-House Crushes Military Draft Bill

[southernleftylady]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives on Tuesday crushed a bill to reinstitute the draft as Republicans accused Democrats of raising the specter of compulsory military service to turn voters against President Bush (news - web sites)'s reelection bid.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20041005/pl_nm/campaign_draft_dc

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. It was a far more equitable draft bill

than anything the Radicals will ever pass. I mean the Bush kids will be liable to the draft, and you cannot have that... now can you?

Also it is politics at its best

Oh and the vote, 400-2 the Demos also took that line, they want to reimpose the draft, we don't from the connies


DeLay must be very annoyed, he won, but he didn't

[sphincter]

2. Bush kids?

2 words - National Guard....
Even if the draft is reinstated, I find it hard to believe that W would send his kids to fight in Iraq....

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. That is what an equitable draft bill should do

have the kids of the powerful serve in that hell hole, with the rest of us.

Hell, FDR lost his son in Nort Africa... imagine being the Army Officer tellng the President, The Department of the Army regrests to inform you that your son died in combat, in service to his country.

Still that is what we need, for the kids of the very rich and influnential to serve, and the NG is no longer a refuge from actual war time service in a combat zone

Oh and for the record I do not suport a draft, for the reaosns the military uses, we like our profesional force, but if a draft is needed, then ALL have to serve (and given what Bush has done to the armed forces, truth is we will need one if Bush gets re elected (or reselected)...

[smb]

5. Nope, The Pubbies Won This Round

They can point to the fact that the bill was sponsored by Democrats and got its only yes votes from Democrats.

The Dems need to introduce a bill to kill registration and force the Pubbies to vote to keep it.

[tritsofme]

13. Dems can't really force a vote on much of anything

Especially not with only a few weeks left until they adjourn.

Delay played a parliamentry trick and got this bill to the floor without going through any committees or any procedures.

[smb]

14. Er, That's Not What I Recommended

I know that the Democrats aren't in a position to force a vote, but they're certainly in a position to put a bill into the record (if not, there would be no Rangel bill in the first place).

That puts the ball back in the Pubbie court -- if they try to prevent the bill to abolish registration from coming to a vote, they revive the speculation about their real intentions....

[bowens43]

3. This is good news.

[Egalitariat]

6. Did Rangel vote for it? Was it his bill?****

nm

[seemslikeadream]

8. Mr. RANGEL on the floor

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because it gives this great august body an opportunity for the first time to discuss whether or not the administration or the party in the majority intends to have a draft .

I suspect that one of the reasons that this has to be cleared up before the election, the evidence clearly indicates that everyone in the Pentagon, the Defense Department, has indicated that we need a robust military force in Iraq. All of the evidence indicates that we have exhausted our active troops; we are exhausting the Reserves; we are exhausting the National Guard.

We have a back-door draft , where we do not let people who enlisted and have finished their term get out. In addition to that, the Army is over there in combat. Where the normal term is 1 year, the Pentagon has indicated they are going to reduce it to 6 months, to go along with what the Marines do, because of fatigue.

It just seems to me as many times as the administration says that they are against a draft , all we hear on the Internet and around the country is that, after the election, they are going to have the draft .

If they are going to have the draft , I support this legislation, even though, quite frankly, I would have preferred that the bill be referred to the Committee on Armed Services, because I think it is important enough to have hearings on this matter and for the administration to really show why they really do not need to get people through an involuntary conscription.

But since they knew I had this bill and since they knew it was election time, I rise in support of the bill, even though I would gladly yield to the committees of jurisdiction, because it just seems to me that, if we abuse the system by continually taking legislation for the purpose of embarrassment and not in order to say that it is so noncontroversial that we should put it on the suspension calendar, then, no matter who is in the majority, we are violating every principle of the House, and that is the reason why the Parliamentarian and the Speaker have decided that I am in control of the time.

This system should be used only when there is no controversy. But I am not a Member of the House that runs away from controversy. Those who run away from it are those people who have the responsibility to discuss bills in the committee with hearings and bring the legislation so the American public can see what you do believe before an election.

But now you cannot even decide who is for the bill, who is for consideration, ``I want it up; I want it down.'' It is a political thing that you are using that determines the lives of people as to who fights in wars and who is exempt from wars and who should do national service.

It is a disgrace, what is going on here today, and you cannot find anyone to put the blame on. You are against your own bill. It came out of your Committee on Rules. You have the majority. But yet you need some way, some vehicle.

And just because justice does not cave in to people who are hypocritical in nature, we got the time to tell you why we support the bill and why we oppose the bill. But, unfortunately, we are doing this on the suspension calendar. The majority, I guess, will say that this is a noncontroversial issue, because if you do not admit that it is controversial, then you are saying that it should not have been on this calendar in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:4:./temp/~r108jD7R3Y:e3168:

[Liberal Classic]

9. No, Rangel voted against

Here is a press release by Rep. Rangel:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRDraftBillinSuspensionCalender10052004.html

THE VOTE ON THE BILL TO REINSTATE THE DRAFT IS A POLITICAL MANEUVER TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT

 WASHINGTON, October 5, 2004 -- The Republican leadership decision to place the draft legislation on the Suspension Calendar is a political maneuver to kill rumors of the President's intention to reinstate the draft after the November election.

I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration.  It should be subject to hearings and to expert testimony.  The Administration should come and tell us about our manpower needs, about recruitment and retention, about the extent to which out troops are overextended.  And they should give us their views about shared sacrifice.  If they did all of those things in a serious way, they would have to admit that my bill is an option.

But what we are seeing now is election-year politics.  They are using the Suspension Calendar, which is reserved for non-controversial items, to make a cynical political statement.  The American people are deeply concerned about this issue deserve more than this.  So do our troops, who after we leave here today, will still be on ground, and left with the message that we couldn't take the time to discuss their situation and what should be done to relieve them.

This is hypocrisy of the worst kind.  I would not encourage any Democrat running for reelection to vote for this bill.

As an aside, the only co-sponsor to actually vote in favor was Rep. Fortney Pete Stark from CA-13. Rep. Corrie Brown from FL-13 was also a co-sponsor but she didn't cast a vote. The rest of the co-sponsors voted against. The other vote in favor was Rep. John `Jack' Murtha from PA-12.

[seemslikeadream]

7. PANDORA'S BOX - Mr. McDERMOTT

PANDORA'S BOX -- (House of Representatives - October 05, 2004)


GPO's PDF
---
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the Republican ploy is not going to work. Finally, it is out in the open. H.R. 163, which the administration denied for 18 months, that is the national service bill, is not going to go away because the Republicans will it. They opened Pandora's box with this needless door, and they cannot close it, no matter how hard they try.

Finally, the American people are going to get the truth. H.R. 163 is out in the open. The administration denied the existence of the possibility of a draft since the day we proposed it. They refused to face the issue of who would fight and die in the President's war. They ordered the Republican majority to bury 163 alive; refer it to the Department of Defense where it would be placed in solitary confinement forever; lose it in the system, just like they lose human beings in the system in Iraq. But they did not count on the kids, our sons and daughters or nieces and nephews our godchildren and grandchildren. The Republicans did not count on the kids. It started on the Internet blogs. Go look for yourself. We raise smart kids, America. They were the first to see through the administration's rhetoric.

The administration claims we have enough soldiers in Iraq, but they stop-loss soldiers who have survived a year on duty in Iraq, and this administration orders them to stay and fight some more. They claim we have enough soldiers in Iraq, but we call up the ready reserves and order them out to Iraq. They claim they have enough soldiers in Iraq, but they got rid of the general, they retired him, who said it would take 300,000 troops in Iraq.

They get the names and addresses of our high school kids through the PATRIOT Act and send the recruiters on a mission. Yes, America, the PATRIOT Act helps them locate your children. One parent in Seattle called it ``outrageous'' and ``disgraceful.'' How right he was. The PATRIOT Act. You know, the bill the administration claims it needs to catch the terrorists; but it nets the government the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of your sons and daughters, every single one of them. They not only know where you live, they are coming to have a talk with your kid.

They say they do not need a draft . They sure do not act that way. And

GPO's PDF
that is before the election, the only thing they fear. Even their own guy, the former Iraqi administrator, told an audience yesterday the U.S. went into Iraq without enough troops. The looting, the violence, there was no way to stop it. Paul Bremer said this in a direct quote: ``We never had enough troops on the ground.'' Later, aides said his comments were meant to be off the record. Apparently, that is where the administration keeps the truth these days, off the record.
Likewise, Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York yesterday that he knows of ``no strong, hard evidence linking Saddam to al Qaeda.'' When that one got into the news media, the Secretary said he was misunderstood. I just bet he was.

I know one person who was not misunderstood, the Vice President, who spoke on the record in a disclosed location, Seattle, Washington. This is worth repeating, given the Vice Presidential debates tonight. The Seattle Post Intelligencer and its columnist Joel Connelly found a transcript of a 1992 Seattle appearance by then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. He was explaining why the U.S. had left Saddam in Iraq after the first Gulf War, and this is a direct quote: ``And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?

And the answer is not that damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision we had achieved our objectives and we were not going to get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.'' Not going to get bogged down.

Does anyone think the Vice President will talk straight about this later tonight? Not a chance. And they wonder why the kids get it. Every time this administration says there will be no draft , the kids get online and the phones to my office and the office of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) ring off the hook. The kids know the difference between the truth and Republican rhetoric.

H.R. 163 is out of solitary confinement, and it is in the open. What 18-year-old can believe an administration who said there were weapons of mass destruction, knowing their own people doubted it? What 18-year-old can believe they do not intend to get them to Iraq, whether they call it a draft or a precondition for a college loan? What 18-year-old can believe they will tell it straight when they pronounce ``mission accomplished'' over 900 casualties ago?

The kids know, Mr. Speaker. They know just like other generations. The kids are forcing their parents to look at reality and see the truth. The kids may have funny colored hair or a ring in their ear or nose, but they have a good head on their shoulders. Punk rock music may not be the in thing to listen to, but these kids are making voting the in thing to do, and the Republicans are terrified.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:16:./temp/~r108jD7R3Y::

[Dirty Hippie]

10. They do not need a bill to draft!!!

The selective service system is up and running and has been for decades. They can start drafting without a new bill.

I repeat: This is not the end of the draft issue.

[wuushew]

12. Are you sure?

If the military were to require additional troops after all available reserve personnel had been called to active duty, congress and the president would have to consider reinstating the draft. To reinstate the draft, the congress would have to pass appropriate legislation, and the president would have to approve that legislation. After the president enacted this legislation, the Selective Service System would switch gears rapidly, going from "registration mode" to "draft mode."


http://people.howstuffworks.com/us-draft2.htm

[seemslikeadream]

11. Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I put this bill in in January of 2003 because we knew that not every American was at equal risk, that the wealthy would not go, and the war would be like all the others. But no one wanted to talk about it then. They buried it over in the Defense Department. We have not heard about it until this very day, on the day the Vice President is going to get up and debate tonight. We will see.

Now, why are we here today? We are here because you are afraid. You are afraid that the young people of this country are watching television. You are afraid that they do not believe the President, they do not believe Mr. Rumsfeld, they do not believe Condoleezza Rice, they do not believe anybody who tells them there is not going to be a draft , because they see what you are doing to the Guard and what you are doing to the Reserves and what you are doing to the individual Ready Reserves that you are pulling back in. They know you are not telling the truth.

Now, these kids may have funny hair and they may look odd and have rings in their nose and whatever, but they know the truth, and they are on the Internet blogs and the telephone. Every time the President denies it, the phone calls pour into our offices: When is it going to happen?

Now, we know that if Mr. Bush gets reelected and he comes up here and asks you for a draft , we have got to have more troops and we are going to do it this way or that way, you will roll over for him like butter in the hot sun. There will not be anything left of you but a puddle of butter, because you know that you will not be able to stand up to him. And the fact is that the kids have got it right, and now their parents are listening and are saying, Oh, my God, there might actually be a draft .

It would not be hard to do. Let me tell my colleagues how it works. Just announce that there are not going to be any loans for college. You can get $80,000 if you enlist, but if you are not going to enlist, you are not going to get to go to college on government money. Rich mommies and daddies will take care of their boys, but poor ones will have to go to the military.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:4:./temp/~r108jD7R3Y:e23217:

[indepat]

15. If betting were legal, I would bet all those Congressmen who voted to

spike a draft will vote in near unison to institute a draft when it comes up again, like in the Spring, if not sooner, should GWB again be declared the winner in November.