What People Think
 |
 |
20% For, 80% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 393, The Universal National Service Act of 2007 (25 comments ↓)
H.R. 393 would require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, it would authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and it would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit.
()
Learn More
Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_HR_393.html
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Kyle
Look at the polls...would this really pass the House?
Pacifist
Say no to military drafting!
Zewman
It don't know where Mr. Rangel is trying to make a scare campaign to conivice us that Republicans has secret plan to reinstate it or he's for real. In either way, the bill is gonna be rejected as this is Mr. Rangel's third attempt and I pesonally think the only way the draft can be reinstated is if we're facing a bigger catastrophe similar to WWII, but right now is not the time as The Iraq War is senseless and waste of time.
Zack Hodgson
I think the war in Iraq is wrong. I will not fight in wars. The draft is going to have a very hard time being reinstated because of how many people are against the war and Bush's approval rating is down in the 20s.
James
First of all I'd like to say to all of you that before you make a comment on a topic you should research it.
The Universal National Service Act of 2007 is a very well writen and good change for this country. It is NOT a draft. With this Act EVERYONE would be required to serve this country. Also you wouldn't have to fight. It says that people would "perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in a civilian service in furtherance of the national defence and homeland security" . The only time they would mandate people to serve is if we in a war. The Iraq situation is NOT a war therefore this does not apply to it. War CANNOT be declared by a President it MUST be declared by Congres.
James
**by "The only time they would mandate people to serve is if we in a war."
I meant: The only time they would mandate people to serve in the ARMED SERVICES is if we WERE in a war.
Brian
Mr. Rangel is probably pushing for this because he feels that there is a disproportionate number of poor vs. wealthy serving in the military, at least I hope his motives are that noble. While I do believe that the "well-to-do" in our society are far less prominent in the service, reinstating the draft is not the answer, as a matter of fact it is ridiculous! Has Mr. Rangel forgotten how many of the privileged dodged the draft during the Vietnam conflict using "exemptions" or "deferments"? Even our dear President and Vice President used them! (LOL) No, I'm serious!!
mike3
It would just give the Government more troops to fight the war since it doesn't only target the rich exclusively (which get out of it anyway and such a bill would never pass), hence it's all poor/etc. that get in and so it fails to "equalize" the military. And a draft didn't stop them from going with Vietnam... This is a stupid measure that will just force more people who are against the war (2/3 of the American public are against it) to fight in it and give the gov the troops it needs to go on a war romp around the planet. This cannot be allowed to happen. Giving this warmongering government more troops is the last thing we need.
James
hey mike,
Yeah the draft didn't stop Vietnam, but in case you were unaware of this, the majority of Americans were in FAVOR of Vietnam at FIRST.
Plus, everybody keeps calling this a draft(?), this is NOT a draft it is a required service for ALL. No "random" picking, no "lottery", none of that red tape crap.
what it says and what it means?
I noticed that James said that it can only be implemented when we are in a war and that Iraq is not a war. ? All the news media report on the W A R in Iraq night after night. True, we did not declare war as the Constitution requires. But we are at war. The administration wants its cake and to eat it too: We are not "formally" at war; but we are in the most serious war of our times and it will last for decades they say, (the war on terror).
And this bill removes the Military Pay exemption from Income Tax.
This bill is just another attempt to control our lives and tax us.. whenever the administration DOES decide we are at "War." When it suits them -- which is whenever Bush gives a press talk. For God's sake! Oppose this bill!
Chris
This is wrong wrong wrong! And yes it absolutely is a military draft, although cleverly disguised. It must be defeated!
CharityAngel
Being "forced" to "serve" your country is totally wrong! Who are we Iran? They are forced to serve too! No wait, we are Nazi Germany! It should be a great privilege to go and die for assets like Oil, who cares about preserving live or peace or anything! (stupid!) If the war is just, people rally behind it naturally, if it is unjust they say NO WAY! Forcing them is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Steve
What will everyone say when our country is attacked, our forces are low and no one wants to fight. What will everyone say when our sons and daughters are raped and killed. If we hadn't had a strong force at start of WWII, we would all be eating rice and speaking German....if our grandparents had survived that is.
I hate war, but until we have no one to attack us or our allies, we have no choice to defend our freedom. I would rather die fighting than watch my daughter get raped and killed and then have my tongue cut out and shoved up my you know where. That has been done before and things that are worst. If we have the choice of fighting or serving at home, I like the idea. More jobs, better ecomony.
Then if we need the manpower to stop aggression, we will have it.
Common Sense
H.R. 393, The Universal National Service Act of 2007 requires civilian and/or military service....
"read" non paid servant. Compulsory servitude enacted upon all? Servitude people....hello!!!! Wake Up!!!!!
What is going on? Everyone is sitting back and saying, "oh yeah sure...it is a great idea to enslave me with compulsory servitude...." Wake up!!!
A_Neuman
The IMF, World Bank, and Military Industrial Complex want to control the world. They have threatened oil providers in the world with war if they do not comply. Iraq, Venezuela, and Iran, were 3 countries who refused. Saddam (executed), Chavez (many assassination attempts), Iran (to be nuked?)
Iran threatens, on a certain date this year, to flood the market with cheap oil in order to retaliate. Pumping cheap oil into the market would kill big oil profits, drop the price of gas at the pump, and throw off the strangle hold the IMF has on other indebted countries. However, it would also force other oil Arab countries to collect on the debt the U.S. has to them to prevent losing their financial butts which would crash stock markets.
The U.S. won't let it happen (Google video: Non Energy Crisis). The U.S. will cause war with Iran and China, who has stated openly it will back Iran. If this bill passes, the above powers will be assured of sheep to slaughter, namely, you and me!
Shamgar
If our country was attacked we would pick up guns and fight back. Just like Americans did at Pearl Harbor. Suggesting that because we oppose conscription we wouldn't defend against an invasion is completely illogical.
If we hadn't had a strong force at start of WWII, we would all be eating rice and speaking German.
That's conjecture. Further, if we hadn't gotten involved in WWI we wouldn't have even had to fight WWII.
I will defend my family to the death too. When the enemy comes, I'll be right there. What I won't do is fly thousands of miles over the ocean to fight a useless war.
I like the idea. More jobs, better ecomony.
I hope this isn't a reference to war benefiting the economy. It doesn't. It steals from production - both labor and resources - and supplies it to destruction. The net is negative.
j_auris@yahoo.com
What does Rep Rangel know about the war? Mitt Romney has a proposal to help young people with their education and then they give 2 yrs to service of this country. What is Rangel going to give to the young people? Cry some more.
JonnyD
James
You are indeed a foolish man to think the definition of "war" cannot possibly mean turning US citizens against each other. EVERY oath for ANY federal job says "to defend the constitution for all enenies foreign and domestic".
What should scare everyone is the upper age limit (42)
Socialism/Communish here we come
TheAmericanPeople
Over our dead bodies. We were born free and we will die free.
Forcing people to do the government's bidding is not freedom, that is fascism and slavery. The government does not give us our my freedom, our creator gives it to us.
We are free to disagree with your wars, We are free to oppose your wars, We are free to not fund it, We are free to try to stop it, and We will fight to the death should you try to take that freedom away.
Thanks,
The American People
karis
I think that H.R. 393 is very wrong! People should have the freedom to choose wheather or not the want to go to war! They say that this country i free and that we can make our own decisions about our life and then they go and do something like this. No matter what they say, this country is not free!
AG
It is a draft reinstement, here is the last part:
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Jan 26, 2008]
Last Action: Feb 26, 2007: House Armed Services: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Show All Related Votes
Other Titles: -- Draft Reinstatement bill
Off the govtrack website (Couldn't post the whole bill here but this is the last part)
Tommy
Thanks, AG, but, um . . . that information is in the article at the top of this page. (Click on "read more")
Ezra
James, sorry, but your wrong. Not only in war can they be drafted, but also for national emergancies, or if the army, navy, air force, or marine corps are engaged in contingency operations. So ya, anyone could be sent to Iraq, afghanistan, and soon Iran.
Jessison
Many people see the Universal National Service Act at first glance, as a bill to draft, but Charles Rangel’s hidden objective is quite different. He wants people to see there would be less support for the war if their own sons and daughters, or any family member, had to join the armed services, whether it be in the United States or the war itself. Rangel also believes it is not fair that most people sent back and forth from war are part of a minority. He wants this bill to start conversations, and get people to think about what is really going on in our government. Charles Rangel knows this bill will not be passed; he just wants his voice, and the voice of all minorities to be heard and understood.
Julie
Read the fine print, folks. The bill is worded in such a way as to open the door for drafting the services of civilians, doctors and nurses in the event of a pandemic or terrorist attack. It fits closely with this standby medical draft - http://www.sss.gov/FSmedical.htm