Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 11, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Review of EPA's Proposed Revision to the Ozone NAAQS.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Arizona will yield, I see that Senator Salazar is on the floor of the Senate as well. It is our intention--Senator McCain and I have spoken--that after these two votes, we then go into morning business. It is our understanding that Senator Salazar, Senator Alexander, and a number of other Senators during that period are going to want to speak relevant to the amendment which they have filed. The amendment will not be before us. It will just be that they will be talking about their amendment. We tried to find a place for that to happen earlier today. It didn't happen. The time that it can happen very readily would be during that period of morning business that would come after the two votes which are presently scheduled. So I just want to put the Senate and, more importantly, Senators Salazar, Alexander, and others on notice about that possibility. For those who also want to comment on that amendment perhaps from a different direction, a different degree, opposition, or whatever, they obviously would be free to do so at that time, or at any other time, because this is not the time when that amendment is going to be offered. Senator McCain is back on the Senate floor. I indicated, I would say to the Senator, that during the period of morning business, that group of Senators and any other Senator who wants to comment on that amendment would be more than free to do so. It would not be pending before the Senate. It would be just for their discussion. But I wanted to put them on notice because they tried earlier in the day to have that opportunity.

Mr. LEVIN. He was, indeed, and there are others, I know.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, is there any time remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I wish to ask the sponsor of this amendment, my recollection is that when the 12-month deployment was extended by 3 months, the Secretary of Defense announced it was his goal to bring it back to 12 months; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. I believe he said it somewhere publicly; I can't remember. One of the reasons to oppose the Graham amendment, it seems to me, is stated here: that the goal should be 15 months, which is worse than the current goal. The current deployment fact is 15 months, but the goal is to bring it back to 12 months. We want to do more than state a goal, we want to put this in law that it is a goal with a waiver. What intrigues me about the Graham amendment is it is worse than the current goal. The goal is to bring that back to 12 months, and the Graham amendment is listed as being 15 months as the goal. I think it ought to be opposed on a number of reasons, reasons that have been stated, but also because it states as a goal a longer deployment length than what is the current DOD goal, which is 12 months.

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator, after he is done, will yield 20 seconds to me?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, is there any time remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the stated goal of the Department of Defense remains 1 year, so this amendment, which says the goal should be 15 months for deployed forces, is harder on the troops than the current goal. I am going to read the current goal from Secretary Gates' January 12 Armed Services Committee statement: The goal for the active force rotation cycle remains 1 year deployed for every 2 years at home station. So the Graham amendment goal of 15 months is harder.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Republican leader be recognized in order to speak regarding an amendment to be offered at a later time; further, that following those remarks, Senator Allard and then Senator Salazar be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes each on the same subject; and then, that following those remarks, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; and then Senator Salazar be recognized to control 60 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is ample evidence that 4 years of war has stressed our Armed Forces to the breaking point. Our Army and Marine Corps are stretched dangerously thin. They are wearing out. Earlier this year, we watched as they scrambled and pulled together the personnel, equipment, and training to meet the surge of additional forces to Iraq. They will continue to struggle to sustain this higher surge force level if it extends beyond this fall. Unit rotations into and out of an overseas mission has been a fixture of U.S. military operations for many years. However, unit-rotation schemes have significant strategic risks, and risks are increased when deployed force levels spike or drop as our military strategy changes in the political or security environment, such as was done for past elections or the recent surge. Short-notice deployment accelerations and extensions are inherently risky and complicate unit preparation and operations on the ground. Risks increase when we do not have sufficient ground forces overall to accomplish what we are asking them to do and still allow time for nondeployed units and individuals to fully recover from their last or prepare for their next deployment. Multiple deployments with insufficient dwell time contribute to several problems among our troops: Insufficient dwell time increases operational risk as troops and units deploy without the time necessary to fully man, equip, and train before they leave their home station. Insufficient dwell time between rotations contributes to the retention problems we are seeing, especially among midgrade officers and sergeants. Insufficient time between rotations creates higher rates of mental health issues among troops with multiple and extended deployments. Insufficient dwell time puts much higher stress on our military families, resulting in higher than normal levels of divorce or abuse. Last January, the Secretary of Defense announced a new approach to unit rotation. Among our Active component forces, he wanted to immediately achieve a minimum 1-to-1 deployed to at home or dwell time, on the way to achieving a goal of 1-to-2 or greater dwell time. Our Guard and Reserve forces would deploy for no longer than 12 months from start to finish, with a goal of no less than 5 years between deployments. Well, the Webb amendment reflects those policy goals. The Webb amendment mandates that for each day deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, an Active-Duty servicemember will spend 1 day at home, and it mandates that our Guard and Reserves get a minimum of 3 years between deployments. It is essential that as we vote we understand that the amendment provides waiver authorities to the President and service chiefs to ensure the flexibility to respond to any emergency the Nation may face in the future, and those decisions are left to the President. Mr. President, there is precedent for the Webb amendment. Congress took action in 1999 to relieve some of the deployment burden our forces were facing at that time and to drive the Department of Defense to a more precise management system that would take better care of troops and their families. It is true that Congress has the power of the purse, but under that same Constitution, we also have the power to regulate the Armed Forces by law, and that is what the Webb amendment seeks to do. Congress established in law an annual deployment threshold for Active and Reserve forces above which servicemembers are entitled to special pay. We put that in law as part of our constitutional authority to regulate the Army and the Navy. The Secretary of Defense exercised his national security waiver authority of that requirement right after 9/ 11. It is not unusual to have a waiver authority in law. It is not unusual for the executive to use that waiver authority, as they have done before. Due to the deployment management standards of this earlier legislation, the services have in place the systems necessary to plan and execute the requirements of this amendment, and so it has served its purpose, and this one will as well. It is a very useful amendment. The Defense Department will have to make earlier strategic and operational decisions, which will allow greater precision in planning unit and individual rotations, and that will result in greater predictability and stability for our troops and their families. The Webb amendment promotes the health of our troops, ensuring time for post-deployment evaluation and recovery. The Webb amendment also promotes readiness, ensuring that units and personnel have the time-- the most precious of resources--to man, equip, and train for any future mission. I hope the Senate will adopt the Webb amendment. It will be a useful contribution to the readiness and well-being of our Armed Forces. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, am I correct the leaders have reserved the final 20 minutes before the vote on cloture?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is the Senator from Michigan correct that if cloture is not invoked, the pending amendment would remain the Webb amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Reed, Smith, Hagel, Kerry, Snowe, Biden, Obama, and Clinton, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our intention, after discussing this with the ranking member, is that we will now set aside these amendments and then the Republican side would designate another amendment that would then be offered. We understand it relates to Iran. That is our intention. I don't know if the sponsor of that amendment is ready. I wonder if the Senator from Connecticut could introduce the amendment and, if he is not ready to speak on it, yield to other persons who could speak on other matters and his amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Massachusetts is ready, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Massachusetts be recognized and afterward the Senator from Connecticut be recognized--if that is the intent of the ranking member.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me commend the Senator from Connecticut for his amendment. There is an awfully important message that is in that amendment about the threatening activities of Iranians against us in a number of parts of the world but more specifically in Iraq. This amendment is intended to capture some of the problems which are created by those activities of Iranians in Iraq particularly. What we are trying to work out with the Senator from Connecticut, and again I commend him on his initiative, I think it is a very important one and I think it is possible the Senate can speak with one voice and we should speak with one voice on this issue. There are language modifications which we are suggesting and which I have already had a chance to talk to my good friend from Connecticut about. I think if we either can have a brief quorum call or if anybody else who is here wishes to address the Senate on this or other subjects, they could be recognized at this point. But in the absence of that if I note----

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. I apologize, Mr. President.