U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–006 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 110TH Congress 

1st Session 

REPORT

2007

110–282 

ENSURING MILITARY READINESS THROUGH STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY DEPLOYMENT POLICY 

ACT OF 2007 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 3159 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

JULY 31, 2007.—Ordered to be printed. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY BOYDA, Kansas 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

ERIN C. CONATON, Staff Director 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose and Background ........................................................................................ 3 

Legislative History .................................................................................................. 3 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 3 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 4 

Section 1—Short Title ...................................................................................... 4 

Section 2—Minimum Periods of Rest and Recuperation for Units of the 

Armed Forces ................................................................................................ 4 

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 4 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 4 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 5 

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 6 

Statement of Performance Goals and Objectives .................................................. 6 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 6 

Earmarks .................................................................................................................. 6 

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 6 

Record Votes ............................................................................................................. 6 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 11 

Dissenting Views: 

Dissenting views of Duncan Hunter, Jim Saxton, John M. McHugh, Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, J. Randy Forbes, Joe Wilson, Rob Bishop, 

Jim Marshall, John Kline, Candice S. Miller, Phil Gingrey, Trent 

Franks, Bill Shuster, Thelma Drake, and K. Michael Conaway .............. 12 

Dissenting views of W. Todd Akin, Joe Wilson, Tom Cole, and Trent 

Franks ............................................................................................................ 15 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–282 

ENSURING MILITARY READINESS THROUGH STABILITY 

AND PREDICTABILITY DEPLOYMENT POLICY ACT OF 2007 

JULY 31, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SKELTON, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3159] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred 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, having considered the same, 

report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 

the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

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 DEPLOY- MENTS.—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 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
2 

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 BE- TWEEN 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 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. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
3 

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of H.R. 3159, Ensuring Military Readiness Through 

Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007, is to establish a statutory requirement that ensures regular (active) component units and members assigned to those units are provided a 

minimum period of rest and recuperation that is equal to or longer 

than the period of the most recent deployment, and a minimum period of rest and recuperation that is at least three times longer 

than the period of deployment for reserve (National Guard and Reserves) component units and members assigned to those units. 

The bill also includes a sense of Congress that the ratio between 

the length of deployments and dwell time, the interval between deployments, for regular components should be one year deployed to 

two years at home station (a ratio of 1:2), and the goal for the reserve components should be one year deployed to five years at 

home station (a ratio of 1:5). 

The Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, recently announced a 

change to deployment policy on May 9, 2007, which would extend 

the current policy for all active Army units from a 1:1 ratio (one 

year deployed and one year at home station) to a policy of 15 

months deployed and 12 months back at home station. This policy 

change has raised serious concerns about sustainability, and 

whether such a reduced period at home station allows sufficient 

time for units and individuals to adequately train, equip, and reconstitute for the next deployment. The services are currently at a 

1:1 ratio for regular components and a 1:3 ratio for reserve components and are not able to meet the Department of Defense goal of 

a 1:2 ratio for regular components and a 1:5 ratio for reserve components given the current operational requirements. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 3159 was introduced on July 24, 2007, and referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services. 

On July 27, 2007, the Committee on Armed Services held a 

mark-up session to consider H.R. 3159, as introduced. The committee agreed by unanimous consent to consider Chairman Skelton’s amendment in the nature of a substitute as the base text. The 

committee, a quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 3159, as 

amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation by a 

record vote of 32–25, with 2 voting present. 

HEARINGS

Committee consideration of the matter contained in H.R. 3159, 

Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability 

Deployment Policy Act of 2007, was informed by two full committee 

hearings. The full committee conducted a hearing on January 23, 

2007, ‘‘Implications of Iraq Policy on Total Force Readiness;’’ and 

conducted a hearing on July 27, 2007, ‘‘Hearing on H.R. 3159 and 

H.R. 3087.’’ These hearings dealt with rotational policy and the 

strain on the armed forces, which has resulted from ongoing military operations. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
4 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

The following is a section-by-section analysis of those sections of 

H.R. 3159, as amended by the Committee on Armed Services. 

Section 1—Short title 

This section would establish the short title of the bill as the ‘‘Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007.’’

Section 2—Minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units of 

the Armed Forces 

This section would prohibit the deployment to Operation Iraqi 

Freedom (OIF) of an active component unit or personnel assigned 

to such unit unless the period of deployment between the previous 

and proposed deployment was equal to or longer than the period 

of the most recent previous deployment. Reserve component units 

and personnel assigned to those units could not be deployed to OIF 

unless the period of deployment between the previous and proposed 

deployment was equal to or longer than three times the period of 

the most recent previous deployment. 

Additionally, this section would express the sense of Congress 

that the active components deploying to OIF should achieve an optimal deployment to dwell time ratio that is equal to or longer than 

twice the deployment period, and reserve components deploying to 

OIF should achieve an optimal deployment of no more than one 

year and an optimal dwell time of five years. 

The section also would provide the President the ability to waive 

the dwell times, if the President certifies to Congress within 30 

days after the waiver that the deployment of a unit is necessary 

to meet a threat to the national security interests of the United 

States. This section also would provide the Chiefs of Staff of the 

services the ability to waive the dwell times for voluntary mobilizations. 

This section would also define ‘‘unit,’’ ‘‘deployment,’’ and ‘‘deployed.’’ This section would be effective upon date of enactment. 

COMMITTEE POSITION

On July 27, 2007, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 

being present, ordered reported H.R. 3159, as amended, to the 

House with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 32–25, 

with 2 voting present. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows: 

July 31, 2007. 

HON. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3159, the Ensuring MiliVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:09 Aug 01, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR282.XXX HR282

bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
5 

tary Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment 

Policy Act of 2007. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Schmit. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG, 

Director. 

Congressional Budget Office cost estimate 

H.R. 3159 would require that military units receive minimum periods of rest and recuperation between deployments in support of 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. For active-duty units, the required period 

of rest and recuperation would be at least as long as their most recent deployment, and for Reserve and National Guard units the required period would be at least three times as long as their most 

recent deployment. Those requirements could be waived if the 

President certifies to the Congress that the deployments are in the 

interest of national security or if the deployments are voluntary. 

Currently, many units already receive sufficient time between 

deployments to meet the minimum requirements specified by this 

bill. However, some units, such as military intelligence and aviation units, have been deploying more frequently because they possess certain skills that are in high demand in the Iraq theater of 

operations. 

In any cases where the President chose to exercise the waiver 

authority provided by this bill, H.R. 3159 would have no significant 

budgetary effect, because the deployment of those high-demand 

units would continue in the same manner as under current law. 

However, in those cases where the President chose not to exercise 

the waiver authority, there could be significant costs or savings depending on which actions the President undertook to comply with 

the requirements of this bill. 

To meet the bill’s requirement for time between deployments to 

the Iraq theater, the President could decide to reorganize and retrain existing forces so that more personnel with high-demand 

skills are available for overseas deployments, which would result in 

additional costs to the Department of Defense. Alternatively, the 

President could decide to comply with the requirement by reducing 

the number of personnel deployed to Iraq, which would result in 

budgetary savings. In both cases, the costs or savings could be in 

the billions of dollars, although CBO does not have enough information at this time to estimate what those budgetary effects might 

be. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts. 

H.R. 3159 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Schmit. This 

estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the committee concurs with CBO that there is not 

enough information at this time to estimate the budgetary effects 

of this bill, and thus it is not possible to determine the bill’s costs 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
6 

or savings. The committee also concurs with CBO that enactment 

of the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts. 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the committee, based on oversight activities pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, this legislation does not include any new 

spending or credit authority, nor does it provide for any increase 

or decrease in tax revenues or expenditures. 

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the bill does not authorize specific program funding. 

STATEMENT OF PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the goals and objectives of H.R. 3159, 

Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability 

Deployment Policy Act of 2007, are to set minimum periods of rest 

and recuperation for active and reserve component units deployed 

to Operation Iraqi Freedom. For active-duty forces, the bill calls for 

time between deployments equal to or exceeding the length of the 

most recent previous deployment. For National Guard and Reserve 

units and members, the bill calls for time between deployments at 

least three times longer than the length of the most recent previous 

deployment. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution. 

EARMARKS

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI, H.R. 3159, Ensuring Military 

Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy 

Act of 2007, contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) 

of rule XXI. 

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104–4, this legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal 

governments, nor with respect to the private sector. Similarly, the 

bill provides no unfunded federal intergovernmental mandates. 

RECORD VOTES

In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, record votes were taken with respect to 

the committee’s consideration of H.R. 3159. The record votes are attached to this report. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
7 

The committee, a quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 

3159, as amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation 

by a record vote of 32–25, with 2 voting present. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
8 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 12 HR282.001
9 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 13 HR282.002
10 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 14 HR282.003
11 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an elaboration or description of how the reported bill 

proposes to repeal or amend a statute or part thereof. There were 

no changes in existing law made by H.R. 3159, as reported. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
(12) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We believe that achieving the DOD deployment-to-dwell-time 

goals for both active and reserve component units and personnel is 

an important readiness objective that Congress should pursue aggressively. The goal for the regular/active components is one year 

deployed to two years at home station (1:2); and the goal for the 

National Guard and other reserve components is one year mobilized to five years demobilized (1:5). Congress can most effectively 

assist in achieving those goals by committing the resources necessary to substantially increase force structure and manpower and 

to reset and modernize the military services. Furthermore, if Congress is serious about improving unit readiness and the service 

members’ quality of life by the use of deployment and dwell time 

measures, Congress ought to ensure that they are achieved across 

the force, not just imposed on those forces and people deploying to 

Iraq. We were disappointed that the House Armed Services Committee, in a largely party-line vote, defeated a proposal to reaffirm 

the achievement of force-wide dwell-time goals and to have the Department of Defense provide Congress with its plan to achieve 

those goals. 

We have grave concerns about H.R. 3159 as amended—the bill 

the committee approved in a largely party-line vote. We will continue to oppose it for a number of reasons. 

The bill would prohibit the deployment of active and reserve 

component units that did not meet certain minimum stand-down or 

‘‘dwell time’’ requirements between deployments. Such prohibitions 

intrude heavily and inappropriately into the constitutional duties 

of the President as Commander in Chief. 

Beyond that, the dwell time requirements appear to be not so 

much efforts to improve the readiness of units and quality of life 

of members in the Armed Forces, but rather to force a withdrawal 

and reduction of U.S. forces committed to Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

This is so because H.R. 3159 as amended levies deployment prohibitions only on forces destined for Iraq that did not meet certain 

dwell time minimums but would allow those very same forces, regardless of dwell time, to be committed to combat in Afghanistan 

or anywhere else in the world they are needed. For the most highly 

deployed units, like the Army’s 10th Mountain Division, the Iraqonly limitation raises the false expectation among service members 

and their families that there will be a reduction in deployment 

tempo—but does nothing to reduce the likelihood of deployments to 

Afghanistan or other operational hot-spots. 

Moreover, we are concerned that by statutorily reducing the pool 

of forces available for deployment in the midst of a war—essentially putting brigades and battalions on the shelf, so to speak—

H.R. 3159 as amended would make substantial reductions in the 

forces available to meet combatant commander requirements. For 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
13 

example, the Marine Corps told the committee that the deployment 

prohibitions would prevent the deployment in fiscal year 2008 of 

eight Marine Corps battalion/squadron sized combat-support and 

combat service support units that are essential to the support of 

the Marine Corps’ basic war fighting unit—the Marine-Air Ground 

Task Force (MAGTF); one Marine infantry battalion landing team; 

and one Marine reinforced helicopter squadron. 

H.R. 3159 as amended, which mandates that both units and individuals assigned to them meet minimum dwell times between deployments, would significantly hamper the ability of the Army and 

Marine Corps, especially, to meet the combatant commanders’ requirements. For example, because 55,800 Marines (32 percent of 

the active duty strength of the Marine Corps) already have at least 

one deployment, they would not be available for assignment to 

units deploying to Iraq. In the case of an Army unit, say for example a brigade combat team, that has less than a 1:1 deploymentto-dwell-time ratio, but nearly all its 3,500 assigned personnel meet 

or exceed the mandated dwell time standard, the brigade could not 

deploy because of the mandated dwell time limit established for 

units. 

In claiming to improve the readiness and quality of life for certain portions of the Armed Forces, H.R. 3159 as amended ignores 

the likelihood that its mandates actually would degrade readiness, 

extend some unit deployments, create further stress and increase 

the risk to the force. In response to committee questions about the 

impact of mandated dwell time and deployment restrictions, the 

Marine Corps, for example, outlined negative impacts created by 

such mandates: 

In order to support OIF requirements during FY08 and 

comply with the minimum period between deployments 

proposed [by provisions like the Sen. Webb amendment 

and H.R. 3159 as amended—a 1:1 ratio] the Marine Corps 

would have to adjust force generation plans. . . . These 

plan adjustments could include extending unit deployments, creating provisional units and forcing units to execute missions as in-lieu-of forces. Each of these adjustments, among others, incurs higher risk than that associated with deploying the unit at [a deployment to dwell 

time ratio of] 7:6 and will create additional force generation challenges for a greater number of units in order to 

support subsequent OIF rotations. 

The supporters of H.R. 3159 as amended quickly dismissed those 

concerns, citing the ability of the President to waive any limitations imposed by the bill if he could certify to Congress that a deployment was necessary to meet a threat to the national security 

interests of the United States. Their argument was that such a 

waiver would be easy to obtain, if not automatic, and would therefore not interfere with the orderly planning and deployment of 

units and individuals to Iraq. 

We think that argument is disingenuous at best. Supporters of 

H.R. 3159 cannot have it both ways. Either the legislation does 

nothing significant or it significantly limits deployment decisions. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
14 

If the former, it is a sham. If the latter, it has all the deficits previously illustrated. 

Congress puts Presidential waiver requirements into legislation 

with the expectation that waivers will be used sparingly and will 

serve as a barrier to Executive Branch action. The military services 

understand this and normally would draw up plans and operations 

without the expectation of obtaining a Presidential waiver. Not surprisingly, supporters of H.R. 3159 as amended defeated Rep. Marshall’s amendment to make obtaining a Presidential waiver easier. 

For these reasons, we will continue to oppose H.R. 3159 as 

amended and urge all our colleagues to do so. 

DUNCAN HUNTER. 

JIM SAXTON. 

JOHN M. MCHUGH. 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON. 

J. RANDY FORBES. 

JOE WILSON. 

ROB BISHOP. 

JIM MARSHALL. 

JOHN KLINE. 

CANDICE S. MILLER. 

PHIL GINGREY. 

TRENT FRANKS. 

BILL SHUSTER. 

THELMA DRAKE. 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS
(15) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

Our men and women in uniform are the best in the world and 

they deserve all the support and encouragement that we can possibly give them. Our troops on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and 

other countless places around the world, are making us proud by 

their daily sacrifice and constant efforts to protect our great nation. 

Unfortunately, the Democrats have decided to make the rest and 

recuperation of our troops into another tactic in their misguided attempt to precipitously end the war in Iraq. H.R. 3159, which we 

voted against in committee, is simply another empty partisan attack on the war in Iraq. It shows once again that the Democrats 

don’t actually have a strategy in Iraq, but rather simply want to 

give up and pull out as fast as possible. 

This bill focuses its dwell time requirements solely on Operation 

Iraqi Freedom (OIF) while ignoring the fact that our ongoing fight 

against terrorism is requiring our men and women in uniform to 

put in long deployments, in harm’s way, in many places other than 

just Iraq. Rather than reaffirm the goals for dwell time laid out by 

Defense Secretary Gates for the whole military and all missions, 

this bill mandates dwell times for OIF in a backhanded effort to 

force us to withdraw from Iraq. 

The goal of this bill is obviously to force our commanders on the 

ground to retreat out of Iraq, because they would not have enough 

troops to maintain the current op-tempo. Unfortunately, if this bill 

were to become law, it would hurt the troops currently deployed 

more than anyone else—by extending their tours until troops in the 

U.S. had met these newly imposed regulations on dwell time. The 

DOD does have goals for dwell time for all units, as reinforced by 

Ms. Drake’s substitute amendment, but in times of war, the Commander-in-Chief must be able to use the military as is necessary. 

Having opposed this bill in committee, we will also oppose this 

bill on the floor of the House, as it does nothing but harm to our 

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. 

W. TODD AKIN. 

JOE WILSON. 

TOM COLE. 

TRENT FRANKS. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with REPORTS