"The National Service Act" Another Name for "The Draft"? It Passed?

[leftchick]

I received an email stating that this bill passed in both the House and the Senate. Has anyone else seen or heard about this? This is very bad news if the * is reselected... :scared:



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108thwaNU::

<snip>
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 7, 2003
Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.


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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2003'.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. National service obligation.

Sec. 3. Two-year period of national service .

Sec. 4. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 5. Induction.

Sec. 6. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 7. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 8. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 9. Discharge following national service .

Sec. 10. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act .

Sec. 11. Relation of Act to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act .

Sec. 12. Definitions.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act .

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE - National service under this Act shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

(c) INDUCTION REQUIREMENTS- The President shall provide for the induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national service under this Act .

(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE - Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--

(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; and

(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act .

(e) CIVILIAN SERVICE - Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).

[La_Serpiente]

1. It is

S.89 in the Senate and H.R. 163 in the House.

On Edit:

The House Version is still in committee.

Introduced on the 7th of January
3rd of Feburary of 2003- referred to subcommittee on total force

The Senate Version is still in Committee

7th of January - introduced in Senate
Referred to Armed Services Committee

These bills are going nowhere.

House version:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:

Senate Version:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:

[hang a left]

15. I have read and posted these links at DU before.

The same information is on there that was on there 6 months ago. Do we know if something happened that hasn't been updated yet?

[leftchick]

18. That is what I want to know....

This is a portion of the alarming email I received with this information...

<This bill has already been passed by both the Senate and the House and
is

now before the Department of Defense. After the election of 2004
whomever is

president must make a decision to pass or vetoed this bill. Supported by

both Democrats and Republicans, this Act is very close to becoming
reality.>

I guess I need to scour that website to find more...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Email this to every young person you know

along with instructions on how to register to vote.

[lcordero]

3. hmmmmm

I see, I see, I see.
They are planning to draft a whole generation so that they can be exempted from collecting overtime pay...and that's IF they make it back in alive and in one piece.

[Killarney]

4. Kick. Hoping for more info on this. Scary.

[Indiana_Dem]

5. It looks like it was introduced Jan. 2003?

And why would Charles Rengal be sponsoring it?

[leftchick]

6. That's the thing....

I remember this being introduced last year. There were several threads here on DU about it and why Rangel was doing it. I hadn't heard a word since. I thought it was stuck in commitee and never went anywhere. It appears it PASSED and will be passed or vetoed by whoever wins in November. We need to make a big stick about this. For the milliionth time... Where is the Media and the presindential candidates on this?!?

[Killarney]

8. How do you know that it will be passed or vetoed by the next pres?

I'd like to email this out to everyone I know, but I need to have it all clearly written together with the facts.

Where does it say that it passed? I see that it is in committees.

[La_Serpiente]

12. I second that

I saw on the bill that it is only in committee. It hasn't been touched for over a year.

[leftchick]

14. This is what I received....

and why I started this thread... to verify it. I read the bill too and it looks like it is stuck in commitee to me. I don't want to believe it either...

<This bill has already been passed by both the Senate and the House and
is

now before the Department of Defense. After the election of 2004
whomever is

president must make a decision to pass or veto this bill. Supported by

both Democrats and Republicans, this Act is very close to becoming
reality.>

[Dr.Phool]

7. Rangel sponsored it

Because he was tired of rich, powerful, people starting wars and sending mainly poorer, working class and minority people to fight them.

His thinking was that if theywere sending their own kids to a place like Iraq, they might not be so trigger happy.

[leftchick]

10. looks like his plan backfired....

Because it appears to have passed and now it will be in the hands of whoever wins in November. God please don't let it be * !!!

[murielm99]

9. This has been discussed here before.

He is doing it to draw attention to what is happening to our military. They are stretched to the breaking point. It will only get worse if we keep up our imperialism, or if we have a real crisis, where we actually need more troops.

I am not saying I agree with this, but that is the rationale, as I have seen it expressed.

[La_Serpiente]

11. All the people who are co-sponsoring the bills

are Democrats and they voted against the IWR.

Apparently, they feel that Americans do not understand what it means for America to go to war since they are not personally attatched to it. By bringing back the draft, they hope that Americans will think twice before America goes to war.

On top of that, if Bush does bring back the draft, he may want to introduce his own bill that would favor the rich and upper middle class. This bill brings parity to the draft and there will not be an overrepresentation of the poor and minorities. In other words, I think they are setting the standards in case Bush, if re-selected, does decide to bring back the draft.

Do I endorse their tactics? Hell No. I am just explaining their rationale.

[leftchick]

13. well their rationale sucks IF the final decision will be..

aWol*'s if he is reselected... :grr:

[hang a left]

17. That's what they say, anyway.

I don't believe it. Why would you put forth a bill that a President could sign immediately and enact a draft, unless you were planning on needing one.


"Apparently, they feel that Americans do not understand what it means for America to go to war since they are not personally attatched to it. By bringing back the draft, they hope that Americans will think twice before America goes to war."

"On top of that, if Bush does bring back the draft, he may want to introduce his own bill that would favor the rich and upper middle class. This bill brings parity to the draft and there will not be an overrepresentation of the poor and minorities. In other words, I think they are setting the standards in case Bush, if re-selected, does decide to bring back the draft."

[hang a left]

16. The link there is not working for me. Anyone else having a problem?

edit for not