marine corps.--With respect to the deployment of a 
     member of the Marine Corps who has voluntarily requested 
     mobilization, the limitation in subsection (a) or (b) may be 
     waived by the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
       (4) Air force.--With respect to the deployment of a member 
     of the Air Force who has voluntarily requested mobilization, 
     the limitation in subsection (a) or (b) may be waived by the 
     Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
       (f) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Deployment.--The term ``deployment'' or ``deployed'' 
     means the relocation of forces and materiel to desired areas 
     of operations and encompasses all activities from origin or 
     home station through destination, including staging, holding, 
     and movement in and through the United States and all 
     theaters of operation.
       (2) Unit.--The term ``unit'' means a unit that is 
     deployable and is commanded by a commissioned officer of the 
     Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps serving in the grade 
     of major or, in the case of the Navy, lieutenant commander, 
     or a higher grade.
       (g) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lynch). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. 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.

                              {time}  1200

  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

[[Page 22458]]

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.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. 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.
                                  ____


         Veterans for America Statement in Support of H.R. 3169

       We are compounding the wounds of war.--Bobby Muller, 
     President of Veterans for America.
       Veterans for America strongly supports H.R. 3159, sponsored 
     by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, calling for adequate dwell time for 
     our service members serving in Iraq and elsewhere.
       Current deployment policies and operational tempo are 
     compounding the wounds of war. It is a medical fact--
     confirmed by DoD studies such as the Mental Health Advisory 
     Team IV--that repeated exposure to combat greatly increases 
     the likelihood of service-connected mental health problems. 
     The DoD Mental Health Task Force has already reported that 
     almost half of the members of the Guard and Reserve who have 
     served in Iraq are experiencing such problems, as are 38 
     percent of Soldiers, and 31 percent of Marines.
       Inadequate dwell time will cause these numbers to further 
     increase.
       Rep. Tauscher's bill will help to ensure that our brave men 
     and women in uniform have the time at home they need to 
     prepare for a return to combat.
       Veterans for America urges members of the House Armed 
     Services Committee to support this important legislation. The 
     well-being of our service members depends on it.

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly comment to my colleague from 
California when he talks about and laments on behalf of the Pentagon 
about all of the problems that they are potentially going to have 
making all these units up and doing all of these things.
  I would like to remind my colleague that the Pentagon has plenty of 
people speaking for them and working for them. It is our job as the 
Members of

[[Page 22459]]

the House of Representatives to speak for our Armed Forces and their 
families to be sure that we have a consistent policy for dwell time and 
rest. I appreciate the fact that we are all interested in making sure 
that we have a strong military, but we need to do that in a way that is 
responsible and responsive to the needs of our military and their 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. 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. SAXTON. I want to thank Mr. Hunter for yielding time and just say 
to my friend, Mrs. Tauscher, that I very much understand and appreciate 
the goals that she has in bringing this legislation forward, but, at 
the same time, I think there are some realities that we have to face 
relative to the subject that the bill addresses.
  The problem here is twofold. Number one, there is the issue of 
command flexibility. As Mr. Hunter pointed out just a few minutes ago, 
we learned in previous wars that making decisions on tactical 
activities in a war should not probably be made at the White House and 
probably should even less likely be made here by 435 Members of 
Congress.
  So while I very much appreciate and agree with the goal of making 
sure that every soldier and Marine and every member of the four 
services gets time to recharge their batteries between deployments, 
having a law which stipulates how precisely that is to be done is a 
very unwise thing to do.
  Secondly, let me say that this problem involves the total number of 
people that we have in the service. We make decisions from time to 
time, and sometimes those decisions are right, hopefully most of the 
time those decisions are right, but sometimes they are not.
  In 1991 and 1992, when we started to hear about the ``peace 
dividend,'' we decided, collectively, all of us together, some in 
disagreement, that it would be okay to reduce the size of the Army from 
about 18 divisions to the equivalent of 10. We collectively decided to 
reduce the number of people in the Army significantly, almost by half. 
So today we are operating with the equivalent of 10 divisions, made up 
in a different structure, a brigade structure; and today 20 of those 
brigades, Army and Marine brigades, are deployed in Iraq.
  When the Commander in Chief and his military commanders in the field 
decide they need to make changes, they make them based on need, based 
on threat, and based on operational plans and operational capabilities. 
That flexibility must in this situation, in my opinion, be preserved.
  So, while those of us on this side of the aisle certainly share the 
goals of the gentlewoman from California, this bill is most unwise and 
will do, as Mr. Hunter said, much more harm than good to our troops in 
the field.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 
minute to my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding and I rise in strong 
support of her legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no disagreement that we should do only what is 
right for our troops in the field and keep them safe, but there is a 
disagreement over the meaning of article I of the Constitution of the 
United States.
  Conduct of the foreign policy of this country is not the exclusive 
purview of the executive branch, but for too long in this institution 
we have behaved as if it is. So this bill says that it is about time 
that the Congress of the United States took on our responsibility for 
assessing the problems in Iraq, took on our responsibility to provide 
for the common defense. Not to be a spectator as the executive branch 
makes these decisions in isolation but to be a thoughtful and full 
partner in that decision-making process.
  It is very important for the Members to understand that if the 
President feels that there is an impairment to the national security of 
the country, he has the authority to waive the provisions of this bill. 
But, absent that, he should abide by it.
  Please vote ``yes.''
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank my friend from California for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to this debate. I think I will 
start with the constitutional side of this and what I believe is a 
disagreement and maybe a fundamental and real disagreement in the 
Constitution.
  I will make this statement, that the Constitution grants Congress the 
power to do three things with regard to war: One of them is to declare 
it, and that is clear; the second one is to raise an Army and a Navy 
and, by implication, an Air Force, and that is clear; and the third 
thing is to fund it. But there is nothing in this Constitution that 
says that we have the authority to overrule the Commander in Chief, nor 
to micromanage a war. Nor are there any 535 generals that are somehow 
or another empowered within article I or any other article of the 
Constitution it.
  So when the gentleman says that it is a constitutional responsibility 
of Congress to conduct foreign policy, I would ask, where in this 
Constitution do you find that? I find that all vested in the powers of 
the President, where he appoints ambassadors, he sets foreign policy. 
Yes, with the advice and consent of the Senate on the confirmation, but 
it is the President's foreign policy, it is the President's State 
Department, and it is the President's military to command.
  When we deviate from that, we put ourselves in the condition where 
our Continental Army was back before we established this Constitution. 
They knew what was wrong. The Continental Congress was trying to fight 
a war by consensus, and that is why we have a Commander in Chief, and 
we must adhere to that.
  If you really want to give some rest to these troops, don't tell the 
President what he has to do. He is doing all he can to give our troops 
all the rest he can.
  I just came back from there. Expand this standing, active duty 
military so that they can get some rest. Don't pull them out of the 
field. And if you are sincere about this, don't limit it to Operation 
Iraqi Freedom. Expand this globally. If you really mean it, they get 
tired wherever they are, in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever they happen 
to be on the globe.
  The President knows that. He cares about these troops. I looked him 
in the eye last week. He is doing everything he can. Everyone is a 
volunteer, and everyone is a volunteer not just for the military but 
for this mission. And you cannot separate your support for the troops 
from support of the mission. You must support their mission. If you are 
going to ask them to put their lives on the line for us, then you stand 
for their mission. The least we can do is wait for General Petraeus' 
report.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. 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. CUMMINGS. I want to thank Mrs. Tauscher for this very important 
legislation, and I support it wholeheartedly.
  I want to say to the last gentleman that spoke, it is because we 
support our troops, because we care about them and their families, that 
we support this legislation. 159,000 of our troops are currently 
deployed in battle to stabilize Iraq.

                              {time}  1220

  On Tuesday, the United States Department of Defense reported that 
another 20,000 will be sent to Iraq for rotation duty.

[[Page 22460]]

  In the meantime, our servicemembers continue to suffer through 
multiple deployments with little time for rest or to retrain. The DOD 
has continuously failed to meet the goal of deploying active duty 
troops for 1 year and allowing them to rest for 2, along with ensuring 
that Reservists are deployed for 1 year and rest for 5. This failure 
has often been called a backdoor draft.
  Not only has ongoing multiple deployments had a detrimental physical 
and emotional impact on our troops and their families, but it also has 
hindered the Armed Forces' ability to reach its retention and 
recruitment goals. Namely, both the Army and Air Force have failed to 
reach their retention goals for the mid-career and career personnel. At 
the current rate, there will be few officers and enlisted soldiers left 
to lead. Who will be our next generation of soldiers? I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. 
Drake).
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this is a contentious 
issue. I also recognize that some of us will never agree on the 
question of Iraq and whether our presence there is justified. However, 
I believe there is common ground, and I introduced a substitute 
amendment during the Armed Services Committee that highlights the 
common ground.
  My substitute amendment, which is modeled after Senator Lindsey 
Graham's alternative to what has come to be known as the Webb 
amendment, replaced the base text with a sense of Congress that the 
Department of Defense should strive to meet certain goals concerning 
dwell time between troop deployment.
  My amendment maintained the goals that are outlined in the underlying 
bill. My amendment represents an alternative that touches on the issues 
that all of us, Republicans and Democrats, agree on. We all agree that 
our troops need to rest between deployment. We all agree that a rested 
fighting force is an effective fighting force. We all agree, hopefully, 
that these goals should not be limited to troops deployed to Operation 
Iraqi Freedom, which the underlying bill unfortunately does.
  We all agree that this committee must continue, as it has done so 
effectively in the past, providing the resources to our troops that 
they need to do their jobs effectively and safely.
  I believe this bill creates an unrealistic expectation on the part of 
our families and our military members. The bill does not define threat 
to national security interests, and the Presidential waiver is simply 
paperwork with no minimum standard.
  I also believe this bill violates the separation of powers as defined 
in our Constitution. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority decided to 
consider this bill under a closed rule with no room for debate on 
alternatives.
  Mr. Speaker, there is common ground on this issue, but, 
unfortunately, it is not represented in this bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against H.R. 3159.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
introducing this legislation and giving me 1 minute.
  Deployed, depleted, desperate. Deployed, depleted, desperate. A news 
article in the Raleigh, North Carolina, paper in April of this year, 
and I read: ``The volunteer military, especially the Army and the 
Marine Corps, has been ground down by endless combat deployments.'' 
Deployed, depleted, desperate. They desperately need this bill to pass 
so they can spend time with their families.
  One other quick point. An Army study found that the more often 
soldiers are deployed, the longer they are deployed each time. And the 
less time they spend at home, the more likely they are to suffer mental 
health problems, such as combat trauma, anxiety, and depression.
  I close by saying again, deployed, depleted, desperate. We have got 
to pass this legislation. God bless our men and women in uniform. As 
Barry McCaffrey said in the spring of this year, the Army and the 
Marine Corps are going to unravel if we don't help them.
  Mr. HUNTER. 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. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him and his family and son, especially, who joined the Marines 
the day after
9/11 and is now serving his third deployment.
  I rise today in opposition to the cleverly dubbed troop readiness 
bill being considered. While none of us here want to be at war, the 
fact remains that we are. And we owe it to the honorable men and women 
in uniform to provide the proper tools, resources and atmosphere for 
victory.
  So it is beyond my comprehension that my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle must insist on limiting the authority of our military 
leaders and General Petraeus.
  From the outset, this poorly crafted dwell time bill may have the 
faint appearance of trying to improve the readiness of units and 
quality of life of members in the Armed Forces, but it is just another 
example of the disingenuous goal masked by a clever name. In truth, the 
bill is a backhanded attempt to force an American withdrawal from Iraq.
  In doing so, the bill limits the flexibility of the U.S. military 
commanders to conduct operations in the field and only prohibits troops 
deployed in Iraq. This is a point that should not be overlooked. The 
true intent of this legislation is obvious. There are mandates that 
only apply to the U.S. forces committed to Operation Iraqi Freedom. 
Afghanistan, another active theater in this war against terror, is not 
even mentioned. If this were a sincere effort on the part of my 
Democrat counterparts, it would apply to all deployments.
  Mr. Speaker, the harsh realities in this bill would have lasting 
negative effects on our military and would inappropriately infringe 
upon the constitutional duties of the President of the United States as 
Commander in Chief. If this bill were to become law, it would paralyze 
our military. It would increase stress on our Armed Forces by reducing 
the pool of forces available and would intensify the risk of our 
soldiers remaining in Iraq. Moreover, it could theoretically extend the 
amount of time forces remain on the ground in Iraq, which would 
negatively impact the morale of our soldiers and their families at 
home.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3159 is bad policy, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose it. Churchill once said in the midst of another war, ``Give us 
the tools and we will finish the job.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of this House and of this Congress and of 
this Nation to give our men and women the resources they need to see 
this conflict through to the end. While our troops are fighting in 
Iraq, Democrat leadership is crafting thinly veiled legislation to 
weaken their ability to succeed, and I think we must ask ourselves why. 
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that voting 
against this bill is to vote for the status quo.

[[Page 22461]]

  At this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase an old ad, when Ellen Tauscher 
and Ike Skelton speak, I listen. They work together carefully on 
important legislation, and this is a piece of important legislation.
  I don't know about others in this Chamber, but I am tired. We have 
been working all day and all night for weeks to try to get to an August 
recess after accomplishing as much as possible. It is 100 degrees 
outside. The humidity level is very high, but we are in an air-
conditioned place.
  In contrast to us, over 100,000 American troops, very brave kids, are 
in 120 degree weather with 40 to 75 pounds of equipment on their backs, 
bravely defending America. I think as tired as I am, this bill strikes 
the right tone and says that in order to fulfill our constitutional 
duty to provide for the common defense, our constitutional duty to 
provide for the common defense, we have to make sure that we have a 
ready military.
  Mr. Speaker, we don't. It is broken. Every expert we have heard from 
knows that. Our failure to plan adequately for the post-military phase 
in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere has created a broken military.
  So I commend the sponsor of this bill and the others who have helped 
draft it. I am proud to be a cosponsor in the effort to state clearly 
that the kids we have sent into harm's way should get the rest and 
training they deserve.
  I would close by saying there was a lot of conversation this morning 
about FISA and how we are at heightened risk and we are doing the wrong 
things. Well, I know what is the right thing to do about FISA, and I 
know what is the right thing to do about a broken military. Pass this 
bill.
  Mr. HUNTER. 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).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I don't think you can find a 
single Member in this House who does not want the war in Iraq to end. 
We pray every day, every day that the war ends. And we are all so very 
proud of the brave men and women who serve us in the Armed Forces. We 
all want them to come home to their families safe and secure.
  But unfortunately, the terrorists don't really care what we want. 
Like it or not, the terrorists' war against us is going to continue 
through the end of this administration and into the next. Whatever you 
think of George W. Bush, after his time is up, this war will not end.
  I can understand the consternation that some have for the way the 
Bush administration has prosecuted this war. I can understand the 
desire of some who want to tie his hands. But for the life of me, I 
cannot understand why we would want to tie the hands of the next 
administration, of the next President, as he, or she, takes on the 
mantle of responsibility to lead our Armed Forces as Commander in 
Chief.
  In fact, I just heard the other day one of the major Democrat 
Presidential contenders, Senator Obama, who said that as President he 
might order an invasion into Pakistan. This, of course, would be a 
major escalation of the war. How would this legislation affect his 
ability to do that? What impact would it have on our troops, because 
this legislation only refers to Iraq deployments.
  Could some troops who just returned from Iraq, could they immediately 
be deployed to Pakistan by ``President Obama''. I believe it would 
allow that, regardless of their need for dwell time.
  All of us need to think through everything we are doing and how our 
actions affect our troops and their families. Military families should 
not be given false hope of decreased deployments and longer dwell 
times, because any President forced to take on the tremendous 
responsibility of leading our Armed Forces in this war will just 
utilize the waiver provisions in this bill and make it meaningless.
  You would think any President would just give their Secretary of 
Defense a blanket waiver. So really, what is the point of this 
legislation?
  Mr. Speaker, in September, General Petraeus will be coming to 
Congress with his unvarnished assessment in his report on progress in 
Iraq. Recent reports fortunately have been more positive about the 
progress being made by our military; although, I will note that the 
lack of progress by the Iraqi Government on the political front remains 
a huge problem. The fact that the Iraqi Parliament is taking a recess 
is cause for great consternation.
  But let us all pray that real progress is happening which will allow 
our troops to come home, and complete their mission and come home soon. 
I would ask my colleagues to wait to hear the assessment from General 
Petraeus and then make a judgment on how to move forward in Iraq. I 
don't believe this legislation is fair to our troops.
  And I also want to make a point that I have very high regard and 
respect for my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, who brings 
this to the floor today. I do not question her motives for a moment on 
this, but I do urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I want to say as a marine combat veteran 40 years ago in Vietnam, I 
sometimes wonder, as I look around this Chamber, which Members would I 
follow into combat. Those of you who are sitting here now, those of you 
who are sitting here now, are you competent enough to lead soldiers 
into this very difficult human endeavor?
  The troops are doing a stunningly competent job and they continue to 
do so. Are we as Members of this House doing a stunningly competent job 
to be thoroughly informed about the problems of the war in Iraq and the 
Middle East?
  Part of our competence must be to understand the psychological and 
physical stress our soldiers in real combat must endure. Experience in 
combat, those of us who have been there, know how valuable that is to 
one soldier and the next soldier. But we as policymakers must come up 
with a policy, and we weigh that experience that is necessary with the 
physical and psychological endurance of those soldiers that is 
necessary.
  Respecting the troops means we are responsible and competent in 
developing a policy that is worthy of those young men and women. I urge 
support for this legislation.
  Mr. HUNTER. 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. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have to say in terms of sympathy, I 
understand the motivation I believe and the interest in our troops that 
this legislation is designed to deal with. I have two marines that are 
my sons. I have visited the one when he was in Fallujah. I talked to a 
number of their troops. I think I understand the stresses that are 
involved in warfare, also as somebody who served as an officer myself.
  That said, however, I think there is a danger when we take a look at 
a specific problem and we try to micromanage a solution from the 
position of Congress. It didn't work during the War of Independence. 
And the trade-offs as to whether or not you are going to leave somebody 
in theater longer, there are a lot of different factors that

[[Page 22462]]

you have to balance and a lot of special situations.
  To give you one that seems a little bit obvious, I suspect that 
General Petraeus and other generals have been in theater a pretty long 
time. They probably would have to get a special waiver from the 
President to do their jobs.
  We understand it would be better if they could take a break and see 
their families more, but the specific situation in their situation 
calls for the fact that this sort of blanket rule we are going to top-
down impose as Congressmen or Congresswomen doesn't make a whole lot of 
sense.

                              {time}  1240

  To try to set up a policy now and to hamstring all the military 
planners and to apply it just specifically to the situation in Iraq 
effectively reduces our options, makes it more complicated for us to 
get our job done, and effectively makes it so that we have less 
practical combat strength.
  I think all of us have agreed that we've seen that we need more 
troops, and that's something that we need to deal with and have the 
courage to put that into the budgets in the future. But I think this is 
a micromanagement. While it may be inspired by good intentions, and I 
do know that there is a lot of stress on Marine families and Army 
families as well, I think this is the wrong to go, and I would urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I'm so happy to yield 1 minute to my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 3159, of 
which I'm a proud cosponsor.
  I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California and the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee for their leadership on this 
issue.
  Just 14 months after returning from deployment in support of 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, the 833rd Engineer Company of the Iowa Army 
National Guard was again mobilized for combat duty in Iraq. The men and 
women of the 833rd have served with distinction. Yet, by providing 
inadequate and unpredictable rest between deployments, the Bush 
administration has broken our contract with our citizen soldiers. We 
have strained our troops, endangering both our men and women in uniform 
and our national security.
  Our servicemembers must have the dwell time necessary to be fully 
rested, trained and equipped. This bill provides the rest and 
predictability necessary to ensure the health of our Armed Forces, and 
I strongly urge its passage.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Shimkus, the gentleman from 
Illinois, 3 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and my good 
friend, Congresswoman Tauscher.
  This is a tough bill, and I appreciate it being brought to the floor. 
People know I come here heartfelt because of my 25 years connected with 
the United States Army. I don't like to throw that out. You know that. 
An Army Ranger and Army paratrooper, still an active reservist, but I 
have become frustrated that we are losing sight of why we have a 
military.
  The mission of the United States military is to fight and win our 
Nation's wars. Now, many people don't want us to have a military, I 
understand that, but I think the best hope for democracy and freedom in 
the world today, even in our work with NATO, is a strong, powerful, 
committed, professional United States military, and we work on that 
with our NATO allies.
  The mission of the infantry is to get close with and destroy our 
enemies. Destroy our enemies, to go after them and fight them and send 
down the message that we're going to fight you until you leave us 
alone.
  Now, there are folks on the other side who don't want us to have 
that. I am one that thinks it's necessary to have in this country. So I 
don't think we're in conflict. I do think that we have lost some faith 
in our leadership in the military. I still have it. I still think our 
career military officers will make the tough call to deploy and use 
their troops.
  I'm going a little bit slower than I hoped because I'm talking from 
the heart, but more than just the officer rank, it's the career 
enlisted leaders. In the Army, it's the command sergeant majors all the 
way up, from the commanding down to the first sergeant in the company. 
You have to believe that they will raise the issue about whether their 
troops cannot perform the mission. That is part of who they are. And 
when you fight in the trenches and you develop that bond that makes you 
an effective fighting force, how dare they not think about their 
soldiers first. I think they do.
  I believe in the military. I think their heart's right, and our 
volunteer military is the best on the face of the earth today. I know 
we want to keep it that way.
  I'm not sure this is the right way to go, but I just wanted to come 
down and talk from the military's perspective.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. TAUSCHER. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. 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.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
for the opportunity.
  I stand here today in strong support of H.R. 3159. As a former 
military spouse and the proud wife of a veteran, I know how important 
this is to military families. The President's policies have failed on 
many levels, but they certainly have failed on the soldiers, the troops 
who are suffering this great strain right now.
  I find it ironic that the Iraqi parliament is on vacation for a month 
while we stand here and tell our troops that they cannot have a break, 
that they need to stay in the field in the heat and keep fighting the 
battle for the Iraqis.
  The Army's available, active duty combat brigades, along with 80 
percent of the Reserves and National Guard, have served at least one 
tour in Iraq and Afghanistan; and the strain is starting to show.
  Recruiting and reenlistment are down, especially in the Army which 
has reported about a 7 percent first retention drop, and we're having 
to offer greater bonuses to attract people. Reports of traumatic brain 
injury and post-traumatic stress syndrome are up; and this spring the 
Secretary of Defense announced that active duty soldiers can expect to 
spend more time in Iraq than they spend at home, with only 12-month 
breaks between 15-month deployments.
  We hear a lot of talk from the White House about supporting our 
troops. That is what this bill does. This bill will support our troops 
by supporting their right to have a break from combat, and it will 
support our military families by protecting their rights to spend time 
with their loved ones.
  I urge my colleagues, regardless of how they feel about this war and 
the President's policies, to support H.R. 3159.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute 
to my friend, colleague and neighbor from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say thank you to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for putting forth this bill, which I 
believe will take a significant step forward in ending this occupation 
in Iraq.
  This administration professes to care about our troops, so let me 
tell you, why have about 250,000 of our troops served more than one 
tour? Tell me this, why have tours in Iraq been extended for all active 
duty Army soldiers from 12 months to 15 months?
  I will tell you why. This administration, after nearly 5 years, 
nearly half a trillion dollars, and nearly 3,700 brave American lives, 
is willing to sacrifice

[[Page 22463]]

the health and safety of our troops and the security of our Nation in a 
last-ditch effort to save face for its failed policies in Iraq.
  Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. The price is simply too high. The 
least we can do is give our troops this badly needed break. That's the 
least we can do.
  I congratulate Congresswoman Tauscher for this legislation and urge 
my colleagues to support it. Our troops need this, and both sides of 
the aisle should vote for this in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. 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. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much Mrs. Tauscher. 
It's such a pleasure to be here.
  This is an extraordinarily important bill, and it is timely. I think 
it's very important to answer one of my colleague's questions about the 
constitutional responsibilities. It's clear in Article I, section 2, of 
the Constitution. Both James Madison as well as Hamilton concurred when 
they mentioned not only to declare war is the duty of the Congress, not 
only to raise the Army, but to support the Army. Those words are there, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Now, I have been over to Iraq and Afghanistan and talked and looked 
at the soldiers themselves. I've gone throughout my district and talked 
to soldiers' families. The stress is in their eyes as you go.
  I've gone to Landstuhl in Germany and sat with our soldiers on every 
trip. I've been three times over there and three times we've been to 
Germany and talked. The stress is there.
  In the military report that was just issued, Mr. Speaker, it said 
that the extension of the duty, the longer the time and the stress of 
combat, the longer and the greater occurrences of psychological stress. 
Our Army may not be broken, Mr. Speaker, but it's at the breaking 
point, and we need to give ample time for our soldiers to come home and 
rest.
  If you care about the soldiers, vote for this bill.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from 
Georgia, 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. 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.''
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. 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. 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.

[[Page 22464]]

  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.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 2 
minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Admiral Sestak.
  Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, this is a tough bill. We found out after 
Vietnam that, instead of rotating our forces, if we had just stayed 
there with the same force, as we did in World War II, our fighting 
would have been more effective and less lives would have been lost. But 
this war is different.
  We found out in World War II that, on average, a man in that combat 
did 182 days of combat, horrific combat, but 182 days on average. In 
this war, in those 15 months, our men and women are overseas in Iraq. 
Every day of those 15 months those men and women go outside the wire, 
into combat. This is a different war.
  I am taken, first and foremost, by the reports that more are coming 
home with post-traumatic syndrome. I am, second, taken with our 
constitutional responsibility to make rules for the government and 
regulation of our armed services. And then third, I'm taken by the 
waiver, the national security waiver that is placed within this bill 
that our national command authorities, the President and the Secretary 
of Defense may waiver for national security reasons the requirement to 
send troops forward if they have even been home less than they were in 
combat.
  Our national command authorities every day must approve every 
deployment. They must, therefore, only turn to us and say it is a 
national requirement that they must redeploy less than they have been 
over there in Iraq.

                              {time}  1300

  This is a different war, and I am glad to see we are taking seriously 
our responsibility to provide for the rules, the regulation, the 
government of our armed services in what is truly a different war and 
yet give our President the right to ensure that the risks are weighed 
for a national security waiver.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and 
colleague, the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I would like to thank my colleague, Mrs. 
Tauscher, for her leadership on this committee and on this issue. When 
I went to Congress, I never thought that I would be deploying troops or 
welcoming caskets back to my congressional district. What I am learning 
is most of the young men and women who get killed in Iraq are on their 
second or third or fourth tour. Clearly it must indicate that they need 
some rest and down time.
  I am here to say I understand, Mr. Leadership in the military, you 
think you know what you are doing, but I am telling you I sit with 
mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and aunts and uncles who 
have lost people in the military. If all it takes to help them save 
their lives is to give them some rest, give them some rest.
  Does it need to be mandated? Apparently so. Let's mandate it. Let's 
give our young men and women the time they need, down time, to be able 
to do a good job. I support your resolution and am glad to stand up 
with you.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. 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

[[Page 22465]]

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. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time we have 
left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 1 minute, 
and the gentlewoman from California has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. 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.''
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. 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).
  Ms. WATERS. I would like to commend the gentlelady from California 
for the tremendous work that she has done, not only to deal with all of 
the problems of our being in Iraq, but for bringing this legislation to 
the floor.
  The U.S. has been at war in Afghanistan since October 7, 2001, and in 
Iraq since March 19, 2003. Since that time, over 1 million troops have 
been deployed to Iraq, in total, with 500,000 having been deployed at 
least twice. These numbers are rapidly growing at the detriment of the 
military. There are currently 160,000 troops on active duty in Iraq.
  To keep up this level of deployment with an all-volunteer military, 
the administration is cutting corners on previous rules on troop 
deployment limits and rest times. Our military is being ground down to 
the hilt, and it's near the breaking point.
  In recent briefings, Major General Batiste said young officers and 
noncommissioned officers are leaving the service at an alarming rate. 
Equipment is in dismal shape, requiring hundreds of billions of dollars 
to refit the force to preinvasion conditions. Active duty companies 
preparing for deployment to Iraq within the next 6 months are at less 
than 50 percent strength, are commanded by young and sometimes 
inexperienced lieutenants, and are lacking the equipment needed for 
training. Our all-volunteer force cannot sustain the current attempt 
for much longer.
  The lack of deployment limits and dwell times have taken an 
incredible strain on the individuals who have been asked to shoulder 
this burden. Post-traumatic stress disorder and similar illnesses are 
significantly amplified by enduring or repeated deployments to Iraq.
  Consequently, our men and women in uniform are returning with levels 
of mental illness not seen since Vietnam. According to a recent study 
by the Department of Defense, 49 percent of National Guardsmen report 
mental health problems. Let us not forget the hidden casualties of the 
war in Iraq, the families.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to provide 
minimum ``dwell-time'' for our troops who have served in Iraq.
  Madam Chairwoman, I opposed the war in Iraq from the outset and will 
continue to do so.
  In 4 years, the war has done great damage to our global prestige, our 
national morale, and our national security. More than anything, it has 
damaged our military and their families.
  It is Congress's duty to ensure that our troops are treated with 
respect and that they have resources for the missions they perform. 
Equally important, it is Congress's job to ensure our troops have the 
rest and training they need. With this bill, we will do right by our 
military personnel and their families by ensuring they have adequate 
time at home between deployments.
  The Defense Department has established a goal to provide active duty 
service personnel with 2 years at home between each year they are 
deployed, and 5 years at home for every year of deployment for 
reserves.
  Regrettably that goal has not been achieved. In fact, the policy has 
been waived by the Defense Department for those serving in Iraq.
  In the last 4 years our troops and reserves have shouldered the 
burden of multiple deployments overseas with professionalism and 
courage. The strain on them and their families grows with each day they 
are away from home, yet tours of duty have been extended time and 
again. Just this past April, Secretary Gates announced that tours of 
duty for the Army would be increased from 12 months to 15 months.
  The strain is not only being felt by our troops and their families, 
it's also affected the Armed Forces, particularly the Army, in meet 
recruiting and retention goals.
  With this bill, we call for time between deployments for active-duty 
personnel in Iraq to equal to or exceed the length of their most recent 
deployment. For National Guard and Reserve units and members, the bill 
calls for time between deployments of at least three times longer than 
the length of their most recent deployment.
  This may seem like a small step, but for our troops it's essential.
  I urge my colleague to vote yes on this bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3159 and 
thank Congresswoman Tauscher for her leadership.
  We have had a lot of disagreement on the occupation of Iraq. There is 
one thing we all agree upon, however--the support of our troops.
  The toll that has been taken on our men and women in uniform is 
unimaginable. They have volunteered to sacrifice so much in service to 
their Nation.
  Unfortunately, political decisions by this administration have 
prevented us from bringing this misguided occupation to an end.
  Today, we try to fulfill our commitment to the brave troops who are 
out there serving on the front line. The least we can do is to ensure 
that every service member gets the right amount of training and rest. 
It is our moral obligation.

[[Page 22466]]

  I support H.R. 3159 and look forward to the day when we can bring our 
troops home for good.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, we have had some fierce debates here in the 
Congress about our occupation of Iraq. Many Republicans insist that 
redeploying our troops from Iraq will lead to failure there. My 
Democratic colleagues and I see it much differently. We see clearly 
that our continued occupation is a debacle that prevents Iraqis taking 
control of their own nation and destiny.
  But what Democrats and Republicans can agree on is that Iraq is not 
America's only national security concern. America faces several potent 
strategic challenges: al Qaeda. Afghanistan. Iran. North Korea. If we 
continue to exhaust our military in Iraq, we risk being at a 
disadvantage facing these other dangerous threats.
  This bill ensures that our troops get the rest, recuperation and 
retraining they need to be most effective. If we fail to provide our 
troops with the time they need to rest, refit, and retrain at home, we 
are putting them at a disadvantage when they return to theater.
  Furthermore, the common sense provisions in this bill mean that we 
are paying attention to another group that has borne the brunt of this 
war: our soldiers' families. It has been said that there are two ways 
to break the military: you can break the soldier, or you can break the 
family. Our troops agreed to accept a certain level of hardship when 
they enlisted. The least we can do in return is make sure that we have 
their back, and are giving them the time they need to recuperate.
  The strength of our armed forces comes from the strength of our men 
and women in uniform. If we fail to pass this bill, we risk weakening 
American national security. We face a host of threats beyond Iraq. Pass 
this bill to keep America strong and prepared.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to 
provide some Congressional oversight over the deployment and 
maintenance of our troops stationed overseas. As the Constitution 
states in Article I Section 8., Congress has the power ``to make rules 
for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,'' and 
therefore Congress has an obligation to speak on such matters. I have 
been and remain extremely concerned about the deployment extensions and 
stop-loss programs that have kept our troops deployed and engaged for 
increasingly extended periods of time. My constituents who are affected 
by this policy have contacted me with their concerns as well.
  The legislation at least seeks to provide some guidance and relief to 
our troops who have been stretched to the limit by the increasing 
duration of deployment overseas and the decreasing duration of time 
back home between deployments. Several military experts, including 
General Barry McCaffrey, have commented on this problem and the 
challenges it poses to the health and safety of our troops.
  Although I am voting for this bill, I am increasingly concerned about 
Congress's approach to the issue of our continued involvement in Iraq. 
Rather than a substantive move to end the US military presence in Iraq, 
this bill and others that have passed recently seem to be merely 
symbolic moves to further politicize the war in Iraq. Clearly the 
American public is overwhelmingly in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq, 
but Congress is not listening. At best, the House seems willing to 
consider only such half-measures as so-called re-deployment. We need a 
real solution that puts the safety of our troops above politics. We 
need to simply bring them home. As I said recently on the Floor of the 
House, we just marched in so we can just march out.
  The proper method for ending the war is for Congress to meet its 
responsibility to deauthorize and defend the war. Micromanaging a troop 
deployment is not the answer since it overstays the bounds of 
Congressional authority.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the House is taking action today to bring some 
sanity back to our military deployment and rotation policies. I intend 
to vote for this bill.
  We all know that because of these repeated deployments, the divorce 
rates of military families are up, and the financial burdens faced by 
our Guard and Reserve families have been enormous. While this bill 
cannot address all of the deployment-related problems confronting our 
military families, it would address one of the most glaring: 
insufficient down time and retraining between deployments.
  If this bill becomes law, it would mandate dedicated periods of time 
between deployments for all servicemembers. For active duty personnel, 
the intervals between deployments would have to be at least as long as 
the last deployment itself. For our Guard and Reserve forces, the 
interval between deployments would have to be at least three times the 
length of a servicemember's last tour.
  Every Member of this House can tell multiple stories they've heard 
from servicemembers or their family members about the toll that these 
multiple, sometimes back-to-back deployments take on our military 
families. Let me quickly relate one story I've heard, one of many 
reasons I'm voting for this bill today.
  Bill Potter is an attorney and lecturer in politics at both Princeton 
University and Rutgers University. Just over a year ago, he wrote an 
op-ed in the Trenton Times regarding the situation of his nephew, a 
Marine Corps captain, who had been blinded in his right eye after being 
fired on by an Iraqi policeman-turned-insurgent--one of many Iraqi 
policemen-turned-insurgents that we have trained and armed with an 
inadequate counterintelligence effort by the Iraqi government to weed 
out such bad actors.
  Bill's nephew is a remarkable young man. Wounded twice in Iraq on his 
first tour in 2005, recovered sufficiently to go on a deployment to the 
Pacific in 2006 and is now facing the prospect of a second tour in Iraq 
beginning in January 2008--and of leaving his now nine year-old son 
behind for a third time in as many years.
  This young Marine--like so many others--has already paid too high a 
price for this President's misguided war in Iraq. This bill, if 
enacted, would at least give our servicemembers and their families some 
real down time between deployments--time to reconnect with each other, 
and time for these gallant Americans to get the rest and refresher 
training that they will need to face the future. It's for all of those 
reasons that I'm voting for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I went to the Rules Committee yesterday for 
the fourth time since January asking that my amendment be made in order 
to allow the House to discuss and vote on the recommendations of the 
bipartisan Iraq Study Group as the way forward in Iraq.
  For the fourth time this year, the Rules Committee said no. I can 
only assume from that action that the Democrat leadership instead 
prefers to continue to lock down the House and deny the opportunity to 
take the bipartisan road on Iraq policy.
  On the question of finding solutions in Iraq, this House cannot 
continue to just blindly follow the White House or the leadership of 
the Congress.
  The Washington Post has editorialized that the debate on Iraq in 
recent weeks is all about political gamesmanship. Every member in this 
House knows that's true and that is what's been going on here. More 
importantly, I believe that the American people know what's going on. 
Just look at the polls on where Congress stands.
  We owe it to the men and women in our armed forces who are putting 
their lives on the line every day in Iraq to at least take the time to 
discuss the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.
  We also owe it to their families.
  We need to have a honest, true debate on the recommendations of the 
Iraq Study Group.
  To not vote on the recommendations of such a distinguished group that 
took over eight months looking at this issue and talking to dozens of 
military officers, regional experts, academics, journalists and high-
level government officials from America and abroad just doesn't make 
sense. Take a look at the Iraq Study Group report for the extensive 
lists of those who advised the ISG, including the military senior 
advisor panel--retired Navy Admiral James O. Ellis, Jr., retired Army 
General John M. Keane, retired Army General Edward C. Meyer, retired 
Air Force General Joseph W. Ralston, and retired Army Lt. General Roger 
C. Schultz, Sr.
  As I have said time and time again, the Iraq Study Group is the way 
forward and what I believe is the best and most appropriate way to be 
successful in Iraq.
  It was bipartisan and all of its 79 recommendations were unanimous.
  Two of its members--Lee Hamilton, the co-chair, and Leon Panetta--
served in this body. Two others--Alan Simpson and Chuck Robb--served in 
the Senate.
  Co-chair Jim Baker and Lawrence Eagleburger served as secretary of 
State.
  Bill Perry was President Clinton's secretary of Defense.
  Bob Gates served on the panel for seven months--stepping down to 
become the current secretary of Defense.
  H.R. 2574, the Iraq Study Group Recommendation Implementation Act of 
2007, which was the basis of the amendment I asked to be made in order 
under the bill we are debating today, has 59 cosponsors--34 Republicans 
and 25 Democrats.
  We all know the war has created a bitter divide in our country. The 
ISG allows us to come together.

[[Page 22467]]

  I will say it again: the best way forward is for both the Congress 
and the president to embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study 
Group.
   Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, it comes down to doing the right 
thing. The question is, when will the leadership in Congress show the 
courage that the American people expect and do the right thing--not for 
me or for the members of this House, but for the thousands of brave men 
and women serving in uniform, their families and the good of our 
country?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.
  We continue to fight to end the war in Iraq. However, in the 
meantime, we must ensure that our troops are provided with the time to 
return home, rest, recuperate and train before they return to battle. 
Our troops have risked their lives and Congress has a responsibility to 
stand up for them.
  The legislation we are considering today strengthens the American 
military by mandating minimum periods of rest and recuperation for 
units and members of regular and reserve components of our Armed Forces 
between deployments. The bill states that if a unit or 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.
  The legislation will help alleviate a significant military readiness 
crisis. When the Bush Administration took office in 2001, all active 
duty Army divisions were rated at the highest readiness levels and were 
fully manned, equipped, and trained. Now, the Administration's failed 
policies in Iraq have depleted our military and put a tremendous strain 
on our troops. Already, an estimated 250,000 soldiers in the Army and 
Marine Corps have served more than one tour in Iraq and each one of the 
Army's available active duty combat brigades has served at least a 12-
month tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. And this spring, the Defense 
Secretary announced that all active duty Army soldiers would have their 
tours in Iraq extended from 12 to 15 months.
  The war in Iraq has had disastrous consequences for our Armed Forces 
and our troops. By reducing the stress on our men and women in uniform 
and ensuring they get the training they need to stay safe, this 
legislation makes support for the troops into more than an empty 
slogan.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.R. 3159. If it were a sincere attempt to address 
deployment-to-dwell schedules, I would be inclined to support it. Our 
troops have been rotating frequently; it is a serious issue that calls 
for a serious discussion.
  H.R. 3159, however, is yet another sound bite masquerading as policy, 
and is illustrative of the entire congressional debate on Iraq thus 
far.
  Not once have we had a serious deliberation regarding how to 
extricate ourselves from our current dilemma. We have only considered 
take-it-or-Ieave-it measures designed to inflict political damage; we 
have yet to make a serious attempt to find consensus on the most vexing 
foreign policy conundrum of our time.
  I am dissatisfied with the conduct of the war, and I am eager to see 
an end to the casualties. Regardless, we must accept the fact that our 
actions will have long term consequences for the United States, for 
Iraq, and the entire Middle East. We must put more thought into our 
exit than we did our entrance to Iraq; legislation like H.R. 3159 does 
not suffice.
  Yesterday at the Rules Committee, my colleague Frank Wolf offered an 
amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the way forward in Iraq 
would be to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. I 
was a cosponsor of this amendment, and I was disappointed the Rules 
Committee yet again denied us an opportunity to debate this important 
measure.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in a difficult spot in Iraq. In such 
circumstances, it makes sense to gather the best minds our country has 
to offer, from across the political spectrum, and ask their advice as 
to how we should proceed. That's what we did when we created the Iraq 
Study Group, and their recommendations represent a blueprint for an 
orderly way out of Iraq.
  In my opinion, we should embrace these recommendations. At a minimum, 
we should debate them. I continue to look forward to the day that 
occurs.
  Despite my misgivings, I would have supported this legislation had 
the majority supported the motion to recommit. This stipulated the 
deployment timetables proposed by the Democratic majority could go into 
effect. The Secretary of Defense, however, would have to certify they 
would not cause the tour of any unit already deployed to be extended. 
He would also have to certify they would not increase the operational 
risk to any deployed unit.
  These were common sense measures worthy of support. Unfortunately, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected them, and I am 
compelled to vote against the bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted in support of the Ensuring 
Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment 
Policy Act of 2007, which mandates a minimum period of rest and 
recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve 
components of the Armed Forces between deployments to Iraq.
  At a time when our generals warn that the Army is at a breaking 
point, this is an important stand in support of troop readiness and 
keeping faith with our military families. It is also another step 
forward in forcing the responsible drawdown of our troops from Iraq and 
ending the war. I believe we must bring our troops home as quickly as 
possible and work to stabilize Iraq through political and diplomatic 
efforts. I will continue to support any legislation that moves us 
closer to the end of this national nightmare.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3159, the so-
called ``Ensuring Military Readiness through Stability and 
Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007.'' This ill-conceived and 
dangerous piece of legislation will lead to American troops stuck in 
Iraq with no reinforcements and no replacements.
  All Americans long for the day when our troops can return from 
foreign lands. With U.S. troops deployed in over 35 countries around 
the world, their families count the days until their loved ones come 
home. However, our Nation must never lose sight that each soldier, 
sailor, airmen, and marine has a mission to complete: to protect the 
citizens and interests of the United States.
  H.R. 3159 has a lofty goal that is supported by every American, every 
Member of Congress, the Secretary of Defense and the President: to 
provide time at home to Iraq for our men and women in uniform between 
deployments. This legislation would require a one-to-one ratio between 
deployments in Iraq and home station for active duty forces, and a one-
to-three ratio for National Guard and Reserve. However, the Department 
of Defense, DoD, currently has higher standards of a one-to-two ratio 
between all deployments, regardless of location, for active forces and 
a one-to-five ratio for Reserve forces.
  So, the question must be asked, why has H.R. 3159, with its lesser 
standards than DoD's own standards, elicited a Presidential veto, 
opposition from the U.S. Military leadership, and widespread resistance 
in Congress? Because this legislation is a political ruse and would do 
serious harm to our troops in Iraq and our national security.
  Although this legislation would prohibit back-to-back deployments to 
Iraq, H.R. 3159 still would allow troops to deploy to Iraq and then to 
another nation, such as Afghanistan or the Philippines, without 
restriction. Let me be clear, contrary to the arguments of the 
Democrats, this legislation would not ensure dwell times for our 
troops.
  However, it will do real harm to our troops in Iraq--leaving our 
troops without reinforcements and without replacements. H.R. 3159 would 
hinder the flexibility of Pentagon leaders to place troops where they 
are needed, and when they are needed. This legislation would not change 
the mission in Iraq or decrease the required number of troops. But it 
will force our troops to stay in Iraq longer--waiting for their 
replacements. And if additional troops are required--this bill would 
hinder any reinforcements from arriving in a timely fashion. Holding 
our troops without replacements or reinforcements does not constitute 
support, as Democrats have asserted.
  Although it is true this bill includes a waiver provision--it only 
allows troops to be deployed after a 30-day congressional notification. 
During war, time is always of the essence. Throughout history, many 
battles and lives have been lost due to delays in reinforcements or 
replacements. When our military commanders urgently request a special 
operations or explosive ordinance disposal team, our President and 
military leadership needs to have the flexibility to send that team 
immediately. Under this legislation, the President would have to 
provide notification to Congress, wait 30 days, and then send these 
urgently needed forces. This is unacceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, these are dangerous times for our troops and for our 
Nation. Our military commanders need the flexibility to effectively and 
safely carry out the will of this Nation. We must not hamstring our 
Nation's warriors. Therefore, I ask all my colleagues to join with me 
in opposition to this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.

[[Page 22468]]

  Pursuant to House Resolution 601, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. HUNTER. Yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hunter moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3159 to the 
     Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendments:
       In subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1) of section 2, strike ``No 
     unit'' each place it appears and insert the following: 
     ``Subject to section 3, no unit''.
       Add at the end of the bill the following new section:

     SEC. 3. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

       Subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1) of section 2 may not be 
     implemented unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to the 
     President and to Congress that implementation of those 
     subsections--
       (1) would not cause the tour length of any deployed unit 
     (or members assigned to that unit) to be extended; and
       (2) would not increase the operational risk to any deployed 
     unit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. HUNTER. 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.

                              {time}  1315

  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----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lynch). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. HUNTER. I would ask the gentlelady for 30 additional seconds.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. I don't have the time, sir.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. 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.

[[Page 22469]]

  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. SKELTON. 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.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit H.R. 3159 will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 3159, if ordered, and the 
approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207, 
nays 217, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 795]

                               YEAS--207

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--217

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     King (IA)
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Clarke
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ellison
     Johnson, Sam
     Oberstar
     Walz (MN)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1344

  Messrs. OLVER, CUELLAR, JOHNSON of Georgia and AL GREEN of Texas 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California and Mr. MORAN of Kansas changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 22470]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229, 
noes 194, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 796]

                               AYES--229

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     Davis (KY)
     English (PA)
     Murphy, Tim

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clarke
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ellison
     Johnson, Sam
     Oberstar


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1353

  Ms. BERKLEY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``no'' to 
``present.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________