HOUSE PASSES TANNER PROVISION
ON 6-MONTH ARMY DEPLOYMENTS

Urges Army Study on Pros, Cons of Shorter Tours of Duty

- Bill Also Addresses TRICARE, Military Pay, IED ‘Jammers’ -

WASHINGTON – The House of Representatives passed a measure written by Congressman John Tanner requiring the Army to consider a shift from year-long deployments to six-month deployments. The provision was included in the Defense Authorization Act the House passed Thursday and is expected to be included in a House-Senate conference report after the Senate passes its version of the Defense Authorization bill.

“Soldiers from Tennessee – some of whom are being called up for their third or fourth year-long deployment – tell me that shorter tours of duty would be helpful for soldier morale and would ease the strain on their families,” Rep. Tanner said. “The Secretary of the Army should report back to Congress on the advantages and disadvantages of adjusting to a six-month deployment schedule.”

The bill passed by the House gives the Secretary of the Army 90 days from the date of enactment to report to Congress on the benefits and drawbacks to such a change, said Tanner, who served four years in the Navy and 28 years in the Tennessee National Guard, from which he retired in 2000 at the rank of Colonel. He represents Tennessee’s 8^th Congressional district, which includes 20 Army Guard armories and a portion of Fort Campbell, home to the Army’s 101^st Airborne Division.

“We feel that shorter deployments could boost soldier and family morale right away and improve recruitment and retention in the long run, so it is worthy of further consideration,” Tanner said. “What the House of Representatives agreed to is getting the ball rolling on a comprehensive look at whether we should implement that plan and how it would work.

“I personally feel that when all the information is presented, the merits of a six-month deployment schedule will outweigh the costs.”

The Navy, Marines and Air Force operate on six-month deployment schedules. The Army works on a one-year deployment schedule, although it has used a six-month deployment schedule in past missions, including Bosnia, Kosovo and during the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

Army leaders have publicly discussed a change to six-month deployments since at least 2004, when Army Vice Chief of Staff Richard Cody said “we know six months is about right, over the long haul.” Earlier this year, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker and Army Forces Command Commanding General Dan K. McNeill said publicly that six- or nine-month tours of duty would be preferable.

“America’s security is dependent on our nation’s ability to maintain the most effective Armed Forces in the history of the world,” Tanner wrote in a letter to his House colleagues Wednesday. “That can’t happen as long as the men and women doing the fighting are being forced to choose between their families and their careers.”

Other provisions in the HR 5122, the Defense Authorization Act, include:

·        Authorizing a 2.7 percent pay increase for all members of the Armed Forces;

·        Equipping all military vehicles with “jammers” to help protect soldiers from improvised explosive devices;

·        Eliminating the Bush Administration proposal to increase fees on TRICARE for U.S. reservists and Guard members;

·        Increasing the Army National Guard troop personnel by 17,100 soldiers over the President’s initial request.

# # #

Previous comments on a shorter deployment schedule:

"Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, said his goal is to reduce deployment lengths to six or nine months as they were for soldiers who served in Bosnia and Kosovo." ("Army hopes to cut combat tours," Atlanta Journal Constitution, March 31, 2006)

"I think, to use... Gen Schoomaker's terms, somewhere in the six to nine months range is probably better than the 12 months we're presently using." – Gen. Dan K. McNeill, commanding general of Army Forces Command ("FORSCOM chief: Shorten deployments," Army Times, April 5, 2006)

"We know six months is about right, over the long haul.... We know that is a better rotation scheme to maintain the all-volunteer force over time." – Army Vice Chief of Staff Richard Cody ("Army likes the idea of six-month deployments, but not now," Army Times, Oct. 25, 2004)